Answer Unlimited Fee Applies

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 2, 2021

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MICHAEL D. BRUNO (SBN 166805) E'ectmmca")! Filed ALYSON s. CABRERA (SBN 222717) by S”per'°r cw” °f CA’ PAMELA Y. NG (SBN 273036) COUMY 0f Santa C'aras GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP Oh 5/24/2021 1:29 PM 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 Reviewed By: L Del Mundo San Francisco, CA 941 11 Case #21 CV378994 Telephone: (415) 986-5900 Envelope: 6506433 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 mbruno@grsm.com acabrera@grsm.com png@grsm.com Attorneys for Defendant LUCILE SALTER PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA SHAWN ROBERTSON, Case N0. 21CV378994 Plaintiff, vs. DEFENDANT LUCILE SALTER PACKARD CHILDREN’S LUCILLE SALTER PACKARD HOSPITAL AT STANFORD’S CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, COMPLAINT Defendants. Complaint Filed: March 2, 2021 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Defendant LUCILE SALTER PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD (“Defendant”) hereby answers the Complaint (“Complaint”) filed by Plaintiff SHAWN ROBERTSON as follows: GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant to the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure section 43 1 .30(d), Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint and each and every alleged cause of action therein. Defendant further denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested, that Defendant committed any wrongful -1- DEFENDANT LUCILE SALTER PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Gordon & Rees LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 conduct or omission, Whether alleged 0r otherwise, and that conduct or omissions of Defendant caused any injury 0r damage to Plaintiff in the amounts or manner alleged therein, or in any other amount 0r manner, 0r at all. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendant alleges the following separate and affirmative defenses t0 each and every cause 0f action alleged in the Complaint. By alleging the defenses set forth below, Defendant does not thereby agree or admit that it has the burden of proof, persuasion, 0r production with respect to any elements of any defense, or that Plaintiff has properly asserted any cause 0f action against Defendant. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein fail t0 state a claim for which relief can be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, including but not limited t0 California Government Code § 12960; and California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 335-340. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant asserts that the Complaint and each of the purported causes 0f action set forth therein are barred by reason of the California Worker’s Compensation Act, California Labor Code Section 3600, et 211., Which is the sole and exclusive remedy for some or all of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries or damages. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that by his conduct, Plaintiff is estopped from recovering any relief pursuant to his Complaint, 0r any purported cause of action alleged therein. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that by his conduct, Plaintiff has waived any right to recover any relief pursuant to his Complaint, 0r any purported cause of action alleged therein. -2- DEFENDANT LUCILE SALTER PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Gordon & Rees LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that Plaintiff s Complaint and each cause 0f action alleged therein are barred by Virtue 0f Plaintiff” s conduct under the doctrine of unclean hands. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred by the doctrine 0f laches as Plaintiff has unreasonably delayed in bringing this action to the prejudice of these answering Defendant. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’ s Complaint, including the damages prayed for therein, is barred and/or limited by the doctrine of “after-acquired evidence.” NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that any and all representations 0f the statements alleged t0 be made by 0r 0n behalf 0f Defendant concerning or referring to Plaintiffwere true. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that any and all representations 0f the statements alleged t0 be made by 0r 0n behalf 0f Defendant concerning or referring to Plaintiffwere a statement of opinion. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has suffered n0 damages as a result of any alleged act 0r omission of Defendant, and even if Plaintiff had suffered damages 0r injuries, all or some portion of said damages or injuries were caused 0r attributable to Plaintiff s failure to take reasonable action t0 mitigate said damages or injuries, if any, and is therefore barred from recovering damages. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’ s Complaint and each cause 0f action therein are barred 0r reduced by Plaintiff s own intentional and/or negligent acts, omissions, representations, and courses of conduct, Which were a contributing proximate cause of said damage or injury, and therefore Plaintiff’s recovery, if any, is barred by Plaintiff’s own comparative fault relating to the acts complained of in the Complaint. -3- DEFENDANT LUCILE SALTER PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Gordon & Rees LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant asserts that if Plaintiff suffered or Will suffer any damages, those damages are a result of his own conduct, and not the result of any conduct by Defendant. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that it acted in good faith reliance upon the reasonable interpretation 0f applicable law, decisions by appellate courts in California, and the opini0n(s) of the office 0f the Labor Commissioner. As such, and Without conceding that there are any Violations, there exists a good faith dispute regarding the alleged Violation(s). Therefore, the penalties are not warranted. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that Plaintiff was paid in full and therefore Defendant is released from any and all continuing obligations to him. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that any recovery on the Complaint, 0r any cause of action contained therein, may be barred by Defendant’s compliance 0r substantial compliance with all applicable laws underlying Plaintiff s claim and the purported Labor Code Violations, if any, were de minimis. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant asserts that if Plaintiff suffered 0r Will suffer any damages, those damages are a result of the conduct of third parties, and not the result of any conduct by Defendant. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief 0n any 0f his causes of action because he has not suffered any damage as a result of any actions taken by Defendant. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that Plaintiff at all times acknowledged, ratified, acquiesced and/or gave his consent, express or implied t0 certain acts, omissions, representations, and courses of conduct of Defendant as alleged in the Complaint, and each cause of action contained therein. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each purported cause of action alleging a claim -4- DEFENDANT LUCILE SALTER PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Gordon & Rees LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 for punitive damages fail t0 state sufficient facts t0 state a claim for punitive damages against Defendant. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any alleged retaliatory behavior, if any, and Plaintiff unreasonably failed t0 take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities, including but not limited to, using the complaint procedure provided by Defendant that would otherwise have prevented some 0r all of Plaintiff’ s alleged harm. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief because Defendant’s alleged conduct of Which Plaintiff complains, if committed, was at all times motivated solely by legitimate, non-retaliatory, business-related considerations. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the damages alleged by Plaintiff are barred by the doctrine of avoidable consequences. TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ losses, if any, are speculative, remote and/or uncertain, and therefore, not compensable. TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that it had a legitimate reason for its employment decision that was the motivating factor in the decision. To the extent Plaintiff alleges that other factors motivated the decision, Defendant would have made the same employment decisions absent any alleged retaliatory motive. TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief 0n any 0f his causes of action because the Complaint, and each cause 0f action, fails because Defendant did not engage in any unlawful conduct towards Plaintiff. However, if the Court or trier of fact determines that unlawful conduct by any agent 0r employee 0f Defendant occurred, such conduct was neither authorized nor ratified by Defendant. -5- DEFENDANT LUCILE SALTER PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Gordon & Rees LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS Defendant reserves the right t0 amend this Answer to assert additional defenses and/or supplement, alter or change this Answer as may be warranted by the revelation of information during discovery and investigation. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows: 1. That this action be dismissed in its entirety, With prejudice; 2. That judgment be entered in favor 0f Defendant and against Plaintiff; 3. That Defendant be awarded its costs of suit and attorneys’ fees incurred herein; and 4. For such and other further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant hereby demands a trial by jury. Dated: May 24, 2021 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP MICHAEL D. BRUNO ALYSON S. CABRERA PAMELA Y. NG Attorneys for Defendant LUCILE SALTER PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD -6- DEFENDANT LUCILE SALTER PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 1230471/58415263v.1 \DOOQON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I am a resident of the State 0f California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party t0 the Within action. My business address is: Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 941 1 1. On the below-mentioned date, I served the within documents: DEFENDANT LUCILE SALTER PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Via Nationwide: by instructing Nationwide to e-serve all parties listed on the court’s website Via Email: by electronically serving the document(s) listed above t0 the person(s) at email the address(es) set forth below. Tiega-Noel Varlack VARLACK LEGAL SERVICES 225 W. Winton Avenue, Suite 207 Hayward, CA 94544 Tel: 510-397-2008 FaX.:: 510-397-2997 Email: tiega@verlacklegal.com Plaintiffs Counsel I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice 0f collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited With the U.S. Postal Service 0n that same day With postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that 0n motion 0f the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date 0r postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws 0f the State 0f California that the above is true and correct. Executed 0n May 24, 2021 at Oakland, California. WJUQ/L” Matt Dalton 7 DEFENDANT LUCILE SALTER PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT