Answer Unlimited Fee Applies

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 25, 2021

DocuSign Envelope ID: 32183E82-833F-4oc4-94BD-BEF317AFBA05 21CV381330 Santa Clara - Civil D Harris 1 RA 2 4 Electronically Filed EVELYNN T N, SB # 03 73 by Superior Court of CA, General Counsel c t f S t Cl2 JONATHAN L. LEE, SB #90350 0"" Y ° a" a a’as Senior Assistant Counsel 0n 7/21/2021 11:13 AM 3 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Reviewed By: D Harris 4 3331 North First Street, C-2 Case #21 CV381 33o San Jose, California 95134-1906 Envelo e: 6893631 Telephone No.2 (408) 321-5550 p 5 Facsimile No.2 (408) 321-7547 6 Attorneys for Defendant 7 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Public Entity Fee Exempt 10 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION GOV- Code § 6103 1 1 SANDRA HENDERSON, Case No.: 2 1 -CV-3 8 1 330 12 Plaintiff, SANTA CLARA VALLEY 13 vs. TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 14 SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; Does 1 to 20, 1 5 Defendants. 16 17 18 Defendant, SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, for itself and n0 19 other Defendant, in answer t0 the Complaint on file herein, admits, denies and alleges as follows: 20 GENERAL DENIAL 21 1. Under the provisions 0f Section 43 1 .30 of the California Code 0f Civil Procedure, this 22 answering Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in Plaintiff SANDRA HENDERSON’s 23 Complaint, each cause 0f action there under, and the Whole thereof, and further expressly denies that, as a 24 direct or proximate result of any act 0r omission on the part of this answering Defendant, Plaintiff has 25 sustained any injury or damage in the amount alleged, in any amount, 0r at all 26 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27 2. That at the time and place referred t0 in Plaintiff” s Complaint, and immediately prior 28 thereto, Plaintiff was careless and negligent in and about the matters referred t0 in said Complaint and that 1 SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 260616 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3218BE82-83BF-40C4-94BD-BEF317AFBA05 \DOOQONUl-bUJNr- NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-Kr-tr-tr-t OOQONUI-hUJNi-‘OKDOOQONUl-bUJNP-‘O carelessness and negligence directly and proximately contributed t0 and caused the resultant injuries and damages sustained thereby, if any. Plaintiff” s carelessness and negligence diminishes Plaintiff” s recovery of damages proportionately. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3. That Plaintiff, with the exercise of reasonable diligence and effort, could have mitigated the damages alleged in the Complaint; that the resulting damages, if any complained 0f in said Complaint, were directly and proximately caused by the failure, neglect and refusal of the Plaintiff to exercise reasonable diligence and effort t0 mitigate the damages alleged and that Plaintiff is therefore barred from recovery. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4. That, at the time and place 0f the injuries herein alleged the negligence of persons, firms, corporations, 0r entities other than this Defendant, caused said injuries, if any, and that said negligence comparatively reduces the percentage 0f any negligence attributable to this Defendant, if any. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5. That Plaintiff was aware and knew 0f, appreciated, and voluntarily encountered the risk of falling as a result of the ordinary movements of the bus. The injuries complained ofby Plaintiff in her Complaint, if there were any, were caused solely by movements 0f the bus which were ordinary and completely capable of being anticipated by passengers riding 0n the bus and therefore arose out of the risk assumed by her. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6. Defendant is informed and believes and 0n that basis alleges that at the time and place of the injuries herein complained 0f Defendant’s bus operator was suddenly and unexpectedly put into an emergency situation, not caused in any way by his own fault or carelessness. In order t0 avoid hitting a vehicle who ran a red light, Defendant’s bus operator was forced, immediately and Without hesitation t0 apply the brakes of the bus. The injuries complained 0fby Plaintiff in her Complaint, if there were any, were caused solely by this extraordinary situation of emergency. Defendant’s bus operator acted with due care and precaution considering that emergency, and thus was not acting negligently within the scope of his employment. Therefore, Plaintiff must be denied all recovery prayed for in her Complaint. 2 SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 260616 DocuSign Envelope ID: 821BBE82-83BF-4OC4-94BD-BEF317AFBA05 \DOOQONUI-RUJNv-A NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t mumm-war-‘OOOOQONUI-thr-‘O SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7. That because all 0f the facts of this accident are unknown by answering Defendant at the present time, answering Defendant therefore alleges all 0f the immunities and defenses afforded it by §§ 800 through 1000 0f the Government Code of the State 0f California which may not have been covered by the previously asserted immunities. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8. That Plaintiff” s Complaint fails to state facts sufficient t0 constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9. If and to the extent that the allegations 0f Plaintiff s Complaint attempts to enlarge upon the facts or contentions set forth in the claim filed by Plaintiff, if any, the Complaint fails to state a cause of action, and violates the provisions 0f Chapter I and II (commencing with Sections 900 and 910) of the Government Code; and this answering Defendant reserves the right t0 strike such allegations and to object t0 any evidence directed t0 its proof. WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays that Plaintiff takes nothing by reason of the Complaint and that this answering Defendant be given a judgment for its costs of suit incurred herein, including an award 0f attorney’s fees and defense costs pursuant t0 applicable code and case law, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DATED: July 21, 2021 EVELYNN TRAN General Counsel DocuSigned by: Jomfwm DC4D5C91A54F445... JONATHAN L. LEE Senior Assistant Counsel Attorneys for Defendant Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3 SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 260616 DocuSign Envelope ID: 821BBE82-83BF-4OC4-94BD-BEF317AFBA05 \DOOQONUI-PUJNr-b NNNNNNNNNr-Kr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQGUl-hUJNb-‘OOOOQONUIAUJNP-‘O PROOF OF SERVICE (C.C.P. § 1013a) SANDRA HENDERSON V. SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Santa Clara Countv Superior Court Case N0. 21-CV-381330 I, the undersigned declare as follows: I am a citizen 0f the United States, over 18 years of age, employed in Santa Clara County, and not a party t0 the Within action. My business address is Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, 3331 North First Street, Building C-2, San Jose, California 95 134-1906, and is located in the county Where the service described below occurred. On July 21, 2021, I caused to electronically serve the following document: SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY ELECTRONIC MAIL, transmitted using the County Process Service Inc. electronic filing system. The document listed above was electronically served t0 the following: Charles Law Nathan C. Long LAW & LAW 2483 Old Middlefield Way, Suite 206 Mountain View, California 94043 charles@lawandlaw.net nathan@lawandlaw.net Attorneysfor Sandra Henderson I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this Proof of Service was executed on July 21, 2021 at San Jose, California. DocuSigned by:ML Wu, 3D55DD6883F0462... UNIQUE IRACE PROOF OF SERVICE 26 1 654