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 NORTH HOLLYWOOD), responds to the Complaint of plaintiff, for themselves alone, and for no other defendant as follows: The

Complaint in the above matter being unverified, and pursuant to Section 431.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this answering defendant denies generally and specifically, each and every allegation of the plaintiffs Complaint, and denies that plaintiff suffered damages in any sum. /// AS A FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: The complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering -1Defendant, YMCA OF METROPOLITAN LOS ANGELES (erroneously sued as YMCA OF
McCune & Harber, LLP 400 Southt. Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 689-2500 Fax (213) 689-2501

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Plaintiff, v. xxxxxxxxxxxxx, a business entity form unknown and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive

Case No: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Trial Date: None

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
McCune & Harber, LLP 400 Southt. Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 689-2500 Fax (213) 689-2501

defendant. AS A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: At the time of the accident referred to in plaintiffs Complaint, the plaintiff was negligent or at fault and failed to use that degree of care and caution which a reasonably prudent person would have used under the same or similar circumstances; that plaintiffs negligence or fault must be compared with the negligence or fault of this defendant, as well as that of any other persons and parties, and that any award to the plaintiff must be reduced by the amount that the plaintiffs negligence or fault contributed to her injuries and damages.

AS A THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: At the time and place of the accident alleged in the plaintiffs Complaint, the plaintiff knew of the danger and risk incident to her activity, but nevertheless freely and voluntarily exposed herself to all risks of harm and thus assumed all risk of harm incidental thereto.

AS A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: The complaint is barred by the provisions of Section 340(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. /// /// AS A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

-2-

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
McCune & Harber, LLP 400 Southt. Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 689-2500 Fax (213) 689-2501

By the exercise of reasonable effort, plaintiff could have mitigated the amount of damages, if any there were, but plaintiff failed and refused, and continues to fail and refuse to exercise a reasonable effort to mitigate damages and therefore plaintiff is barred from seeking recovery of those damages.

AS A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: Plaintiff is estopped by her conduct to assert the allegations in the Complaint.

AS A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: The plaintiffs claim is barred by laches.

AS A EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: If defendants conduct is found to have been wrongful, which defendant has denied and continues to deny, then plaintiffs claim is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.

AS A NINTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: The alleged condition of the property set forth in plaintiffs complaint did not constitute a dangerous condition creating a substantial risk of injury, but rather, if any risk existed at all, it was merely a minor, trivial, or insignificant risk which did not create a dangerous condition of property and therefore this defendant is not liable for any of the alleged damages. /// AS A TENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: -3-

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
McCune & Harber, LLP 400 Southt. Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 689-2500 Fax (213) 689-2501

Neither this answering defendant nor any of its agents or employees created the alleged dangerous condition, if any, or had actual or constructive notice of such alleged dangerous condition, if any.

AS A ELEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: This answering defendant alleges that on or about September 27, 2001, for a good and valuable consideration, plaintiff duly executed and delivered to defendant a general release in writing, in which plaintiff released defendant from all liability to plaintiff for any and all claims of plaintiff against defendant, including the alleged causes of action set forth in the complaint, that existed at the date of execution of the release, or that might thereafter arise against defendant for, and on account of, any thing or things done by defendant prior to or after the date of execution of the release. A copy of the release, marked as Exhibit A, is attached and incorporated herein by reference.

WHEREFORE, this answering defendant prays that plaintiff take nothing by reason of her Complaint and that this answering defendant be given judgment for its costs of suit incurred herein, to be incurred, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

-4-