2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

PAUL E. HARRIS, 111, ChiefCounsel SBN 180265 J. FELIX DE LA TORRE, SBN 204282 SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 1000 1808 14th Street Sacramento, Califomia 95811 Telephone: (916) 554-1279 Facsimile: (916)554-1292 Attomeys for Defendant Service Employees Intemational Union, Local 1000

M A R - 22 0 1 2
By:.
PURCELL
BEPUTY CLERK

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO MECHELLE SHERELES; and ROBIN SHERELES, Plaintiffs,

CaseNo. 34-2011-00114745 ANSWER BY S E R V I C E EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, L O C A L 1000 (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS STATE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION L O C A L 1000) TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES BY M E C H E L L E SHERLES AND ROBIN SHERLES

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1. Defendants. vs. STATE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 1000, et al.,

or FAX
Complaint Filed: November 29, 2011 Trial Date: None

Defendant Service Employees Intemational Union, Local 1000 (hereafter, "Local 1000"), erroneously sued and served as State Employees Intemational Union, Local 1000, responds to the unverified Complaint for Damages by Mechelle Shedes and Robin Sherles as follows: I. GENERAL DENIAL

Tlie Complaint for Damages herein being unverified Defendant Local IOOO,

pursuant to Califomia Code of Civil Procedure, section 431.30(d), denies each and every, all and ANSWER BY SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 1000 TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES BY MECHELLE SHERELES AND ROBIN SHERELES - 1 -

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

singular, generally and specifically, the allegations contained therein. Furthennore, Defendant denies that Plaintiffs suffered or sustained, or will suffer or sustain, any injuries or damages in any amount or amounts whatsoever by reason of any intentional, reckless, negligent, careless or wrongfiil acts or omissions ofDefendant. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES First Affirmative Defense As and for a first, separate affirmafive defense, the answering Defendant alleges that the Complaint, and each of its paragraphs and subparagraphs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against the Defendant. Second Affirmative Defense As and for a second, separate affirmative defense, the answering Defendant alleges that the Complaint, and each of its claims and causes of action are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Third Affinnative Defense As and for a third, separate affirmative defense, the answering Defendant alleges that the Complaint, and each of its claims and causes of action are barred in whole or in part because any actions taken by Defendant were fair and reasonable and were performed in good faith based on all relevant facts known to Defendant at the fime. Fourth Affirmative Defense As and for a fourth, separate affirmative defense, the answering Defendant alleges that the Plaintiffs failed or refiised to make the fiill and timely efforts required to mitigate or avoid any injury or damage they allegedly suffered. Fifth Affinnative Defense As and for a fifth, separate affirmative defense, the answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs' Claim for relief is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands. Sixth Affirmative Defense As and for a sixth, separate affirmative defense, the answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs are equitably estopped from asserting each and all of the purported causes of acfion by ANSWER BY SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 1000 TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES BY MECHELLE SHERELES AND ROBIN SHERELES

reason of their own acts, omissions and conduct, or that of their agents. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Seventh Affirmafive Defense As and for a seventh, separate affirmafive defense, the answering Defendant alleges that at all fimes relevant Plainfiffs knew that the activities in which they were participating in could be dangerous and lead to injury, and since each proceeded to voluntarily participate notwithstanding these risks. Plaintiffs accepted and assumed that risk of injury, and therefore Plaintiffs should not be compensated for any injuries that did occur. Eighth Affirmative Defense As and for an eighth, separate affirmative defense, the answering Defendant alleges that the Complaint is frivolous and was filed in bad faith. Ninth Affirmative Defense As and for a ninth, separate affirmative defense, the answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs were careless and negligent in and about the matters complained of, and that such carelessness and negligence contributed to the incident complained of and the damages, i f any, sustained thereby. Tenth Affirmative Defense As and for a tenth, separate affirmative defense, the answering Defendant alleges that the complaint is barred by laches. Eleventh Affirmative Defense As and for a tenth, separate affirmative defense, the answering Defendant alleges that the Complaint is barred by the doctrine of waiver, and Plaintiffs are estopped from asserting their claims. Twelfth Affirmative Defense As and for a twelfth, separate affirmafive defense, the answering Defendant alleges that the Defendant was privileged in its acfions. Thirteenth Affirmative Defense As and for a thirteenth, separate affirmafive defense, the answering Defendant alleges that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this acfion. ANSWER BY SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 1000 TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES BY MECHELLE SHERELES AND ROBIN SHERELES

Fourteenth Affirmative Defense

As and for a fourteenth, separate affirmative defense, the answering Defendant alleges that

3 this Complaint is barred because the alleged losses or harms sustained by PlaintifTs and those on 4 whose behalf they bring suit, i f any, resulted from causes other than any act or omission of 5 Defendants. 6 Fifteenth Affirmative Defense 7
As and for a fifteenth, separate affinnative defense, the answering Defendant alleges that

8 the injuries and damages, i f any, suffered by the Complaints were proximately caused and 9 contributed to by the negligence and carelessness of the Plaintiffs.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Sixteenth Affirmative Defense As and for a sixteenth, separate affirmative defense, the answering Defendant alleges that the injuries and damages, if any, sustained by plaintiffs were proximately caused and contributed to by the negligence of carelessness of third parties, and not Defendant. Seventeenth Affirmative Defense As and for a seventeenth, separate affirmative defense, the answering Defendant alleges that this Complaint is barred because the alleged losses or harms sustained by Plaintiffs and those on whose behalf they bring suit, i f any, resulted from causes other than any act or omission by Defendant. Eighteenth Affirmative Defense As and for an eighteenth, separate affirmafive defense, the answering Defendant alleges that the liability ofDefendant, if any, for the Plaintiffs' non-economic damages, i f any, are limited in proportion to Defendant's percentage of fault, ifany, as found by the trier of fact. Nineteenth-Affirmative Defense As and for a nineteenth, separate affirmafive defense, the answering Defendant alleges that this Complaint is barred because the Plaintiffs' claims fall within the primary jurisdiction of the Califomia Public Employment Relations Board. /// /// ANSWER BY SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 1000 TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES BY MECHELLE SHERELES AND ROBIN SHERELES

Twentieth Affirmative Defense 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 As and for a twentieth, separate affirmative defense, the answering Defendant alleges that the liability ofDefendants, if any exists, is limited by Proposifion 51. Twentv-first Affirmative Defense As and for a twenty-first, separate affirmative defense, the answering Defendant alleges that, to the extent Plaintiffs have been compensated for the alleged damages by payment from other persons or entifies, the amount of any such compensation should be set off against any recovery plaintiffs may receive in this action. Twenty-second Affirmative Defense As and for a twenty-second, separate affirmafive defense, the answering Defendant alleges that the injuries or damages of which Plaintiffs complain were caused in whole or in part by nonparties whom plaintiffs have failed to join in this action. Twenty-third Affirmarive Defense As and for a twenty-third, separate affirmative defense, the answering Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to state sufficient facts to consfitute any cause of action or enfitlement to punifive damages. Twenty-fourth Affirmative Defense As and for a twenty-fourth, separate affirmafive defense, the answering Defendant alleges that Defendant and/or its employees were provoked by Plaintiffs' unlawftil and wrongfijl conduct. Plaintiffs, therefore, are not entitled to punifive damages. Twenty-fifth Affirmative Defense As and for a twenty-fifth, separate affirmative defense, the answering Defendant alleges that i f there was an act which resulted in harmful or offensive contact with the Plaintiffs, Defendant specifically denies that it engaged in any such act, and the Plaintiffs consented to the contact, if any. Twenty-sixth Affirmative Defense As a twenty-sixth, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, the Complaint and the matters there in are subject to the Califomia Little Norris La-Guardia Act, and fail to state a ANSWER BY SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 1000 TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES BY MECHELLE SHERELES AND ROBIN SHERELES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

cause of action against Defendant. Twenty-seventh Affirmative Defense As a twenty-seventh, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, Local 1000 denies that it was negligent in any way, but as to any and all acts of negligence alleged in the Complaint, Local 1000 affirmatively alleges that Plainfiffs' contributory negligence, incurred risk,

comparative fault, and other fault caused the damages sought in this acfion, and they are more than 50% at fault in causing such damages and therefore Plainriffs cannot recover in this acfion or the damages should be diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to them. Twenty-eighth Affirmarive Defense As a twenty-eighth, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, the answering Defendant alleges that would have taken the adverse acrion against Plaintiffs under the doctrine of after-acquired evidence. Twenty-ninth Affirmarive Defense As a twenty-ninth, separate and affinnative defense to the Complaint, the answering Defendant alleges that Plainriffs' claims, to the extent each is found to be an employee of Defendant, are barred by the exclusive remedy doctrine under Califomia workers compensarion law. Thirtieth Affirmative Defense As a thirtieth, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, the answering Defendant alleges that Plainriffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. Thirty-First Affirmative Defense As a thirty-first, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, the answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Defendant prays forjudgment as follows: 1. 2. That Plainriffs take nothing by their Complaint; That Defendant recover its costs of suit herein;

ANSWER BY SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 1000 TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES BY MECHELLE SHERELES AND ROBIN SHERELES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3. 4.

That Defendant recover reasonable attorneys' fees incurred herein; and That the Court awards such other and/or fiirther relief as it deems just and proper.

Dated: March 1, 2012 SEIU LOCAL 1000

By:

J FELIX DE LA TORRE Attomeys for Local 1000

Jim

(^d^

ANSWER BY SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 1000 TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES BY MECHELLE SHERELES AND ROBIN SHERELES

PROOF OF SERVICE CASE NAME: Mechelle Block v. Service Employees Intemational Union Local IOOO (Erroneously sued as State Employees Intemational Union Local 1000 SEIU Local 1000, etal., COURT NAME: Sacramento Superior Court CASENUMBER: 34-2011-00114745 1 am a citizen ofthe United States and a resident of the County of Sacramento. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the above-entitled action. My business address is 1808 14"^ Street, Sacramento, Califomia 95811. 1 am familiar with SEIU Local lOOO's practice whereby the mail is sealed, given the appropriate postage and placed in a designated mail collection area. Each day's mail is collected and deposited in a United States mailbox after the close of each day's business. On the date below, I caused to be served the following:
IT)

o o
O

05 CN

10 11

8gS5
...:;! ..^..c.S
^lf

Answer By Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 (Erroneously sued as State Employees International Union Local 1000), To Complaint For Damages By Mechelle Sherles And Robin Sherles [X] (BY MAIL) placing a true copy thereofenclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at Sacramento, Califomia, addressed as follows:

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
SUSY MILLS [ ] (BY FACSIMILE) placing a true copy thereof into a facsimile machine addressed to the Telephone number(s) below: [ ] (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) on the following party(ies) in said action, by placing a tme copy thereof enciosed in a sealed envelope, with delivery fees paid or provided, and placed in the designated receptacle for such ovemight mail, addressed as set forth below. In the ordinary course ofbusiness, mail placed in that receptacle is picked up that same day for delivery the following business day. I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the State of California lhat the foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on March 1, 2012, at Sacramento, California. [ ] BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) Based upon a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification addresses listed below. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessflil.

X CT)

_ j [ "re
(O

. O c ii o 2 O - sz. UJ o
0) a, E 0)

>t ; Q.

5 Io re

Nilesh Choudhary Choudhary Law Office 2377 Gold Meadow Way, Suite 100 Gold River, CA 95670