Answer Amended Complaint

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.January 3, 2019

Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 10/17/2019 8:44 AM Reviewed By: M Vu Case #19CV340733 Envelope: 3530460 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - LEGAL DIVISION 111 Grand Avenue, Suite 11400, Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (5 I 0) 433- 91 00, Facsimile: (5 I 0) 433.91 67 10 ll 12 l4 15 l6 l7 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JEANNE SCHERER, Chief Counsel G. MICHAEL HARRINGTON, Deputy Chief Counsel LUCILLE Y. BACA, Assistant Chief Counsel ALINA STARK, SBN 236436 111 Grand Avenue, Suite 11-100, Oakland, CA 94612 MAIL TO: P0 BOX 24325, Oakland, CA 94623-1325 Telephone: (5 1 0) 433-9 1 00 Facsimile: (5 1 0) 433-9167 (No FEE PURSUANT To Gov. CODE, § 6103) Attorneys for Defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through the Department of Transportation SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AMG & ASSOCIATES, LLC, a California limited Case No. 19CV340733 liability company, as assignee ofAMERIGAS PROPANE, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, Plaintiff, DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S v. ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; CITY OF SAN JOSE; UNKNOWN HEIRS AND DESCENDANTS OF JAMES F. REED AND MARGARET W. REED, HIS WIFE; ALL PERSONS CLAIMING ANY RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST IN THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN; DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants. TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through the Department of Transportation (STATE) hereby answers PlaintiffAMG & ASSOCIATES, LLC, a California limited liability company, as assignee ofAMERIGAS PROPANE, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (PLAINTIFF)’s First Amended Complaint as follows: 1. The STATE lacks information or belief to admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and therefore denies these allegations. 2. The STATE lacks information or belief to admit the allegations contained in l DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 0F TRANSPORTATION - LEGAL DIVISION III Grand Avenue, Suite 11-100, Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (51 0) 433-91 00, Facsimile: (51 0) 433-91 67 10 ll 12 13 14 15 l6 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, and therefore denies these allegations. 3. The STATE admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 0f the Complaint. 4. The STATE admits on information or belief the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint. 5. The STATE lacks information or belief to admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, and therefore denies these allegations. 6. The STATE admits that PLAINTIFF has named Does 1 through 100 as Doe Defendants in this action. Except as admitted herein, the STATE lacks information or belief to admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, and therefore denies these allegations. 7. The STATE lacks information or belief to admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, and therefore denies these allegations. 8. The STATE lacks information or belief to admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 0f the Complaint, and therefore denies these allegations 9. The STATE admits that it constructed Interstate-28O on or about 1955. The STATE further admits that a portion of the subject Right ofWay is part 0f the State Highway System pursuant to California Street and Highway Code, Section 83, as set forth in Exhibit C to First Amended Complaint. In addition, The STATE has an interest in the subject Right ofWay in that a portion 0f said Right ofWay is owned in fee by the STATE, as an abutting property owner, subject to the public easement held by the City of San Jose in said Right of Way. Other than as expressly admitted herein, the STATE lacks information or belief to admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 0f the Complaint, and therefore denies these allegations. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR QUIET TITLE 9. The STATE incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 91 of its Answer to Complaint fully herein. 10. The STATE admits that the Complaint regards the Right ofWay described at Paragraph 10 of PLAINTIFF’S Complaint. l PLAINTIFF’S First Amended Complaint contains paragraph 9 twice. 2 DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - LEGAL DIVISION I II Grand Avenue, Suite I 1-100, Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (51 0) 433-91 00, Facsimile: (51 0) 433-91 6 7 10 11 12 14 15 16 l7 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11. The STATE admits that PLAINTIFF is seeking the relief described in Paragraph 11 but denies PLAINTIFF is entitled to such relief. 12. The STATE admits that it has an adverse claim to the title of the Right ofWay to which Plaintiff seeks t0 quiet title and obtain declaratory relief, in that a portion of said Right of Way constitutes a part of the state highway, pursuant to California Streets and Highway Code, section 83. In addition, the STATE has an adverse claim to the title of said Right of Way, in that a portion of the Right ofWay is owned by the STATE in fee, as an abutting property owner, subject t0 the public easement held by the City of San Jose in said Right of Way. 13. The STATE admits that PLAINTIFF’s Complaint seeks a determination of rights as of 10/21/1 983 but denies that PLAINTIFF is entitled to the relief sought therein. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 14. The STATE incorporates Paragraphs 1 through l3 of its Answer to Complaint fully herein. 15. The STATE admits the allegations in Paragraph 15 of PLAINTIFF’S Complaint 0n its behalf only. 16. The STATE admits that PLAINTIFF has requested the relief stated in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint but denies that PLAINTIFF is entitled to such relief. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES The STATE asserts the following affirmative defenses to each cause of action stated in the Complaint: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Complaint fails to allege facts to constitute a cause of action against the STATE. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Complaint is uncertain. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE There can be n0 adverse possession of property dedicated to a public use or owned by the state or any public entity, even its public use is discontinued. (California Civil Code, section 1007; Thompson v. Dypvik (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 329, 383). 3 DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S ANSWER T0 FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT J1 I Gmnd Avenue, Suite 1 1»100, Oakland, Califomia 94612 Telephone: (510) 433-9100, Facsimile: (51 0) 433-91 67 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION < LEGAL DIVISION 10 11 12 l3 14 l6 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE PLAINTIFF’S claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of equitable estoppel. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE PLAINTIFF has waived the claims alleged in the Complaint. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE PLAINTIFF’S claims are barred in whole 0r in part by the doctrine of estoppel by deed. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE PLAINTIFF’S claims are barred by the statute of limitations, including but not limited to, California Civil Code, section 3 1 8. EIGHTS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE PLAINTIFF’S claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of laches. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE PLAINTIFF does not have any right, title or interest to the property t0 which it seeks to quiet title, and for which it seeks declaratory relief. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The STATE has an interest in the subject Right 0fWay in that a portion 0f said Right ofWay is part of the state highway system, pursuant to the Streets and Highway Code, section 83. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The STATE has an interest in the subject Right of Way in that a portion of said Right of Way is owned in fee by the STATE, as an abutting property owner, subject to the public easement held by the City of San Jose in said Right of Way. WHEREFORE, the STATE prays: 1. PLAINTIFF takes nothing by this action. 2. That Judgment be rendered against PLAINTIFF and in favor of the STATE, declaring the STATE’S rights, title and/or interest in the property t0 which PLAINTIFF’S Complaint seeks to quiet title. 3. The STATE recover costs in this action as may be provided by law. 4 DEFENDANT STATE 0F CALIFORNIA’S ANSWER T0 FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT II 1 Grand Avenue, Suite I 1-100, Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (51 0) 433-91 00, Facsimile: (51 0) 433-9] 67 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - LEGAL DIVISION 10 ll 12 13 l4 15 l6 I7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. The STATE be awarded such other and further relief as the Court may deem necessary and proper. DATED: October 16, 2019 By‘ SCHERER, GTON, BACA, & STARK ' ALINA STARK Attorneys for THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA 5 DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT .bUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case Name: AMG & Associates, LLC v. State ofCalifomia, Dept. 0f Transportation, et al. Case No.: Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 19CV3400733 PROOF OF SERVICE (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1012, 1013a, 2015.5; Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., rule 5(b).) I am employed in the City of Oakland, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1 11 Grand Avenue Suite 11-100, Oakland, CA 94612. On the date set forth below, I served a true copy of the following document(s): DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT on the parties set forth below by: [X] (BY MAIL) by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope for each person(s) named below, addressed as set forth immediately below the respective name(s), with postage thereon fully prepaid as first-class mail. I deposited the same in a mailing facility regularly maintained by the United States Post Office for the mailing of 1etter(s) at my above-stated place of business. [ ] (PERSONAL SERVICE) by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, for each person(s) named below, and caused such envelop to be delivered by hand to the address(es) as set forth immediately below the respective ame(s) pursuant to this Proof of Service. deposited on the date set forth below, in a pickup facility reg ar y maintained for the [ ] (OVERNIGHT MAIL) by placing a true copy thereof enc «gin a sealed envelope and 1 delivering of letters and packages located at my above-stated pl _e of business. [ ] (E-MAIL) by attaching a copy of the Word processing file in PDF format. Julie A. Herzog Elisa T. Tolentino, Senior Deputy City Attorney Law Office of Julie A. Herzog Office ofthe City Attorney 18980 Ventura Boulevard, Second Floor, #230 200 East Santa Clara Street, 16‘“ Floor Tarzana, CA 91356 San Jose, CA 951 13-1905 (818) 888-6659 Fax (818) 888-9140 Email: Elisa.tolentino@saniosecagov Email; lawwings@earthlink.net Attorneysfor City ofSan Jose AttorneysforAMG & Associates, LLC I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 17, 201 9, at Oakland, California. Wif- oP KYVNG, Dfirant l PROOF OF SERVICE