Answer of Defendant City of Carmel to Plaintiff's Amended Verified Petition and Complaint Mcinchak

8/9/2019 Answer of Defendant City of Carmel to Plaintiff's Amended Verified Petition and Complaint Mcinchak

1/22

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

STRADLING YOCCA

CARLSON

RAUTH

LAWYERS

NeWPORT BEACH

JEFFREY A. DINKIN, SBN 111422

jdinkin@sycr com

ALLISON

E

BURNS, SBN 198231

aburns@sycr com

DAVID C PALMER, SBN 251609

dpalmer@sycr com

S1RADLING YOCCACARLSON RAUIH

A Professional Corporation

800 Anacapa Street, Suite A

Santa Barbara, California 93101

Telephone: (805) 730-6800

Facsimile: (805) 730-6801

Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant

City

of

Carmel-by-the Sea

Exempt from filing fee

Government

Code

6103

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF MONTEREY

STEVEN MCINCHAK

Petitioner/Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, JASON

STILWELL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR OF

THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA,

SUSAN PAUL, ADMINISTRATIVE

SERVICES DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA; and DOES 1

through 50, inclusive,

Respondents/Defendants.

CASE NO. M128062

ANSWER

OF

RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT CITY OF

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

TO

PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED

VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT

Action Filed: June 4, 2014

Discovery Cutoff: Not Set

Trial Date: Not Set

ANSWER TO AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT

DOCSOC/168183

7v3 l

02910-0006


2/22

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

STRADLING YOCCA

CARLSON RAUTH

LAWYERS

NEWPORT BEACH

PETITIONER PLAINTIFF

AND ATTORNEYS

OF

RECORD:

Respondent/Defendant the City of Cannel-By-The-Sea ( City ) for itself and for no othe

defendant, hereby answers the Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complain

for Declaratory Judgment, Breach

of

Contract, Defamation and Intentional and Negligen

Infliction of Emotional Distress filed in the above-captioned action ( Amended Complaint ) by

Petitioner/Plaintiff Steven Mclnchak ( Petitioner ) as follows:

PRELIMINARY

STATEMENT

In

response to the introductory paragraph of the Amended Complaint, the City admits

that Petitioner has been employed by the City since 1997 as its Information Systems Network

Manager, responsible for managing and supervising the City's entire computer system. The

City further admits that on June 5 2013 the City

of

Carmel-by-the Sea unilaterally placed

Petitioner on paid administrative leave from his position as Information Systems Network

Manager without notice or hearing because no such notice or hearing was required. The City is

not able to admit or deny whether there was cause for placing

Petitioner on paid administrative

as the term without cause

as

used in the context

of

the Amended Complaint is uncertain and

indefinite, and while cause was not required to place Petitioner on paid administrative leave,

there was cause for doing so. The City further admits that the City has kept Petitioner on paid

administrative leave, preventing him from performing his job duties or returning to work since

June 6, 2013, a period

of

nearly 12 months at the time the Amended Complaint was filed. The

City further responds that the balance

of

the allegations set forth in the introductory paragraph

constitute legal argument or legal conclusions and the City is not required to admit or deny the

same. To the extent the balance of

the introductory paragraph contains factual allegations, the

City denies the same. The City further denies the implication that any

of

actions refened to in

the introductory paragraph violated any statute or other legal right held by Petitioner.

-2-


DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006


3/22

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

STR DLING

YOCC

C RLSON R UTH

L WYERS

NEWPORT BE CH

P RTIES

1 Answering Paragraph 1

of

the Amended Complaint, the City admits all allegations

therein.

2

Answering Paragraph 2

of

the Amended Complaint, the City admits all allegation

therein.

3

Answering Paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits all allegation

therein.


of

the Amended Complaint, the City admits all allegation

therein.


of

the Amended Complaint, the City is without sufficien

knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth

of

the allegations contained therein, and

on that basis denies each and every such allegation.

COMMON F CTS

6


of

the Amended Complaint, the City denies that Petitione

reported directly to the City Administrator until 2013 when he was directed to report instead to

the administrative Services

Director. The City admits the balance

of

the allegations contained i

Paragraph

6


of

the Amended Complaint, the City denies that Petitione

was required to be accessible to the City, its Administrators, its elected officials and employee

twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week to solve problems or answer questions about the

-3-


DOCSOC/168183 7v3/ l 02910-0006


4/22

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

STRADLING YOCCA

CARLSON RAUTH

LAWYERS

NEII PORT BEACH

City's Computer system. The City admits the balance

of

the allegations contained in Paragraph

7.

8. Answering Paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint, the City denies all allegations

contained therein.

9.


of

the Amended Complaint, the City denies that:

(i

Petitioner is a permanent, long-term employee of the City

of

Carmel; (ii) Petitioner accrued a

property interest in his employment as a public employee under the Constitution of the State o

California, including the right to retain his employment in the absence

of

just cause for

termination; (iii) Petitioner was informed that he was required to sign that Agreement as a

condition of remaining employed

by

the City of Carmel ; (iv) Petitioner received no ..

consideration or other benefit in connection with the Employment Agreement; (v) Petitione

was compelled to sign ... with no notice or intent to waive his vested rights and under threa

that

if

he did not sign the Employment Agreement his employment would be immediately

terminated without cause. The City admits the balance

of

the allegations contained in Paragraph

9, except those that constitute legal argument or legal conclusions which the City is not required

to admit or deny the same.

10. Answering Paragraph 10

of

the Amended Complaint, the City admits that on June

5

2013: agents

of

the City

of

Carmel appeared at Petitioner/Plaintiff's home together with the

Chief

of

Police and three law enforcement officers from the City of Carmel and the Monterey

County Sheriff's Department who served upon Petitioner/Plaintiff a search warrant and

proceeded to search his residence. The City admits

...

he City of Carmel took possession o

Petitioner/Plaintiff's home computer

...

[and] ... [c ]ity laptop computer and multiple thumb drives

and disks, including all back-up disks ... None of the property taken on June 5, 2013 has been

returned to Petitioner/Plaintiff. The City denies each and every other allegation contained in

Paragraph 10.

-4-


DOCSOC/168183

7v3/l

02910-0006


5/22

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

STR DLING

YOCC

C RLSON R UTH

L WYERS

NEWPORT

BE CH

11.

Answering Paragraph

11 of

the Amended Complaint, the City admits that Karen

Mclnchak is not now, and never has been, an employee

of

the City

of

Carmel. The City admit

that Petitioner's home computer was not returned from June 5, 2013 to the date this action was

filed. The City is informed and believes that

Petitioner has retrieved his home computer during

the pendency

of

this action. The City is without sufficient knowledge or infonnation to form

belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations

of

Paragraph 11 and on that basis denies eac

and every remaining allegation.

12.


of

the Amended Complaint, the City denies the allegatio

that at the same time on June 5 2013 agents

of

the City

of

Carmel includin

Respondent/Defendant Susan Paul notified Petitioner/Plaintiff that he was placed on

administrative leave pending investigation of criminal charges against him. The City admit

that no criminal or other charges have ever been filed against Petitioner and that the Carme

Police Department has not requested the filing

of

any criminal charges against Petitioner. Th

City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth

of

th

allegation that nor any other law enforcement agency has requested the filing

of

any crimina

charges against Petitioner/Plaintiff, Steven Mclnchak, and on that basis denies the foregoin

allegation.


of

the Amended Complaint, the City admits that to date

Petitioner has not received notice of charges from the City of Carmel. The City further admits (i

that Petitioner was directed to appear at an investigative interview, (ii) that not appearing at said

investigative interview would be insubordination, (iii) that an attorney engaged by the City wa

present with Ms. Paul at the investigative interview. The City admits that Petitioner did not hav

an opportunity to review, respond to or rebut charges because the interview was investigatory

and there were no charges yet alleged to which Petitioner could respond. The City denies tha

Petitioner was not given the opportunity to respond to the questions about his activity

Petitioner's allegation that the allegations against Petitioner by the City of Carmel are false i

-5-


DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006


6/22

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

STR DLING YOCC

C RLSON

R UTH

L WYERS

NEWPORT BE CH

not sufficiently definite to allow The City to form a belief

as

to the truth of the foregoing

allegation and on that basis the City denies the same. The City is without sufficient knowledg

or information to form a belief as to the truth of the following allegations, and on that basis the

City denies the same: (i) Petitioner had no knowledge or notice of any allegations against him

by the City

of

Carmel prior

to

the search of his home and seizure

of

his property; and (ii) tha

any purported allegations of wrongdoing made by the City

of

Carmel against [Petitioner] ..

have been widely published and republished throughout the community. The City denies each

and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 13.

14. Answering Paragraph 14, the City responds that the following allegation constitute

legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is not required to admit or deny the same: such

false and defamatory allegations, including allegations

of

criminal conduct, irreparably damaged

Petitioner/Plaintiff's reputation

in

his profession, his employment and his community, violated

his privacy, impaired his contract of employment, and violated his liberty interest in hi

employment, all in violation of his right to due process of law under the Constitution of the Stat

of Califomia, and in violation of Califomia law. The City denies each and every othe

allegation contained in Paragraph 14.

15.


of

the Amended Complaint, the City admits that from the

time Petitioner was placed on paid administrative leave on June

5 2013

to the present, Petitione

has been prevented from performing his job duties and accessing his work computers. The City

admits that from the time Petitioner was placed on paid administrative leave on June 5 2013 to

the date this action was filed, Petitioner was prevented from retrieving the personal property

seized by the Police pursuant to the search warrant, or accessing his home computer. The City i

informed and believes that Petitioner has since retrieved the personal property seized by the

Police pursuant to the search warrant, and his home computer, during the pendency of thi

action. The City further responds that the remaining allegations in Paragraph 15 constitute lega

argument or legal conclusion and the City is not required to admit or deny the same

-6-


DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006


7/22

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

STRADLING

YOCCA

CARLSON

RAUTH

LAWYERS

NEWPORT BEACH

Notwithstanding, to the extent the remaining allegations constitute factual averments, the Cit

denies the same.

16. Answering Paragraph

16

of

the Amended Complaint, the City admits that Petitione

is 62 years

of

age. The City admits that employees of the City

of

Carmel by-the-Sea over the ag

of 40 years old have been terminated since March

1

2013. The City denies that ... at least seve

long-term employees over the age

of

40 years who have been terminated, placed on involuntar

leave

of

absence pending an investigation

of

allegations

of

misconduct, placed under disciplinar

investigation by the City

of

Carmel or forced to resign since on or about March

1

2013. Th

City denies that the City Administrator and other agents

of

the City

of

Carmel have instituted

pattern and practice of discrimination based on age causing a disparate impact on olde

employees which is continuing in violation of California law. The City denies that Petitione

has been subjected to disparate treatment because

of

his age. The City is without sufficien

knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth

of

the allegation that Petitioner ha

never been convicted

of

any crime

of

moral turpitude , and on that basis, denies the allegation

With regard to Petitioner's allegations that a female employee who is more than twenty year

younger than Petitioner was convicted

of

welfare fraud during her employment with the City a

its Finance Specialist without suffering any discipline, discharge, involuntary leave

of

absence o

investigation of wrongdoing, such allegation is inflammatory and irrelevant

as

well

as

factuall

incorrect; the City denies the same. The City admits that in May 16 2014 Petitioner filed

Complaint

of

Discrimination with the California Department

of

Fair Employment and Housin

against the City

of

Cmmel-by-the-Sea and certain individuals. The City further responds that th

remaining allegations

of

Paragraph 16 constitute legal argument or legal conclusions and th

City is not required

to

admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent the remaining

allegations constitute factual averments, the City denies the same.


of

the Amended Complaint, the City admits that on o

about December 4 2013 Petitioner submitted a Notice

of

Government Claim to the City Clerk

o

-7-


DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006


8/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STRADLING YOCCA

LAWYERS

NEWPORT BEACH

the City of Cannel-by-the-Sea. The City admits that on January

9

2014 the City rejected

Petitioner s Government Claim. The City further responds that the remaining allegations o

Paragraph 17 constitute legal argument or legal conclusions and the City is not required to admi

or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent the remaining allegations constitute factual

averments, the City denies the same.

18. Answering Paragraph 18 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the

allegations set forth in Paragraph 18 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is

not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent Paragraph

18 contains

factual allegations, the City denies the same.

FIRST

CAUSE

OF ACTION

Petition

for

Writ of

Mandamus:

Performance of Ministerial Duty CCP Section 1085)

(Against AU Respondents/Defendants

their

Official Capacities)


of

the Amended Complaint, the City incorporates by

reference each and every response in paragraphs 1 through 18 as though fully set fmih herein.


of

the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the


not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent Paragraph 20 contains

factual allegations, the City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to

the truth of such allegations and on that basis denies the same.


of




21

contains


-8-


DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006


9/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STRADLING YOCCA

CARLSON RAUTH

LAWYERS

NEWPORT BEACH

22. Answering Paragraph 22 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits that on June 5

2013 agents

of

the City

of

Cmmel placed, and now continue to maintain, Petitioner on paid

administrative leave pending an investigation that remains ongoing. The City denies that the City

is without good cause, without investigation and without any evidence

of

grounds to believe

that he is guilty

of

conduct which warrants disciplinary action. The City further respond tha

the remaining allegations of Paragraph 22 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the

City is not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent the remaining

allegations constitute factual averments, the City denies the same.


of

the Amended Complaint, the City responds that each

and every allegation

of

Paragraph

23

constitutes legal argument or legal conclusion and the City

is not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent Paragraph 23 contain


24. Answering Paragraph 24 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits tha

Respondents/Defendants have refused, and continued to refuse, to permit him to perform hi

duties as Information Systems Network Manager for the City

of

Carmel. The City denies tha

Respondents/Defendants have refused, and continued to refuse, to reinstate Petitioner/Plaintiff

as Petitioner remains employed by the City. The City further responds that the remainin

allegations

of

Paragraph 24 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is no

required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent the remaining allegation

constitute factual averments, the City denies the same.


of

the Amended Complaint, the City responds that th

allegations set f01ih therein constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is no

required to admit or deny the same. To the extent Paragraph

25

contains factual allegations, th

City denies the same.

-9-

ANSWER

TO

AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT

DOCSOC/168183

7v3 l

02910-0006


10/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STRADLING YOCCA

LAWYERS

NEWPORT

BE. \CH



not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent Paragraph 26 contain


SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Petition For Writ of Mandate: Abuse

of

Discretion

(Against All Respondents/Defendants in their Official Capacities)

27. Answering Paragraph 27 of the Amended Complaint, the City incorporates by

reference each and every response in paragraphs 1 through 26

as

though fully set forth herein.

28. Answering Paragraph 28 of the Amended Complaint, The City responds that the




THIRD

CAUSE

OF ACTION

Breach of

Written Contract

of Employment

(Against Respondent/Defendant

Employer

Only)


of


reference each and every response in paragraphs 1 through 28 as though fully set forth herein.

30. Answering Paragraph 30 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the City

is without sufficient knowledge or infonnation to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation

that Petitioner has not engaged in any such conduct, nor has he been charged or convicted

o

any crime ... . The City admits that Petitioner has not been charged or convicted

of

any crime

As for the allegation that Petitioner has not engaged in any such conduct, the City respond

that the City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief

as

to the truth

of

the

-10-


DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006


11/22

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

STRADLING YOCCA

CARLSON RAUTH

LAWYCRS

NEWPORT BEACH

allegation as Petitioner's conduct remains under investigation as of the date of this Answer. Th

City denies each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 30


31 of

the Amended Complaint, the City denies each and every

allegation contained therein.


of

the Amended Complaint, the City responds that th

allegations set forth in Paragraph 32 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City i



FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Defamation

(Against All Respondents/Defendants)


of


reference each and every response in paragraphs 1 through 32

as

though fully set forth herein.


of

the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the City

without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth

of

the allegation tha

The City caused excessive and unsolicited internal and external publications

of

defamation

o

and concerning Petitioner/Plaintiff to third persons and to the community and on that basi

denies the same. The City denies each and every remaining allegation contained in Paragrap

34.


of

the Amended Complaint, the allegations are uncertain

and general, and on that basis the City is without sufficient knowledge or inf01mation to form a

belief as to the truth

of

each and every allegation contained therein, and on that basis denies the

same.

-11-


DOCSOC/168183

7v3 l

02910-0006


12/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STR DLING

YOCC

RLSON

R UTH

L WYERS

NEWPORT BE CH


of

the Amended Complaint the allegations are uncertain

and general and on that basis the City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form


of

each and every allegation contained therein and on that basis denies the

same.

37. Answering Paragraph 37 of the Amended Complaint the City responds that the

allegations set forth

in

Paragraph 37 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is

not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding to the extent Paragraph 37 contain

factual allegations the City responds that the allegations are uncertain and general and on tha

basis the City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief

as

to the truth

o

the allegations and on that basis denies the same.

38. Answering Paragraph 38 of the Amended Complaint the City responds that the

allegations set forth in Paragraph 3 8 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City i

not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding to the extent Paragraph 38 contains


basis is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief

as

to the truth

of

the

allegations and on that basis denies each and every allegation therein.

39. Answering Paragraph 39 of the Amended Complaint the allegations are uncertain

and general and on that basis the City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a


of


same.


of

the Amended Complaint the allegations are uncertain

and general and on that basis the City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a


of


same.

-12-


DOCSOC/1681837v3/l 02910-0006


13/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STR DLING YOCC

C RLSON R UTH

L WYERS

NEWPORT BE CH


of

the Amended Complaint the City responds that th




basis is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth

of

th

allegations and on that basis denies each and every allegation therein.

42. Answering Paragraph 42 of the Amended Complaint the City responds that th




basis the City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth

o

the allegations and on that basis denies each and every allegation therein.

43. Answering Paragraph 43 of the Amended Complaint the City responds that th


not required

to

admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding to the extent Paragraph

43

contain

factual allegations the City denies each and every allegation therein.


of

the Amended Complaint the City responds that th



factual allegations the City denies each and every allegation therein.

-13-


DOCSOC/168183 7v3/1 02910-0006


14/22

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

STR DLING YOCC

C RLSON R UTH

L WYERS

NEWPORT BE CH

Intentional

(Against

of

Emotional Distress

Respondents/Defendants)

45. Answering Paragraph 45 of the Amended Complaint, the City incorporates b


46. Answering Paragraph 46 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits that on o

about June 5 2013 agents of the City, including Ms. Paul, entered Petitioner s home pursuant to

a search wanant. The City further responds that the remaining allegations set forth in Paragrap

46 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is not required to admit or deny th

same. Notwithstanding, to the extent the remaining allegations constitute factual averments, th

City denies the same.

4

7.

Answering paragraph 4 7 of the Amended Complaint, the City denies each and ever

allegation therein.

48. Answering Paragraph 48 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that th

allegations set forth in Paragraph

48

constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City i


48

contain

factual allegations, the City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations and on that basis denies each and every allegation therein.

SIXTH

CAUSE OF CTION

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

(Against AU Respondents/Defendants)

49. Answering Paragraph 49 of the Amended Complaint, the City incorporates b


-14-


DOCSOC/168183 7v3/1 02910-0006


15/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STRADLING YOCCA

CARLSON

RAUTH

LA\VYERS

NEWPORT

BEACH


of




5

contain

factual allegations, the City denies each and every allegation therein.





SEVENTH

CAUSE OF

ACTION

Declaratory Relief

Against All Respondents/Defendants their Official Capacities)

52. Answering Paragraph 52 of the Amended Complaint, the City incorporates by

reference each and every response in paragraphs 1 through

51

as though fully set fmih herein.






of






55 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the

allegations set fmih in Paragraph

55

constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City i

-15-


DOCSOC/168183

7v3 l

02910-0006


16/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STR DLING YOCC

C RLSON R UTH

L WYERS

NEWPORT BE CH



PR YER

FOR

RELIEF

The City denies each and every allegation and request for relief, including all subparts, set

forth in Petitioner's PRAYER FOR RELIEF.

FFIRM TIVE DEFENSES

FIRST

FFIRM TIVE

DEFENSE

Failure to State a laim

As a first and separate affirmative defense, the City is informed and believes and on tha

basis alleges that the Amended Complaint and all

of

the purported causes

of

action therein ar

barred in whole or in part, by the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

SECOND FFIRM TIVE DEFENSE

Standing

As a second and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that Petitioner lack

standing to bring his Amended Complaint and all

of

the purported causes

of

action therein.

THIRD FFIRM TIVE DEFENSE

Waiver

As a third and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that the Amended Complain

and all the purported causes

of

action therein are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine

o

wmver.

-16-

ANSWER

TO


DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006


17/22

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

STRADLING

YOCCA

CARLSON

RAUTH

LAWYERS

NEWPORT

BEACH

FOURTH

AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE

As a fourth and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that all

of

Petitioner

purported causes

of

action, and each

of

them, are not ripe for adjudication.

FIFTH

AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE

Justification

nd

Privilege

As a fifth and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that the City s actions

respecting the subject matters in the Amended Complaint and all the purported causes

of

action

therein were undertaken in good faith, with the absence

of

discriminatory and/or malicious inten

to injure Petitioner, and constitute lawful, proper and justified means to further the purpose

o

engaging in and continuing the City s affairs.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

onformance with Statutes

nd

Regulations

As a sixth and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that to the extent any

of

the

City s activities

as

alleged in the Amended Complaint and all the purpmied causes

of

action

therein were pursuant to state or local law or govemment regulations, Petitioner s claims mus

fail in that such activities were authorized, appropriate or permitted and therefore cannot form

the basis

of

any liability.

17


DOCSOC/168183 7v3 l02910-0006


18/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STRADLING YOCCA

CARLSON

RAUTH

LAWYERS

NEWPORT BEACH

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE

to

As seventh and separate affirmative defense the City is informed and believes and on

that basis alleges that the Amended Complaint and all the purported causes

of

action therein are

barred in whole or in part by the failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

EIGHTH

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

No Protectable Property Interest

As an eighth and separate affirmative defense the City alleges that the Amended

Complaint and all the purported causes

of

action therein are barred because the City has no

interfered with any protectable prope1iy interest alleged in the Amended Complaint.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE

No amages

As an ninth and separate affirmative defense the City alleges that the Amended


of

action therein are barred because Petitioner has failed

to show any cognizable damages.

TENTH

AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE

Unclean Hands

As a tenth and separate affirmative defense the City alleges that the Amended Complain

and all the purported causes

of

action therein are barred by the doctrine

of

unclean hands.

-18-


DOCSOC/1681837v3 l 02910-0006


19/22

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

STR DLING

YOCC

C RLSON

R UTH

L WYERS

NEWPORT BE CH

ELEVENTH FFIRM TIVE DEFENSE

As an eleventh and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that the Amended


of

action therein are baned because the relief sough

would improperly interfere with the City s discretionary authority.

TWELFTH

FFIRM TIVE

DEFENSE

Employment

t

Will

As a twelfth and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that all

of

Petitioner s

purpotied causes

of

action are barred, in whole or in part, on the basis that at all times relevant

hereto, Petitioner was an at-will employee

of

the City.

THIRTEENTH FFIRM TIVE DEFENSE

Other efenses Reserved

As a thirteenth and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that all

of

Petitioner s

purported causes

of

action are barred, in whole or in part, on the basis

of

other facts and

allegations which are either not yet known or whose materiality or relevance are not yet fully

appreciated, and the City reserves the right to amend this answer and to assert additiona

defenses.

19

ANSWER

TO


DOCSOC/1681837v3/10291 0-0006


20/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

25

26

27

28

STR DLING YOCC

C RLSON R UTH

L WYERS

NEWPORT BE CH

PR YER FOR

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the City prays as follows:

1.

That Petitioner take nothing by way

ofhis

Amended Complaint;

2. That this Comi deny every item of relief requested in the Amended Complaint;

3. That judgment be entered in favor of the City;

4. That the City recover attorneys fees, as applicable;

5.

That the City recover costs of suit incurred herein; and

6. That the City receive such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DATED: October

7

2014

STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON RAUTH

A Professional Corporation

By:

Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant

City of Carmel-by-the

Sea

-20-

NSWERTO AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT

DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006


21/22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

1 0

STRADLING YOCCA

CARLSON

RAUTH

LAWYERS

NE\\ PORT

BEACH

PROOF

OF SERVICE

I am a resident of the State

of

Califomia, over the age

of

eighteen years, and not a party

to the within action. My business address is 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1600, Newpmi

Beach, Califomia 92660-6422. On October

7

2014, I served the within documents:

ANSWER OF RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TO

PLAINTIFF S

AMENDED

VERIFIED PETITION

AND

COMPLAINT

D

D

BY FACSIMILE: by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed

above to the facsimile number(s) set forth below. I certify that said

transmission was completed without error and that a report was generated

by facsimile machine (949) 725-4100 which confirms said transmission.

BY

EMAIL: by transmitting via electronic mail the document(s) listed

above to the email address(es) set forth below.

BY

OVERNIGHT

DELIVERY: by placing the document(s) listed

above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, and

delivering via overnight courier and addressed as set forth below,

respectively.

BY MAIL: by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope

with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Mail in Newport

Beach, California, addressed as set forth below.

BY PERSONAL

DELIVERY:

by causing personal delivery by

Nationwide Legal, Inc.

of

the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at

the address(es) set forth below.

PLEASE SEE

ATTACHED

SERVICE

LIST

I am readily familiar with the firm s practice

of

collection and processing correspondence

for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same

day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course

of

business. I am aware that on

motion

of

the party served, service is presumed invalid

if

postal cancellation date or postage

meter date is more than on day after the date

of deposit for mailing in affidavit.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the above

is true and conect.

Executed on October 7 2014 at Newport Beach, California.

PROOF

OF

SERVICE

DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006


22/22

1

et

2

Case1Vo A1128062

3

Michelle A Welsh

Attorneyfor Plaintiff/Petitioner

4

Stoner, Welsh Schmidt

Steven

fclnchak

413 Forest A venue

5

Pacific Grove, CA 93950-4201

6

Telephone: 831) 373-1993

Facsimile: 831) 373-1492

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

7

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

' ) Q

STR DLING

YOCC

Answer of Defendant City of Carmel to Plaintiff's Amended Verified Petition and Complaint Mcinchak

Documents

Transcript of Answer of Defendant City of Carmel to Plaintiff's Amended Verified Petition and Complaint Mcinchak