WORKPLACE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION and SEXUAL HARASSMENT:
GUILTY PLEA TO CRIMINAL CHARGES: San Diego Ex-Mayor Bob Filner Pleads Guilty to Felony False Imprisonment and Battery in the same California Jurisdiction where Windermere Real Estate Operates its San Diego Windermere Homes & Estates Santaluz Franchise:
October 15, 2013: San Diego Ex-Mayor Bob Filner pleaded guilty before Superior Court Judge Robert Trentacosta to a felony charge of false imprisonment by violence, fraud, menace and deceit, stemming from a March 6, 2013, incident where he used force to overcome the resistance of a woman at a fund raiser, thus violating her liberty. Filner also pleaded guilty about two misdemeanor counts of battery, one from another April 16, 2013 incident where he kissed a woman on the lips during one of his "Meet the Mayor" public events; and another incident on May 25, 2013, wherein Filner improperly touched a woman's posterior while posing for a photo.
Sentencing Filner is set for December 9, 2013, while documents indicate he will get three years probation and serve a home confinement of 3 months, but get no prison or jail time. In addition, Filner is required to undergo mental health treatment, agree never again to seek public office, and sacrifice a portion of his city pension.
The Tragic and Predatory Social Conduct Shared by Windermere Real Estate and San Diego City Ex-Mayor Bob Filner: Subjecting Female Employees to an Abusive Work Environment.
In Irene McCormack Jackson v City of San Diego; Robert ("Bob") Filner, Plaintiff Jackson's Complaint for Damages, Employment Discrimination and Sexual Harassment, alleges at ¶ 19 that her boss, San Diego Mayor Robert Filner (left), said to her in sum or substance, "you know you are beautiful. I have always loved you. Someday I know that you are going to marry me. I am so in love with you. Wouldn't it be great if you took off your panties and worked without them on?" Plaintiff was aghast and pushed him away. Defendant Filner then stated "Come on. Give me a kiss."
Download the complete Jackson v City of San Diego; Robert ("Bob") Filner Complaint here.
Download Defendant City of San Diego's Answer to Complaint here.
Download Defendant City of San Diego's Cross-Complaint here.
Jump to the Court's full Opinion for Little v. Windermere Relocation here.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
IRENE McCORMACK JACKSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF SAN DIEGO; ROBERT ("BOB") FILNER, an individual; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO: 37-2013-00058613-CU-OE-CTL
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION-SEXUAL HARASSMENT
(Violation of Gov't Code §12940 et seq.)
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRELIMINARY FACTUAL STATEMENT
1. Plaintiff IRENE McCORMACK JACKSON (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff" or "Ms. McCormack Jackson") is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, a resident of the County of San Diego, State of California.
2. Plaintiff Ms. McCormack Jackson is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant CITY OF SAN DIEGO is, and at all times relevant herein was, a municipality organized and existing under the laws of the State of California doing substantial business in the County of San Diego, State of California. City of San Diego employs more than five employees and is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of California Government Code § 12926.
3. Plaintiff Ms. McCormack Jackson is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendant ROBERT ("BOB") FILNER, (hereinafter "FILNER") is an individual who at all relevant times herein was a resident of the County of San Diego. Plaintiff McCormack Jackson is informed and believes that at all relevant times herein FILNER was the Mayor for Defendant City of San Diego and as such, a managing agent of Defendant City of San Diego.
4. The true names and capacities, whether individual, associate or otherwise, of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff McCormack Jackson, who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings referred to herein, and caused injury and damage proximately thereby to Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this complaint to show the true names and capacities of the Defendants designated herein as DOES when the same have been ascertained.
5. Whenever in this complaint reference is made to "Defendants, and each of them," such allegation shall be deemed to mean the acts of Defendants acting individually, jointly, and/or severally.
6. Plaintiff McCormack Jackson is-informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, each of the Defendants was the agent, servant and employee, co-venturer and co-conspirator of each of the remaining Defendants, and was at all times herein mentioned, acting within the course, scope, purpose, consent, knowledge, ratification and authorization of such agency, employment, joint venture and conspiracy.
7. On November 6, 2012, Defendant Robert Filner edged out Carl DeMaio to become the Mayor of San Diego, the 8th most populous City In the United States. In his first press conference following the election the Mayor-elect promised to bring a divided city together. He said he wanted to have an administration that would be inclusive of minorities and women. He presented himself throughout the mayoral campaign as a supporter of women's rights.
8. At his first news conference following his election Defendant Mayor-elect Filner introduced his fiancee, Bronwyn Ingram, as his first lady. (However, on July 8, 2013, she announced via email to a group of her supporters that the engagement had been called off and "the relationship was over.")
9. On January 7, 2013, Defendant Mayor Filner held a press conference to announce the appointment of his staff which consisted of 24 individuals, more than half of them female, one third of whom were Latino and twenty-five percent of whom were African Americans. He described the two dozen appointees standing behind Defendant Mayor Filner at the press conference as his "core team." He said that the first requirements were competence, effectiveness and experience.
10. Standing right behind Defendant Mayor Filner that day was a proud Irene McCormack Jackson, the Mayor's newly appointed communications director. Other appointees included Donna Frye (since resigned), who would be in charge of open government and transparency, Vince Hall, Filner's new Chief of Staff (since resigned) and Allen Jones, Deputy Chief of Staff (since resigned).
11. In Introducing Plaintiff McCormack Jackson, the Defendant Mayor Filner pointed out that she had recently left a 9-year career as the Vice President of Public Policy for the Port of San Diego. He stated that her vast experience at the Port and her prior experience as a working news person would be invaluable in making the City a driving economic engine in the future. What Defendant Mayor Filner did not mention was that Plaintiff McCormack Jackson had taken a $50,000 pay cut in order to take this job with his administration. She believed in what the Mayor had publicly put forth as his vision for San Diego's future. Ms. McCormack Jackson believed in Defendant Filner, plain and simple.
12. That day Defendant Filner said in referring to his core team, "They all know what they're getting into." Plaintiff McCormack Jackson thought that was a true statement. She thought that what she was getting into was an administration that would be dedicated to improving the lives of San Diego residents. She thought that the Filner administration would be doing great things for the people of the City of San Diego and that she would play a part in that historic effort.
13. Instead, in the short time that Defendant Filner has been Mayor, Robert Filner has disgraced himself and the office he holds, by engaging in numerous instances of sexual harassment. If Plaintiff McCormack Jackson had known what she was "really getting into" she never would have left her position at the Port of San Diego.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Sexual Harassment in Violation of California Gov't Code §12940 et seq.
Against All Defendants and DOES 1-26)
14. Plaintiff McCormack Jackson repeats and realleges by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 13 and incorporates the same herein as though fully set forth.
15. Plaintiff McCormack Jackson was previously employed as the Vice President of Public Policy for the Port of San Diego. In that capacity, she earned $175,000 a year. After Defendant Filner was elected Mayor for Defendant City of San Diego, Plaintiff resigned her position as the Vice President of Public Policy for the Port of San Diego and accepted the position of Communications Director for Defendants, at a salary reduction of $50,000 a year, because she is an idealist and felt that the new administration would be doing good things and she wanted to be a part of it. Plaintiff McCormack Jackson believes in public service. Plaintiff McCormack Jackson began employment with Defendants on January 3, 2013.
16. On January 25, 2013, Defendant Mayor Filner was giving a "State of the City" address. The speech was supposed to begin at 6:00 p.m. However, they were running late. As the Communications Director, Plaintiff McCormack Jackson was backstage with Defendant Filner. Plaintiff said to Defendant Mayor Filner, "Don't worry Mayor, you will do a great job." Defendant Mayor Filner replied in sum or substance, "I would do a better job if you gave me a kiss."
17. The following month, February 2013, Defendant Mayor Filner decided to crash the City Attorney's Press conference. Plaintiff McCormack Jackson was in an elevator with Defendant Mayor Filner along with the police officer assigned to Defendant Mayor Filner. The police officer was fixing his handcuffs. The Mayor put a headlock on Plaintiff and said, "you know what I would like to do with those handcuffs?" Plaintiff extricated herself and immediately changed the subject.
18. In or about late February/early March 2013, Plaintiff McCormack Jackson, Defendant Mayor Filner and his assigned police officer got into an elevator. As they were getting into the elevator Defendant Mayor Filner realized that he had forgotten his jacket. The police officer offered to go back and get it. Plaintiff McCormack Jackson got into the elevator with Defendant Mayor Filner.
19. As soon as the elevator doors closed, Defendant Mayor Filner pulled Plaintiff McCormack Jackson toward him while placing his arms around her without her consent. He said in sum or substance, "you know you are beautiful. I have always loved you. Someday I know that you are going to marry me. I am so in love with you. Wouldn't it be great if you took off your panties and worked without them on?" Plaintiff was aghast and pushed him away. Defendant Filner then stated "Come on. Give me a kiss." When Plaintiff turned away, without her consent, he kissed her on the cheek. Mayor Filner only ceased trying to kiss her when the elevator stopped and a staffer got in with them.
20. The first Saturday in April 2013, Defendant Mayor Filner opened the lobby of City Hall to meet with anyone who wanted to speak with him for a few minutes each. As the Communications Director, Plaintiff McCormack Jackson was required to be at this event. Defendant Filner had been meeting with constituents for a while and decided to take a break. Defendant Mayor Filner is known to love chocolate doughnuts. Plaintiff pointed out to Defendant Mayor Filner that there were some chocolate doughnuts available.
21. Without her consent, Defendant Mayor Filner put Plaintiff McCormack Jackson into a headlock and pulled her along with him as he made his way toward the doughnuts. Plaintiff McCormack Jackson could not get away. His grip was too strong. As Mayor Filner pulled her along, he told her that she was "so beautiful" and that he had loved her for a long time. Plaintiff could not move. He asked her "when are we going to get married. Wouldn't it be great if we consummated the marriage?" All Plaintiff McCormack Jackson could think of to say was, "Sir, you have people out there." He finally released her.
22. In late April/early May 2013, Plaintiff McCormack Jackson and Defendant Mayor Filner were going to the "Monthly talk with the Mayor" at the Fox Studios in San Diego when Defendant Mayor Filner came up behind Plaintiff McCormack Jackson, and without her consent, put his arm around her shoulder. Defendant Mayor Filner said in sum or substance, "you are so beautiful. I love you. One day we are going to get married." Defendant Mayor Filner said he was infatuated with Plaintiff and that they were going to be together. "Let's make it happen," he said.
23. In June 2013, Defendant Mayor Filner was sitting in a chair reading a proposed press release. He said to Plaintiff McCormack Jackson,"Let's just put some exclamation points at the end." As Defendant Mayor Filner got up to leave, with the door to her office open, he said in sum or substance, "you are so beautiful. I am infatuated with you. When are you going to get naked? Come on, give me a kiss." As Plaintiff McCormack Jackson attempted to get Defendant Mayor Filner to leave her office, he kissed her on the cheek. Plaintiff sternly told him that he needed to leave her office. Defendant Mayor Filner replied, "you cannot kick me out. I am the Mayor. I can go anywhere I want, any time I want."
24. In June 2013, Defendant Mayor Filner went to Sacramento with his Chief of Staff. Plaintiff McCormack Jackson is informed and believes that while Defendant Mayor Filner was gone, female staffers approached his Deputy Chief of Staff, Allen Jones about the hostile work environment that the Mayor had created for female employees.
25. Plaintiff McCormack Jackson is informed and believes that in the short time that Defendant Mayor Filner had been in office, three women had to be driven home because of his abusive treatment. Plaintiff McCormack Jackson is further informed and believes that five schedulers resigned because of Defendant Mayor Filner's behavior. Plaintiff had also confided in Mr. Jones that she too had been thinking about getting another job.
26. The day after Defendant Mayor Filner returned from Sacramento, there was a policy meeting at City Hall. Defendant Mayor Filner walked into the conference room along with his Chief of Staff. As the Communications Director, Plaintiff McCormack Jackson was in attendance as was the Deputy Chief of Staff, Mr. Jones.
27. Mr. Jones began to address Defendant Mayor Filner and said in sum or substance, "before we start there is something I need to say. I have known you [Defendant Mayor Filner] longer than anyone here. We have been friends for 35 years. You need to listen to me. You are running a terrible office. You are treating women in a horrible manner. What you are doing may even be illegal. You need to change your ways. You need extreme therapy. In the meantime, let us (referring to his core staff) run the office." Defendant Mayor Filner interrupted him saying, "Allen, you are full of shit. Give me one example." Mr. Jones replied, "Bob, I know your modus operandi. This is how you get people off their point. You interrupt them. I am not playing your game. You need to listen to me." Defendant Mayor Filner then sat back and said in sum or substance, "maybe you [Allen Jones] just do not want to be here." Mr. Jones replied, "You are right, I do not want to be here. I resign."
28. At that moment Plaintiff McCormack Jackson realized that nothing would change. If Defendant Mayor Filner would not listen to his friend and confidante of 35 years, then there was no chance that Defendant Filner was going to stop his sexual harassment of her or stop creating a hostile and intimidating work environment for the other women who worked at City Hall.
29. Plaintiff McCormack had been suffering degradation and humiliation at the hands of Defendant Mayor Filner. At that moment Plaintiff realized that Defendant Filner would not cease his behavior and that she could no longer allow/tolerate his behavior. Plaintiff McCormack Jackson stood up and said in sum or substance, "I agree with Allen. You are horrible" and she began walking out.
30. As Plaintiff McCormack Jackson was leaving Defendant Mayor Filner said in sum or substance, "Really Irene, give me just one example, I dare you." Plaintiff turned around and said in sum or substance, "Really Mayor -- you want me to do that? How about when you said that I should take my panties off and work without them." Plaintiff McCormack Jackson slammed the door and walked out.
31. After Plaintiff McCormack Jackson left that day Defendant Mayor Filner sent an emissary to her which then led to a meeting on June 25, 2013. At that meeting, Defendant Mayor Filner agreed that he had been despicable toward women. He said that he needed help and that he would apologize publicly for what he had done. Defendant Mayor Filner also said that he would get sexual harassment training.
32. Defendant Mayor Filner offered Plaintiff McCormack Jackson the opportunity to work for the interim COO in charge of operational communications for the City. Plaintiff had no other employment opportunity and thus accepted the position.
33. There were several other occasions where Defendant Mayor Filner placed Plaintiff McCormack Jackson in a headlock without her consent. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant Mayor Filner has done the same to other women.
34. Plaintiff McCormack Jackson is informed and believes that Defendant Mayor Filner has also engaged in sexually offensive behavior with other female employees.
35. Plaintiff McCormack Jackson repeats and realleges by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 34 and incorporates the same herein as though fully set forth and further alleges that: (1) Plaintiff McCormack Jackson was an employee of Defendant City of San Diego; (2) Plaintiff McCormack Jackson was subjected to unwanted harassing conduct because she is a woman; (3) the harassing conduct was severe or pervasive; (4) a reasonable woman in Plaintiff McCormack Jackson's circumstances would have considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive; (5) Plaintiff McCormack Jackson considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive; (6) Defendant Filner participated in the harassing conduct; (7) Plaintiff McCormack Jackson was harmed; and (8) the conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff McCormack Jackson's harm.
36. As a result of the aforementioned conduct, Plaintiff McCormack Jackson has suffered and will continue to suffer pain and suffering, and extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress resulting from Defendant Mayor Filner's conduct.
37. Defendants are employers in the State of California, as defined in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (TEHA"), California Government Code §12926.
38. Defendants' harassment of Plaintiff on the basis of her gender constitutes a violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code §12926 et seq.
39. Plaintiff McCormack Jackson is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that in addition to the practices enumerated above, Defendants may have engaged in other discriminatory practices against her which are not yet fully known. At such time as such discriminatory practices become known to her, Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint in that regard.
40. On July 18, 2013, Plaintiff McCormack Jackson filed timely charges against Defendants with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") against Defendants Mayor Filner and City of San Diego. Within one year of the filing of this Complaint, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing issued right to sue notices to Plaintiff McCormack Jackson authorizing this lawsuit. True and correct copies of the administrative charges and right to sue letter are attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B." Plaintiff McCormack Jackson has therefore exhausted her administrative remedies[.]
41. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' willful, knowing and intentional discrimination against her, Plaintiff McCormack Jackson has suffered and will continue to suffer extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress. Plaintiff McCormack Jackson is there by entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' willful, knowing and intentional discrimination against her, Plaintiff McCormack Jackson has further suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earnings and/or other employment benefits and job opportunities. Plaintiff McCormack Jackson is thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
43. As a further, direct and proximate result of Defendants' violation of California Government Code §12900, et. seq., as heretofore described, Plaintiff McCormack Jackson has been compelled to retain the services of counsel in an effort to enforce the terms and conditions of her employment relationship with Defendants, and has thereby incurred, and will continue to incur, legal fees and costs, the full nature and extent of which are presently unknown to her. Plaintiff McCormack Jackson will therefore seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint in that regard when the same shall be fully and finally ascertained. Plaintiff McCormack Jackson requests that attorneys fees be awarded pursuant to California Government Code §12965.
44. Plaintiff McCormack Jackson is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the outrageous conduct of Defendants described above was done with malice, fraud and oppression and with conscious disregard for her rights and with the intent, design and purpose of injuring her. Defendants participated, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct of Defendant Mayor Filner. By reason thereof, Plaintiff McCormack Jackson is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages from Defendant Filner in a sum according to proof at trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff McCormack Jackson prays that judgment be entered in her favor and against Defendants as follows:
1. That Plaintiff be awarded general and compensatory damages, Including prejudgment interest, in an amount according to proof at trial;
2. That Plaintiff be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit and interest incurred;
3. That Plaintiff be awarded punitive or exemplary damages against Defendant Filner in an amount according to proof at trial; and
4. That this Court award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
DATED: July 22, 2013 ALLRED, MAROKO & GOLDBERG
By:______________________________
GLORIA ALLRED
Attorneys for Plaintiff
IRENE McCORMACK JACKSON
The Defendant City of San Diego's Answer to Ms. Jackson's Complaint:
Download Defendant City of San Diego's Answer to Complaint here.
Download the complete Jackson v City of San Diego; Robert ("Bob") Filner Complaint here.
Download Defendant City of San Diego's Cross-Complaint here.
Jump to the Court's full Opinion for Little v. Windermere Relocation here.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
IRENE McCORMACK JACKSON
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, ROBERT ("BOB") FILNER, et al.
Defendants.
Case No: 37-2013-00058613-CU-OE-CTL
DEFENDANT CITY OF SAN DIEGO'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
I/C Judge: Richard Strauss
Dept.: 75
Comp. filed: July22, 2013
Trial date: None set
Pursuant to CCP § 446, Defendant City of San Diego (hereafter "Defendant" or "City"), for itself alone, answers Plaintiff's complaint as follows:
1. As permitted by law with unverified complaints, Defendant denies each and. every material allegation of the complaint and puts Plaintiff to her proof. Further, on information and belief Defendant denies that Plaintiff has been damaged in any manner or amount or at all as a result of any act or omission by Defendant.
2. On information and belief Defendant alleges Plaintiffs complaint in whole or in part, is barred by statutory immunities found in the California Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code §§ 810 et seq.), including but not limited to the immunities provided in Government Code sections 815, 815.2, 818.8, 820.2, 820.4, 820.6, 821.6 and 822.2.
3. On information and belief Defendant alleges Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of sexual harassment.
4. On information and belief Defendant alleges some or all of Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of laches.
5. On information and belief, Defendant alleges the facts alleged fail to state a claim against this Defendant.
6. At all times, this Defendant acted in good faith, without malice, and took the actions it did for legitimate non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons.
7. This Defendant based all employment decisions regarding Plaintiff's employment on legitimate non-discriminatory reasons.
8. This Defendant had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for each of its actions.
9. No act or omission of this Defendant was done with harassing intent, purpose, or motive.
10. No act or omission of this Defendant was done with discriminatory or retaliatory intent, purpose, or motive.
11. On information and belief this Defendant alleges Plaintiff has sustained no damages from the purported conduct claimed in the Complaint, and to the extent that Plaintiff claims any damages, Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages as required by law.
12. On information and belief this Defendant alleges Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiffs failure to act with reasonable skill, diligence and cooperation in attending to and carrying out the duties and responsibilities as required by Plaintiff's employment.
13. On information and belief, this Defendant alleges the Complaint, and each purported cause of action set forth therein, fails to state facts sufficient to entitle Plaintiff to an award of general damages, special damages, exemplary or punitive damages, or attorneys' fees and costs against this Defendant.
14. This Defendant did not engage in any conduct that was the legal cause of any alleged damages suffered by Plaintiff.
15. This Defendant complied with all obligations under the law with respect to preventing harassment and discrimination in the workplace.
16. On information and belief this Defendant alleges Plaintiff's claims are barred, and Plaintiff is barred from seeking any damages from the purported physical or emotional injuries allegedly suffered as a result of her employment in that the sole and exclusive remedy in this respect is governed by the California Workers' Compensation Act. (Cal. Lab. Code, §§ 3600, et seq.)
17. On information and belief this Defendant alleges Plaintiff's claims against Defendant are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of limitation, including, but not limited to, those set forth in Government Code sections 12960 and 12965 and Code of Civil Procedure sections 335.1, 338, 339, and 340.
18. On information and belief this Defendant alleges some or all of Plaintiff's claims are barred because of her failure to fully, properly, and timely exhaust pre-filing requirements, including but not limited to exhaustion of internal remedies, claim notices under the Government Tort Claims Act; pre-filing administrative remedy procedures under the Fair Employment and Housing Act and/or other administrative remedies.
19. On information and belief this Defendant alleges the injuries and/or damages alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint; if they in fact exist were legally caused by, occurred and/or were contributed to by Plaintiff's own acts, failures to act and/or misconduct.
20. On information and belief this Defendant alleges that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any discriminatory or harassing behavior in the workplace and the Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of, or unreasonably delayed in taking advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the City or to avoid harm otherwise and Plaintiff thereby violated the rule of avoidable consequences, also known as the Ellerth/Faragher defense. State Dept. of Health Sendces v. Sup. Ct. (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 1026.
21. On information and belief this Defendant alleges some or all of Plaintiff's claims are barred because she is judicially estopped from asserting those claims.
22. On information and belief this Defendant alleges some or all of Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of "Accord and Satisfaction" and related concepts.
23. On information and belief this Defendant alleges Plaintiff has waived some or all of her claims.
24. On information and belief this Defendant alleges some or all of Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
25. On information and belief this Defendant alleges some or all of Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine(s) of collateral estoppel and/or res judicata.
26. On information and belief this Defendant alleges Plaintiff has released some or all of her claims.
27. On information and belief, this Defendant alleges that it may have additional, as yet unasserted, defenses to Plaintiff's complaint or the causes of action pled against it. Accordingly, Defendant specifically reserves the right to assert additional defenses as deemed appropriate at a later time.
WHEREFORE, Defendant City of San Diego prays for judgment as follows:
1. That Plaintiff take nothing by reason of her complaint or any claims stated therein;
2. That Plaintiff's complaint and each cause of action contained therein be dismissed against this Defendant with prejudice;
3. That this Defendant be awarded its attorneys' fees and costs of suit incurred herein pursuant to all applicable provisions of law; and
4. For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: August 1, 2013 JAN I. GOLDSMITH, City Attorney
By __________________________
Joe Cordileone
Chief Deputy City Attorney
The Defendant City of San Diego's Cross-Complaint Against Robert Filner for Indemnity:
Download Defendant City of San Diego's Answer to Complaint here.
Download the complete Jackson v City of San Diego; Robert ("Bob") Filner Complaint here.
Download Defendant City of San Diego's Cross-Complaint here.
Jump to the Court's full Opinion for Little v. Windermere Relocation here.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
IRENE McCORMACK JACKSON
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, ROBERT ("BOB") FILNER, et al.
Defendants.
______________________
CITY OF SAN DIEGO
Cross-Complainant
v.
ROBERT ("BOB") FILNER, and ROES 1 through 20,
Cross-defendants.
______________________
Case No: 37-2013-00058613-CU-OE-CTL
DEFENDANT CITY OF SAN DIEGO'S CROSS-COMPLAINT AGAINST
ROBERT FILNER FOR INDEMNITY
I/C Judge: Richard Strauss
Dept.: 75
Comp. filed: July22, 2013
Trial date:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. City is now and at all times relevant herein was a charter city, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California.
2. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate or otherwise of Cross-defendants Roes 1 through 20 are unknown to City who, therefore, sues said Cross-defendants by such fictitious names and will ask leave to amend this Cross-Complaint to show their true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. City is informed and believes that said Roes 1 through 20 are in some manner responsible for the events and happenings referred to herein and are liable to Cross-complainant as hereinafter alleged.
3. City is informed and believes that Cross-defendants, and each of them, were the agents or employees, servants, partners, or in some manner agents or principals for each other and acting within the course and scope of said agency or employment, and with the knowledge and consent; express or implied, of the other Cross-defendants herein.
4. Cross-defendant Robert Filner is an individual who resides in San Diego County.
5. Plaintiff's Complaint, incorporated herein by reference, alleges that injuries and other damages occurred to Plaintiff while employed by the City of San Diego.
6. The allegations of the Complaint, if true, constitute a violation of City policies against sexual harassment. The City of San Diego maintains a zero tolerance policy as to sexual harassment and sexual harassment is not within the course and scope of employment.
7. On information and belief, City denies that it is liable for Plaintiff's damages, if any, but if she suffered damages, City alleges that Cross-defendants are liable to City for any such damage alleged against it.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Equitable Indemnity against All Cross-Defendants)
8. City incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.
9. City is informed and believes that it neither caused nor contributed to the damages alleged by Plaintiff in the Complaint in this action. If, however, it is found that City was responsible for any part of the damages claimed by Plaintiff, City is entitled to equitable indemnity from Cross-defendants for the injuries and damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiff, if any, and for reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in defending this action.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Contribution against all Cross-Defendants)
10. City incorporates by reference the allegations of all paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.
11. If City is held liable to Plaintiff, or to anyone else, for damages as a result of the incidents and occurrences alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint, the damages, if any, were either wholly or in part directly and legally caused by the culpable conduct of Cross-defendants, and each of them. Each Cross-defendant should be required to pay a share of the damages in proportion to the responsibility of that Cross-defendant in causing the damages and should further be required to reimburse City for any payment of damages it makes in excess of its proportional share, if any, of all parties' responsibility for the damages.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Relief against all Cross-Defendants)
12. City incorporates by reference the allegations of all paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.
13. A dispute has arisen and an actual controversy exists between City and Cross-Defendants, and each of them, in that City contends it is entitled to total and/or partial indemnity, equitable indemnity, apportionment and contribution from such Cross-Defendants in proportion to the respective fault or liability of each of them.
14. City is informed and believes that a judicial determination is necessary and proper to determine the rights of City and the respective duties of Cross-defendants in connection with the matters alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint and this Cross-Complaint.
As to the First Cause of Action:
1. For complete indemnity from Cross-defendants, and each of them, for any judgment entered against City in the above-captioned action;
2. For complete indemnity from Cross-defendants, and each of them, for costs and attorney's fees reasonable incurred by Cross-complainant in defending against Plaintiffs claims;
As to the Second Cause of Action:
3. For a pro rata partial equitable indemnity from Cross-defendants, and each of them, for any portion of any judgment entered in this action against Cross-complainant which does not fairly reflect Cross-complainants pro rata fault or responsibility, if any;
As to the Third Cause of Action: '
4. For a judicial determination of the rights and duties of the parties with respect to the matters alleged herein;
As to All Causes of Action:
5. For costs of suit including attorney's fees;
6. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: July 30, 2013 JAN I. GOLDSMITH, City Attorney
By __________________________
Joe Cordileone
Attorneys for Defendant City of San Diego