Free Answer to Amended Complaint - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-04952-JSW

Document 30

Filed 05/15/2008

Page 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (SBN 44332) United States Attorney JOANN M. SWANSON (SBN 88143) Chief, Civil Division MICHAEL T. PYLE (SBN 172954) Assistant United States Attorney U.S. Attorney's Office/Civil Division 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 10th Floor San Francisco, California 94102-3495 Telephone: (415) 436-7322 Facsimile: (415) 436-6748 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Donald C. Winter UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION PAULA HORVATH, Plaintiff, v. DONALD C. WINTER, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 07-4952 JSW ANSWER OF DEFENDANT DONALD C. WINTER

17 18

Defendant Donald C. Winter, by and through his counsel, hereby admits, denies, alleges 19 and otherwise responds to Plaintiff Pauline Horvath's Amended Complaint ("Complaint") as 20 follows (with all references to page and line numbers corresponding to Plaintiff's Complaint 21 filed on May 2, 2008): 22 As an initial matter, Defendant denies that there was any "blacklist" or other document 23 used to retaliate against employees as a result of prior Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") 24 activity. 25 Page 1, line 21 through 23: This allegation requires no response. To the extent that a 26 response is deemed necessary, defendant denies each and every allegation in this portion of the 27 28 C 07-4952 JSW ANSWER OF DEFENDANT DONALD C. WINTER 1

Case 3:07-cv-04952-JSW

Document 30

Filed 05/15/2008

Page 2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Complaint. Page 1, line 24 through page 2, line 4: Defendant denies each and every allegation in this portion of the Complaint. Page 2, line 5 through page 3, line 9: Defendant lacks information sufficient to form an answer regarding this portion of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each and every allegation in this portion of the Complaint. Page 3, line 10 though line 15: Defendant admits the allegations in this portion of the Complaint. Page 3, line 16 through line 21: Defendant admits that plaintiff filed an informal EEO complaint in 1986; except as so expressly admitted, defendant lacks information sufficient to form an answer regarding this portion of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each and every allegation in this portion of the Complaint. Page 3, line 22 through page 6, line 24: Defendant lacks information sufficient to form an answer regarding this portion of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each and every allegation in this portion of the Complaint. Page 6 line 25 through page 7 line 7: Defendant admits that plaintiff's last day of work was in June 1992; except as so expressly admitted, defendant lacks information sufficient to form an answer regarding this portion of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each and every allegation in this portion of the Complaint. Page 7 line 8 through page 12 line 26: Defendant lacks information sufficient to form an answer regarding this portion of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each and every allegation in this portion of the Complaint. Page 13 line 1 through 6: This allegation requires no response. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, defendant denies each and every allegation in this portion of the Complaint. Defendant denies that plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested or to any relief whatsoever. Defendant further denies each and every allegation of the Complaint that has not C 07-4952 JSW ANSWER OF DEFENDANT DONALD C. WINTER 2

Case 3:07-cv-04952-JSW

Document 30

Filed 05/15/2008

Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

been admitted, denied, or otherwise qualified above. In further answer to the Complaint and as separate affirmative defenses, defendant alleges as follows: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff's claim. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE All actions being challenged by Plaintiff were taken for legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory and non-pretextual reasons. Defendant alleges that there was never a "blacklist" or other document used to retaliate against Plaintiff for any prior EEO activity. Defendant further alleges that Plaintiff was not retaliated against for any prior EEO activity. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Some or all of Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination or reprisal. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrines of accord and satisfaction based on her acceptance of an offer of judgment in prior litigation. // // // // C 07-4952 JSW ANSWER OF DEFENDANT DONALD C. WINTER 3

Case 3:07-cv-04952-JSW

Document 30

Filed 05/15/2008

Page 4 of 4

1 2 3 4

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, defendant asserts that this action should be dismissed and judgment entered in his favor, with appropriate costs awarded.

Respectfully submitted, 5 6 7 8 Dated: May 15, 2008 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C 07-4952 JSW ANSWER OF DEFENDANT DONALD C. WINTER 4 _____/s/_____________________ MICHAEL T. PYLE Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendant Donald C. Winter JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO United States Attorney