Answer Amended Complaint

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 21CV379038 Exemptfromfilingfees under Gov ?actagggaebcm 03 D Ha APALLA U. CHOPRA (S.B. # 163207) Electronically Filed achopra@omm.com by Superior Court of CA, ADAM J. KARR (SB. #212288) County of Santa Clara, akarr@0mm-00m on 8/9/2021 2:34 PMO’MELVENY & MYERS LLP . _ . 400 South Hope Street Rev'ewed BY- D Hams Los Angeles, California 90071-2899 case #21 CV379038 Telephonez+1 213 430 6000 EHVGIOpe! 7023557 Facsimilez+1 213 430 6407 Attorneys for Defendant BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA STEPHEN O’BRIEN, an individual Case N0. 21CV379038 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT BOARD 0F TRUSTEES 0F THE CALIFORNIA STATE V- UNIVERSITY’S ANSWER T0 FIRST BOARD 0F TRUSTEES 0F THE AMENDED COMPLAINT CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY; MARIE TUITE, an individual, and DOES 1 through 25’ inclusive, Complaint Filed: March 2, 2021 FAC Filed: July 6, 2021 Defendants. Trial Date: None Set Defendant Board 0f Trustees 0f the California State University (“Defendant”) hereby answers the unverified First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) filed by Plaintiff Stephen O’Brien (“Plaintiff’) as follows: Pursuant t0 Section 43 1 .30(d) 0f the California Code 0f Civil Procedure, Defendant generally denies each and every material allegation of Plaintiff s unverified FAC and fithher denies that Plaintiff has been damaged as alleged, or at all, by reason of any act 0r omission on the part 0f Defendant. /// /// rris ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SEPARATE AND ADDITIONAL DEFENSES As separate and additional defenses t0 the FAC and each purported cause 0f action therein, and without suggesting or conceding that Defendant has the burden ofproof 0n any such defense, Defendant alleges as follows: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure t0 State a Cause 0f Action) 1. As a first affirmative defense t0 all causes of action, Defendant alleges that the FAC, and each purported cause 0f action contained therein, fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action against Defendant. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies) 2. As a second affirmative defense to all causes of action, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’ s causes 0f action, and each 0f them, are barred in Whole 0r in part because Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) 3. As a third affirmative defense t0 all causes 0f action, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure t0 Mitigate) 4. As a fourth affirmative defense to all causes of action, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff failed t0 mitigate, reduce, or otherwise avoid the damages alleged. Therefore, any damages awarded t0 Plaintiff, if any, shall be limited to the damages Plaintiff would have sustained had Plaintiff mitigated his damages. /// /// /// /// -2- ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure t0 Establish Causal Link) 5. As a fifth affirmative defense t0 all causes 0f action, Defendant alleges that any recovery 0n Plaintiff’ s claims for retaliation are barred because there is n0 causal link between any protected activity and any purported adverse employment action. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Reasonable Grounds for Termination) 6. As a sixth affirmative defense t0 all causes 0f action, Defendant alleges that at the time Defendant made the decision to terminate Plaintiff s employment, Defendant, acting in good faith and after investigation that was appropriate under the circumstances, had reasonable grounds for believing Plaintiff had committed wrongful or inappropriate acts that caused Defendant to terminate Plaintiff” s employment with Defendant. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Termination 0n Legitimate, Non-Retaliatory Basis) 7. As a seventh affirmative defense t0 all causes 0f action, Defendant alleges that if retaliatory reasons had been a contributing factor in any employment decision toward Plaintiff, which Defendant hereby expressly denies, any recovery or any cause 0f action alleged herein is barred because Defendant would have made the same employment decisions toward Plaintiff in any case for legitimate, non-retaliatory business reasons. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (After-Acquired Evidence Doctrine) 8. As an eighth affirmative defense t0 all causes 0f action, Defendant states that in the event that through the course 0f discovery Defendant should obtain after-acquired evidence, any recovery on Plaintiff s causes 0f action alleged therein is barred. /// /// /// /// -3- ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) 9. As a ninth affirmative defense t0 all causes 0f action, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’ s causes 0f action, each of them, are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of unclean hands. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Acted In Good Faith) 10. As a tenth affirmative defense to all causes of action, Defendant states that Plaintiff s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Defendant acted reasonably and in good faith at all times material herein, based on all relevant facts and circumstances known by it at the time it so acted. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Speculative and Uncertain Damages) 11. As an eleventh affirmative defense to all causes of action, Defendant states that Plaintiff s claims are barred, in whole 0r in part, because the alleged damages, if any, are speculative and uncertain. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unavailability of Punitive Damages) 12. As a twelfth affirmative defense to all causes of action, Defendant states that Plaintiff s causes of action and prayers for punitive damages, and each of them, do not state facts sufficient to enable Plaintiff t0 recover punitive damages. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Attorneys’ Fees) 13. As a thirteenth affirmative defense to all causes of action, Defendant is entitled to recover all costs and attorneys” fees incurred herein under California Civil Procedure Code §128.7. /// /// -4- ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Immunity) 14. As a fourteenth affirmative defense to all causes of action, Defendant is immune from suit pursuant to California Government Code section 8 1 5 t0 the extent that the FAC and any cause of action therein attempts t0 state a cause of action not provided by statute against a public entity. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Exceeds Scope of Government Claim) 15. As a fifteenth affirmative defense to all causes of action, Defendant alleges that if and to the extent the allegations of the FAC attempt to enlarge or exceed the scope of the facts and contentions set forth in Plaintiff s Government Claim, the FAC 0r causes 0f action therein fail to state a cause of action and are barred by California Government Code sections 905.2, 91 1.2, and 950.2. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Impermissible Punitive Damages) 16. As a sixteenth affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’ s claim for punitive damages is not permitted against Defendant because punitive damages are not available against public entities such as Defendant. City ofNewport v. Fact Concerts, Ina, 453 U.S. 247, 271 (1981); Cal. Gov’t Code § 818. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Additional Defenses) 17. As a seventeenth affirmative defense to all causes 0f action, Defendant states it does not presently know all facts concerning the conduct of Plaintiff and his claims sufficient to state all affirmative defenses at this time. Defendant reserves its right to raise and assert additional defenses after such defenses have been ascertained. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment in its favor as follows: 1. That Plaintiff’ s FAC be dismissed With prejudice; _ 5 _ ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT A “GUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. That Plaintiff take nothing by this action; 3. That judgment be entered in Defendant’s favor and against Plaintiff on all claims asserted against Defendant; 4. That Defendant be awarded its costs 0f suit; and 5. For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: August 9, 2021. O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP APALLA U. CHOPRA ADAM J. KARR By: V Adam J. Karr Attorneys for Defendant BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY -6- ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT