SEIU Local 1000’s Mar. 2, 2012 response

8/13/2019 SEIU Local 1000s Mar. 2, 2012 response

1/8

23456789

101112

P A U L E . H A R R I S , 111, ChiefCounsel SB N 180265F E L I X D E L A T O R R E , S B N 204282S E R V I C E E M P L O Y E E S I N T E R N A T I O N A L U N I O NL O C A L 10001808 14th StreetSacramento,Califomia95811Telephone: (916) 554-1279Facsimile: (916)554-1292Attomeys fo rDefendant Service EmployeesIntemationalUnion,Local1000

By:MAR 2 2012

PURCELLBEPUTY LERK

SUPERIORCOURTOFTH E STATEOFCA LI FORNI AC IT Y AN D COUNTYOFSACRAMENTO

MECHELLESHERELES;and ROBINSHERELES, CaseNo. 34-2011-00114745

1314151617181922122232425262728

Plaintiffs,

vs.STATEEMPLOYEES I N T E R N A T I O N A LUNION LOCAL1000, et al.,

Defendants.

A N S W E R B Y S E R V I C E E M P L O Y E E SI N T E R N A T I O N A L U N I O N , L O C A L 1000E R R O N E O U S L Y S U E DASS T A T EE M P L O Y E E S I N T E R N A T I O N A LU N I O N L O C A L 1000) T O C O M P L A I N TF O R D A M A G E S B Y M E C H E L L ES H E R L E S AND R O B I N S H E R L E S

or FAXComplaintFiled: November 29, 2011Tr ia lDate: None

Defendant Service Employees IntemationalUnion,Local 1000 (hereafter, Local1000 ),erroneously sued and served asStateEmployees IntemationalUnion,Local1000,respondsto theunverifiedComplaint fo rDamages by MechelleShedesandRobinSherles asfollows:

I. G E N E R A L D E N I A L1. Tlie Complaint for Damages herein being unverified Defendant Local IOOO,

pursuant toCalifomiaCode ofCivi lProcedure, section 431.30(d), denies each and every, all andA N S W E R BY S E R V I C E E M P L O Y E E S I N T E R N A T I O N A L U N I O N , L O C A L 1000 TOC O M P L A I N T F O R D A M A G E S B Y M E C H E L L E S H E R E L E S AND R O B I N S H E R E L E S

- 1 -


2/8

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

singular, generally andspecifically,the allegations contained therein. Furthennore, Defendantdenies thatPlaintiffssufferedor sustained, orw i l lsufferor sustain, anyinjuriesordamagesin anyamount or amounts whatsoever by reason of any intentional, reckless, negligent,carelessorwrongf i i lactsor omissions ofDefendant.

A F F I R M A T I V E D E F E N S E SFirst Aff i rmat iveDefense

As and for a first ,separateaffirmafivedefense, the answering Defendant alleges that theComplaint,and each of its paragraphs andsubparagraphs fail tostateaclaimuponwhich reliefcan be granted against the Defendant.SecondA f f i r m a tiveDefense

Asand fo ra second,separateaffirmativedefense, the answering Defendant alleges that theComplaint,and each of its claims andcausesof action are barred by the applicable statute oflimitations.ThirdAffinnativeDefense

As and for a third,separateaffirmativedefense, the answering Defendant alleges that theComplaint,and each ofitsclaims andcausesof action are barred in whole or in partbecauseanyactions taken by Defendant werefairandreasonableand were performed in good faithbasedonall relevant factsknownto Defendant at thefime.Fourth Aff i rmat iveDefense

As and fo rafourth,separateaffirmativedefense, the answering Defendant alleges that thePlaintiffsfailedor refiised to make the i i l l and timelyeffortsrequired to mitigate oravoidanyinjuryordamagethey allegedly suffered.FifthAffinnativeDefense

As and for a fifth, separate affirmativedefense, the answering Defendant alleges thatPlaintiffs' Claim fo r relief isbarred, inwholeor inpart, by the doctrine of unclean hands.Sixth Aff i rmat iveDefense

As and for asixth, separateaffirmativedefense, the answering Defendant alleges thatPlaintiffsare equitably estopped f romasserting each and all of the purportedcausesofacfionbyA N S W E R BY S E R V I C E E M P L O Y E E S I N T E R N A T I O N A L U N I O N , L O C A L 1000 TOC O M P L A I N T F O R D A M A G E S B Y M E C H E L L E S H E R E L E S AND R O B I N S H E R E L E S


3/8

23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

reason o ftheirownacts, omissions and conduct, or thato ftheiragents.SeventhA f f i r m a f i v eDefense

Asandfora seventh,separateaffirmafivedefense, the answering Defendant alleges that atallfimes relevantPlainfiffsknew that the activities inwhichthey were participating incouldbedangerous and lead to injury,and since each proceeded tovoluntarilyparticipate notwithstandingtheserisks.Plaintiffsaccepted andassumedthatriskofinjury,and thereforePlaintiffsshould notbe compensated foranyinjuriesthat did occur.Eighth Aff i rmat iveDefense

Asand for an eighth,separateaffirmativedefense, the answering Defendant alleges thattheComplaintisfrivolousand was filedin badfaith.Ninth A ff i rmat iveDefense

Asand for aninth, separateaffirmativedefense, the answering Defendant alleges thatPlaintiffswere carelessand negligent in and about the matters complained of, and that suchcarelessnessand negligence contributed to the incident complained of and thedamages,i f any,sustained thereby.Tenth Aff i rmat iveDefense

Asand for a tenth,separateaffirmativedefense, the answering Defendant alleges that thecomplaintis barred by laches.EleventhA f f i r m a tiveDefense

Asand for a tenth,separateaffirmativedefense, the answering Defendant alleges that theComplaintis barred by the doctrine of waiver, andPlaintiffsare estopped f rom asserting theirclaims.Tw e l f th Af f i r m a t iveDefense

Asandforatw elf th,separateaffirmafivedefense, the answering Defendant alleges that theDefendant wasprivilegedin its acfions.Thirteenth Aff i rmat iveDefense

Asand for a thirteenth,separateaffirmafivedefense, the answering Defendant alleges thatthisCourt lacks subject matterjurisdictionoverthisacfion.ANSWER BY SERVICE EMPLOYEES IN T E R N A T IO N A L UNION, L O C A L 1000 TOCOMPLAINTFORDAMAGESBYMECHELLESHERELESA NDROBINSHERELES


4/8

34567891111213141516171819221222324

25262728

FourteenthAf f i r m a t iveDefenseAs and fo rafourteenth,separateaffirmativedefense, the answering Defendant alleges that

thisComplaint is barredbecausethe allegedlossesor harms sustained byPlaintifTsandthoseonwhose behalf theybring suit, i f any, resulted f rom causes other than any act or omission ofDefendants.FifteenthAff i rmat iveDefense

As and for afifteenth,separateaffinnativedefense, the answering Defendant alleges thatthe injuries and damages, i f any, suffered by the Complaints were proximatelycaused andcontributedto by the negligence andcarelessnesso fthePlaintiffs.Sixteenth Aff i rmat iveDefense

As and for a sixteenth,separateaffirmativedefense, the answering Defendant alleges thattheinjuriesanddamages, i fany, sustained byplaintiffswere proximatelycausedand contributedtoby the negligence ofcarelessnesso f thirdparties, and not Defendant.Seventeenth Af f i r m a t iveDefense

As and for a seventeenth, separateaffirmativedefense, the answering Defendant allegesthat this Complaint is barredbecausethe allegedlossesor harms sustained byPlaintiffsandthoseon whose behalf theybringsuit, i f any, resulted f romcausesother than any act or omission byDefendant.EighteenthAf f i r m a t iveDefense

As and for an eighteenth,separateaffirmafivedefense, the answering Defendant allegesthat the liabilityofDefendant,if any, fo rthePlaintiffs'non-economicdamages,if any, are limitedinproportionto Defendant's percentage offault, ifany,asfoundby thetrieroffact.Nineteenth-AffirmativeDefense

As and fo ra nineteenth,separateaffirmafivedefense, the answering Defendant alleges thatthisComplaint is barredbecausethePlaintiffs'claims fall within theprimaryjurisdictionof theCalifomiaPublic Employment Relations Board.//////A N S W E R BY S E R V I C E E M P L O Y E E S I N T E R N A T I O N A L UN I O N , L O C A L 1000 TOC O M P L A I N T F O R D A M A G E S B Y M E C H E L L E S H E R E L E S AND R O B I N S H E R E L E S


5/8

23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

TwentiethAf f i r m a t iveDefenseAsand for atwentieth,separateaffirmativedefense, the answering Defendant alleges that

theliabilityofDefendants, i anyexists, islimitedbyProposifion51 .Twentv-first Aff i rmat iveDefense

Asand for atwenty-first,separateaffirmativedefense, the answering Defendant allegesthat, to the extentPlaintiffshave been compensated for the allegeddamagesby payment f romother personsor entifies, the amount of any such compensation should be set off against anyrecoveryplaintiffsmay receive in this action.Twenty-secondAf f i r m a t iveDefense

Asandfora twenty-second,separateaffirmafivedefense, the answering Defendant allegesthat the injuries ordamagesof which Plaintiffscomplain werecaused in whole or in part bynonpartieswhomplaintiffshavefailedtoj o i nin this action.Twenty-thirdA f f i r m a riveDefense

Asand for atwenty-third,separateaffirmativedefense, the answering Defendant allegesthat the Complaintfailstostatesufficientfacts to consfitute anycauseof action orenfitlementtopunifivedamages.Twenty-fourthA f f i r m a tiveDefense

Asand for atwenty-fourth,separateaffirmafivedefense, the answering Defendant allegesthat Defendant and/or its employees were provoked byPlaintiffs'unlawftilandw r o n g f i jlconduct.Plaintiffs,therefore, are notentitledtopunifivedamages.Twenty-f i f th Aff i rmat iveDefense

Asand for a tw enty-f i f th,separateaffirmativedefense, the answering Defendant allegesthat i f there was an act which resulted in harmfulor offensive contact with thePlaintiffs,Defendantspecificallydenies that it engaged in any such act, and thePlaintiffsconsented to thecontact, i any.Twenty-sixth Aff i rmat iveDefense

Asatwenty-sixth,separateandaffirmativedefenseto the Complaint, the Complaint andthe matters there in are subject to theCalifomia LittleNorrisLa-Guardia Act, and failtostateaANSWER BY SERVICE EMPLOYEES I NTERNATI ONAL UNION, LOCAL 1000 TOCOMPLAINTFORDAMAGESBYMECHELLESHERELESA ND ROBINSHERELES


6/8

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

causeofactionagainst Defendant.Twenty-seventh Aff i rmat iveDefense

As a twenty-seventh,separateandaffirmativedefenseto theComplaint,Local1000deniesthat it was negligent in any way, but as to any and allactsof negligence alleged in the Complaint,Local 1000 affirmatively alleges that Plainfiffs' contributory negligence, incurred risk,comparativefault,and otherfaultcausedthedamagessought in thisacfion,and they are more than50% atfaultin causing suchdamagesand thereforePlainriffscannot recover in this acfion or thedamagesshould bediminished inproportionto the amount offaultattributable to them.Twenty-eighth Aff i rmar iveDefense

As a twenty-eighth,separateand affirmativedefenseto the Complaint, the answeringDefendant alleges thatwouldhavetaken theadverseacrion againstPlaintiffsunder the doctrine ofafter-acquired evidence.Twenty-ninth Aff i rmar iveDefense

As a twenty-ninth,separate and affinnativedefense to the Complaint, the answeringDefendant alleges that Plainriffs' claims, to the extent each is found to be an employee ofDefendant, are barred by the exclusive remedy doctrine underCalifomiaworkers compensarionlaw.ThirtiethAf f i r m a t iveDefense

As athirtieth,separateandaffirmativedefenseto theComplaint,the answering Defendantalleges thatPlainriffsfailedto exhaust their administrative remedies.Thirty-FirstA f f i r m a tiveDefense

As a thirty-first, separate and affirmativedefense to the Complaint, the answeringDefendant alleges thatPlaintiffslack standing tobringtheir claims.

P R A Y E RWHEREFORE,Defendant praysforjudgmentasfollows:

1. ThatPlainriffstake nothing by their Complaint;2. That Defendant recover itscostsofsuitherein;

A N S W E R BY S E R V I C E E M P L O Y E E S I N T E R N A T I O N A L U N I O N , L O C A L 1000 TOC O M P L A I N T F O R D A M A G E S B Y M E C H E L L E S H E R E L E S AND R O B I N S H E R E L E S


7/8

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

3. That Defendant recoverreasonableattorneys'feesincurred herein; and4. That the Courtawardssuch other and/or fiirther reliefas itdeemsjust and proper.

Dated: March 1, 2012 SEIU LOCAL1000

By: Jim ^d^J F E L IX D E L ATORREAttomeys forLocal 1000

ANSWER BY SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTE RNAT IONAL UNION, LOCAL 1000 TOCOMPLAINT FOR D A MAG E S B Y ME C H E L L E SHERELESAND ROBINSHERELES


8/8

IT)ooO 05

CN8gS5:; . . ^ . . c . S

^lfU X CT_ j [ re. O ii2 O - -UJ oO t;

cosz>- Q.0) a,E 0)5 I -ore

1011121314151617181922122232425262728

P R O O F O F S E R V I C ECASEN A M E : MechelleBlockv. Service Employees IntemationalUnion Local IOOO(Erroneously sued asStateEmployees IntemationalUnionLocal1000SEIU Local 1000, etal.,COURTN A M E : Sacramento Superior CourtCASENUMBER: 34-2011-00114745

1am a citizen oftheUnitedStatesand a resident ofthe County of Sacramento. I am overthe age o feighteen (18)yearsand not a party to the above-entitledaction. My businessaddressis1808 14 Street, Sacramento, Califomia95811.1amfamiliarw ithSEIU LocallOOOspractice whereby themailissealed,given theappropriatepostageand placed in a designated mailcollectionarea. Eachday'smailis collectedand deposited in aUnitedStatesmailbox after the close ofeach day's business.On thedatebelow, Icausedto be served the fol lowing:AnswerBy Service Employees International Union,L ocal1000 Erroneouslysued asState Employees International UnionL ocal1000), To ComplaintF or Damages ByMechelle Sherles And Robin Sherles

[X] (BY M A I L )placing a true copy thereofenclosed in asealedenvelope withpostagethereonfullyprepaid in theUnitedStatesmailat Sacramento,Califomia,addressedasfollows:Nilesh ChoudharyChoudhary Law Office2377GoldMeadow Way, Suite 100GoldRiver, C A95670[ ] BYELECTRONICSERVICE)Based upon a court order or an agreement of theparties toacceptservice by electronic transmission, Icausedthe documents to besentto thepersonsat the electronicnotificationaddresseslisted below. I did not receive, withinareasonabletimeafter the transmission, any electronicmessageor otherindicationthat the transmission wasunsuccessflil.[ ] (BY FACS I MI LE)placing a true copy thereofintoafacsimilemachineaddressedto theTelephone number(s) below:[ ] (BY OVERNIGHT D E L IV E R Y )on the f o l low ingparty(ies) in said action, by placing atme copy thereof enciosed in asealedenvelope, withdeliveryfeespaid orprovided,and placed inthe designated receptacle forsuch ovemightmail,addressedas set for thbelow. In the ordinarycourseofbusiness,mailplaced in that receptacle is picked up thatsameday fo rdeliverythef o l lowin gbusinessday.

declare under penaltyofperjuryunder the laws of theStateofCalifornialhat theforegoingis true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on March 1,2012, atSacramento,California.

SUSY MILLS

Documents

SEIU Local 1000’s Mar. 2, 2012 response