Here's something you might be interested in.
Just four days removed from office, former Mayor Bob Filner and City Attorney Jan Goldsmith had crafted their response to claims set against him by former communications director, Irene McCormack Jackson.
On July 22, McCormack Jackson appeared before a crowded room of journalists alongside famed attorney Gloria Allred to announce that she was suing the then mayor for sexual harassment. She claimed that her boss made inappropriate comments -- read: sans-panties -- and unwarranted advances on her during work.
On September 3 Filner and his new set of lawyers -- read:City Attorney Jan Goldsmith's Office -- answered the allegations, more like, blatantly denied them having ever occurred.
Those answers appear in a court document filed with the Superior Court on September 3 and posted today on September 11.
The document is short and to the point and suggests that Filner did nothing wrong. The answer claims that it was actually McCormack Jackson who was the one to make matters worse by filing the lawsuit and going public with her allegations.
Here is the answer in it's entirety:
Defendant Bob Filner ("Defendant") hereby provides the following answer to Plaintiff Irene McCormack Jackson's ("Plaintiff') unverified Complaint on file herein as follows: Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), Defendant generally denies each and every allegation of the Complaint. Also, as separate, distinct, and affirmative defenses to the allegations in the Complaint, Defendant alleges as follows:
The facts alleged in the Complaint, and each cause of action therein, fail to state a cause of action against Defendant.
Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of sexual harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act or Title VII.
Plaintiff was not subjected to unwelcome, harassing conduct by Defendant based on her gender or sex.
The harassing conduct alleged by Plaintiff was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of Plaintiffs employment at the City and create a hostile or abusive work environment on the basis of sex.
Plaintiffs work environment at the City was not objectively and subjectively hostile or abusive on the basis of sex.
Defendant had legitimate, nondiscriminatory, non-retaliatory reasons for his acts and/or omissions in regard to Plaintiff.
Defendant acted in good faith, without malice, and with a reasonable belief that his conduct was lawful, welcome, and/or consensual at all relevant times.
Defendant's act and/or omissions with respect to Plaintiff were without any harassing, discriminatory, or retaliatory intent, purpose, or motive.
Defendant's conduct in connection with all matters alleged in the Complaint was reasonable, lawful, and consistent with community standards; Plaintiff's conduct was unreasonable.
Plaintiff unreasonably failed to use the preventive and corrective measures that the City of San Diego provided; such use would have prevented some or all of Plaintiff's harm, if any.
Plaintiff failed to avail herself of the protections offered by the City of San Diego; Plaintiff failed to utilize and exhaust the City of San Diego's internal grievance and/or complaint procedures and remedies.
Plaintiff failed to comply with the claims presentation requirements and the requirements pertaining to commencement of civil actions against Defendant, a City employee, as set forth in the Government Code.
Plaintiff is barred from recovery by non-compliance with the Government Code, in that the allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint herein were not described in any Government Claims Act claim Plaintiff timely filed with the City of San Diego.
Plaintiff is barred from recovery by non-compliance with the Government Code, in that the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint herein were not described in any charge Plaintiff timely filed with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies prior to bringing suit.
Plaintiff failed to pursue and exhaust her judicial remedies.
Plaintiff's claims, or some of them, are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.
Plaintiff's claims, or some of them, are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
Plaintiff's claims, or some of them, are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Plaintiff's claims, or some of them, are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act.
Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of laches.
Plaintiff has waived some or all of her claims.
Plaintiff has released some or all of her claims.
Defendant is immune from liability, in whole or in part, by virtue of the statutory immunities set forth in the Government Claims Act, including, but not limited to, Government Code sections 820, 820.2, 820.4, 820.6, 820.8, 820.9, 821, 821.6, and 822.2.
Plaintiff has not sustained injury or damage due to any act or omission of Defendant.
Plaintiffs injury and/or damage, if any, was proximately and substantially caused or contributed to, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff and/or third parties.
Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her injuries or damages, if any.
Plaintiff's conduct has exacerbated her injuries or damages, if any.
Plaintiff cannot establish through clear and convincing evidence that Defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, so as to allow Plaintiff to recover punitive or exemplary damages against Defendant.
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays as follows: 1. That Plaintiff takes nothing by way of her action; 2. That Defendant be dismissed and awarded his costs of suit; and 3. That Defendant be awarded such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Just four days removed from office, former Mayor Bob Filner and City Attorney Jan Goldsmith had crafted their response to claims set against him by former communications director, Irene McCormack Jackson.
On July 22, McCormack Jackson appeared before a crowded room of journalists alongside famed attorney Gloria Allred to announce that she was suing the then mayor for sexual harassment. She claimed that her boss made inappropriate comments -- read: sans-panties -- and unwarranted advances on her during work.
On September 3 Filner and his new set of lawyers -- read:City Attorney Jan Goldsmith's Office -- answered the allegations, more like, blatantly denied them having ever occurred.
Those answers appear in a court document filed with the Superior Court on September 3 and posted today on September 11.
The document is short and to the point and suggests that Filner did nothing wrong. The answer claims that it was actually McCormack Jackson who was the one to make matters worse by filing the lawsuit and going public with her allegations.
Here is the answer in it's entirety:
Defendant Bob Filner ("Defendant") hereby provides the following answer to Plaintiff Irene McCormack Jackson's ("Plaintiff') unverified Complaint on file herein as follows: Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), Defendant generally denies each and every allegation of the Complaint. Also, as separate, distinct, and affirmative defenses to the allegations in the Complaint, Defendant alleges as follows:
The facts alleged in the Complaint, and each cause of action therein, fail to state a cause of action against Defendant.
Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of sexual harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act or Title VII.
Plaintiff was not subjected to unwelcome, harassing conduct by Defendant based on her gender or sex.
The harassing conduct alleged by Plaintiff was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of Plaintiffs employment at the City and create a hostile or abusive work environment on the basis of sex.
Plaintiffs work environment at the City was not objectively and subjectively hostile or abusive on the basis of sex.
Defendant had legitimate, nondiscriminatory, non-retaliatory reasons for his acts and/or omissions in regard to Plaintiff.
Defendant acted in good faith, without malice, and with a reasonable belief that his conduct was lawful, welcome, and/or consensual at all relevant times.
Defendant's act and/or omissions with respect to Plaintiff were without any harassing, discriminatory, or retaliatory intent, purpose, or motive.
Defendant's conduct in connection with all matters alleged in the Complaint was reasonable, lawful, and consistent with community standards; Plaintiff's conduct was unreasonable.
Plaintiff unreasonably failed to use the preventive and corrective measures that the City of San Diego provided; such use would have prevented some or all of Plaintiff's harm, if any.
Plaintiff failed to avail herself of the protections offered by the City of San Diego; Plaintiff failed to utilize and exhaust the City of San Diego's internal grievance and/or complaint procedures and remedies.
Plaintiff failed to comply with the claims presentation requirements and the requirements pertaining to commencement of civil actions against Defendant, a City employee, as set forth in the Government Code.
Plaintiff is barred from recovery by non-compliance with the Government Code, in that the allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint herein were not described in any Government Claims Act claim Plaintiff timely filed with the City of San Diego.
Plaintiff is barred from recovery by non-compliance with the Government Code, in that the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint herein were not described in any charge Plaintiff timely filed with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies prior to bringing suit.
Plaintiff failed to pursue and exhaust her judicial remedies.
Plaintiff's claims, or some of them, are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.
Plaintiff's claims, or some of them, are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
Plaintiff's claims, or some of them, are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Plaintiff's claims, or some of them, are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act.
Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of laches.
Plaintiff has waived some or all of her claims.
Plaintiff has released some or all of her claims.
Defendant is immune from liability, in whole or in part, by virtue of the statutory immunities set forth in the Government Claims Act, including, but not limited to, Government Code sections 820, 820.2, 820.4, 820.6, 820.8, 820.9, 821, 821.6, and 822.2.
Plaintiff has not sustained injury or damage due to any act or omission of Defendant.
Plaintiffs injury and/or damage, if any, was proximately and substantially caused or contributed to, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff and/or third parties.
Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her injuries or damages, if any.
Plaintiff's conduct has exacerbated her injuries or damages, if any.
Plaintiff cannot establish through clear and convincing evidence that Defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, so as to allow Plaintiff to recover punitive or exemplary damages against Defendant.
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays as follows: 1. That Plaintiff takes nothing by way of her action; 2. That Defendant be dismissed and awarded his costs of suit; and 3. That Defendant be awarded such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
That is something defense attorneys always do, make a list of every possible denial that exists and put it a declaration. Just standard procedure in these situations. Somehow the legal profession gets to call their documentation "briefs", which is really hilarious, because they churn out pages and pages of blather that really says little or nothing. Want a "brief" statement? It would read: "defendant denies all allegations and points out that plaintiff failed to perform the simplest required remedial steps."
This is called due process. This why we all put our hands on our hearts and proudly swear the pledge of allegiance "with liberty and justice for all".
The City is obliged to defend every man or woman who puts everything they have on the line in public service. The City Attorney understand this. It would have done no less for him if he needed it.
Thank God for America. Let this be a lesson to those who screamed that Mayor Filner "got all the process he was due" in an open-air kangaroo trial by press conference.
WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE OF UNCLEAN HANDS?
Oh shucks, I remember that from business law. It is a doctrine that if you come to court asking for some sort of injunctive relief, you cannot get it if you are engaging in questionable or illegal activity of your own. In old-fashioned parlance, your "hands must be clean" before you can get a judicial order for the other party to cease and desist. IOW, no "pixxing contests" will be considered.
Well, shoot. That's a reasonable and sensible thing. It sounded so...outre.
I think it's in a famous Italian movie about corrupt city councilmen who allow shoddy buildings to be developed that collapse onto little people in the neighborhood. At the court inquiry into the matter, everybody shouts "Clean hands, clean hands!"They are lying like rugs."Unclean hands" is the opposite.
Unverified complaint -General denial.
So why would anyone expect anything different?
The Code of Civil Procedure allows the defendant to specifically and generally deny each and every allegation in the Complaint in the Answer where the Complaint is unverified.
The news here is that the City Attorney will formerly represent Filner. That was part of the resignation deal in the Mediation.
But claiming that filing a General Denial really is a denial is based on a misunderstanding of civil procedure.
Diogenes: I presume that you mean 'formally' represent and not 'formerly'? It is good to read the plain documents of due process, however boilerplate they may be.
The affirmative defenses are somewhat interesting. I wonder what proof there might be of any of them.
IANAL, I just have a terminal degree in art, so I don't know what to expect. Please go a bit further and explain why Allred would file an unverified complaint and only one for McCormack Jackson and not the other accusers she sat next to for the news cameras. Does it have anything to do with leaving the 25 fill-in-the-blank DOES she wants to go after (Filner's police detail or other witnesses who haven't come forward to corroborate the alleged events)? When does Filner's defense respond to the specific accusations in the complaint? Does this set up Filner for a counter suit for defamation or whatever? Thanks for the free legal advice, which anybody who wants a life in public service hopes they'll never need.
Rehft: I think they usually put in a bunch of Does, just in case.
Does are unnamed defendants. Their true names and the nature of their defendantship (role) must be unknown at the time plaintiff filed her lawsuit.
Discovery is the phase of the civil lawsuit where written questions may be submitted by a party to be answered under oath; Demands for Production of Documents; or Depositions before. Certified shorthand reporter (CSR or court reporter) may be taken.
The remedy for false and malicious lawsuits is limited to lawsuits for malicious prosecution. Filing a lawsuit is not defamation, slander or libel.
Unless the lawsuit was filed without probable cause and maliciously, the politician has little recourse.
Thanks, Diogenes. I take it then that pre-trial discovery will limit and define the accusations. What I meant by countersuit was probably misuse of a legal term. I was asking if the discovery process can be used to uncover the "unclean hands" and perhaps trace the course of the chain reaction which became news at the Briggs/Gonzalez/Frye pressers. The connection between their motivation/intent and the alleged victim's is lost in the conspiracy-theory murk that got stirred up when Gloria Allred burst upon the scene and took this (and only this) to the next level. (I say burst because the long timeline of Filner's career takes a fast turn with the pressers, news stories, filing of harassment claims according to City and legal policy, and the filing of the suit.)
Thanks for providing the doc. "You don't know a woman until you've met her in court.” - Norman Mailer
Irene likes this. Though her tweets are locked, we know she likes it thanks to her UT friend Karen.
If you didn't like Bob Filner's behavior, you will really HATE Norman Mailer: he stabbed people. An unfortunate juxtaposition.
Monaghan: No doubt Mailer was sincere and quite right not to relish meeting his women in a courtroom. Perhaps that was the only place where they could get a word in edgewise.
Monaghan: perhaps Jane Austen might be better. "Seldom, very seldom, does complete truth belong to any human disclosure; seldom can it happen that something is not a little disguised, or a little mistaken."
No I never hated him. The Millet-style feminism was misguided. There's a weft of that legacy in this warp.
Honest: I haven't seen any of that here. Mostly, just plain lemmings following the leaders, who were motivated, one suspects, by the simple principle that Filner was a bother...either to their status or to their plans.
Millet-legacy feminism: Ellen Pao's sexual harassment suit against her senior partner for giving her Leonard Cohen's Book of Longing. Pao recently joined Reddit, especially to discuss pareidolia. How perfect is that? Lawsuit unsettled to date.
Mailer was never, to my knowledge, sued for harassment. His contentious experiences with women in court involved money, marriage, and divorce.
Honest: is the judge reading the poems to decide? I guess giving a book of poetry is culturally tantamount to bringing roses or candy. I confess I have never read Millet's "Sexual Politics".
I don't know if the judge will be a kid my age, but on reading about the accusers and their accusations, we Boomers, educated by the Golden Age of Television and on the streets for a chain of liberation movements, may see this less as a case striking a blow for gender equality and more like a refresh of the pioneering reality show, Queen for a Day. Sorry to bring down the level of intellectual discourse, but the Filner morality play is hardly Austen, more Dickens than Nathaniel Hawthorne, and mostly "media." Tune in next week, maybe the worm will turn (Shakespeare, for those who used to love PBS).
rehft:
There is a problem with casting it as Dickens: the wealth of characters available to play Uriah Heep. How do we choose amongst so many excellent contenders?
I am sorry but these are grown women who should have stood up to Filner and documented the allegations.
Can someone explain to me how suing for monetary gain is going to change anything other than bank account balances.
While the allegations are reprehensible, so are all of the alleged damages!!!!
"Plaintiff unreasonably failed to use the preventive and corrective measures that the City of San Diego provided; such use would have prevented some or all of Plaintiff's harm, if any."
Bottom line: This is a ridiculous lawsuit by one individual against a ridiculous alleged act of another. The real injured parties are the City and tax payers of San Diego.
We have waited for a single shred of admissible evidence for this suit. It was run like a circus sideshow, where the next freak came forward before the first could be examined closely. Can they really depose Filner without signing their allegations?
Yes.
99% of lawsuits are unverified.
Lawsuits are subscribed by a party or the attorney for the party. Then depositions are noticed. There is no requirement for swearing out the allegations. In fact, amendments might be made to conform to discovery. Verification of initial pleadings makes that more difficult.
If you want a TRO or an injunction you could verify a complaint, otherwise, no. The better practice is not to verify under state practice.
You are cited in the LA Times, Dorian. "the document, first revealed by reporter Dorian Hargrove in the San Diego Reader"