Anda di halaman 1dari 4

CASE 0:17-cv-04712-ADM-SER Document 3 Filed 10/17/17 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Osha Joseph, Case No. 17-cv-4712


Judge Ann D. Montgomery
Plaintiff

vs. DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO


PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT
Sgt. Bobby Donahue, Sgt. Tom Arnold,
Officer Mon Notthakun, and Officer [JURY TRIAL DEMANDED]
Marshall Titus, in their individual and
official capacities, as police officers for the
City of Saint Paul, and the City of Saint
Paul,

Defendants.

Defendants Sgt. Bobby Donahue, Sgt. Tom Arnold, Officer Mon Notthakun, and

Officer Marshall Titus and the City of Saint Paul (hereinafter the Defendants), as and

for their Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint, state and allege as follows:

1. Deny each and every allegation, matter and thing contained in said

Complaint except that to which is hereinafter admitted, qualified or

otherwise explained.

2. Admits paragraphs 4, 14, 15, and 16 of Plaintiffs Complaint. As to the

allegations contained in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Plaintiffs Complaint,

admit that the individual Defendants were sworn police officers employed

by the City of St. Paul, but deny the remaining allegations as constituting
CASE 0:17-cv-04712-ADM-SER Document 3 Filed 10/17/17 Page 2 of 4

Plaintiffs legal arguments and conclusions that do not require an answer in

this pleading.

3. As to the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs Complaint,

admit that on July 10, 2016, SPPD officers were attempting to locate a

GMC Yukon bearing license plate number 269 PGH and deny the

remaining allegation contained therein.

4. Deny paragraphs 10, 19 (sentence 4), 23 (sentence 4), 26, 27, 33 (sentence

3), 41, 42 (sentences 1 and 2), 43 (sentence 2), 46 (sentence 2), 47

(sentence 2), 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64,

65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, and 75 of Plaintiffs Complaint.

5. As to the allegations contained in paragraphs 3, 11, 12, 25, 29, 34 (last two

sentences), 36 (sentence 4), 40 and 45 (last sentence), these answering

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth thereof, and therefore deny the same to put Plaintiff to

his proof.

6. As to paragraph 17 through 49 of Plaintiffs Complaint, state that said

paragraphs reference the police squad video and state that said video speaks

for itself and that no further answer is required. Defendants further state

that Plaintiffs allegations contained in paragraph 17 through 49 constitute

an incomplete recitation of events depicted in said squad video. To the

extent that said paragraphs require an answer, Defendants deny all the

allegations contained in said paragraphs.

2
CASE 0:17-cv-04712-ADM-SER Document 3 Filed 10/17/17 Page 3 of 4

7. Regarding paragraphs 1, 2, 9, and 76 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendants

state that said paragraphs constitute Plaintiffs legal arguments and

conclusions and that said arguments and conclusions (wrong or right) do

not require an answer in this pleading. To the extent that said paragraphs

require an answer, Defendants denial of the allegations made therein.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

8. That Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of

qualified immunity.

9. That Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of

discretionary immunity, official immunity, vicarious official immunity,

statutory immunity and other defenses afforded to Defendants pursuant to

Chapter 466 of the Minnesota Statutes.

10. That Plaintiffs alleged injuries or damages were caused solely by reason of

Plaintiffs own wrongdoing or misconduct and not by reason of any alleged

unlawful acts or omissions by these answering Defendants. That all actions

taken by the answering Defendants were legally reasonable, proper and

necessary under the circumstances and authorized by the laws of the United

States and the State of Minnesota.

11. That even if Defendants are liable to Plaintiff under state law, Defendants

liability for compensatory damages is limited pursuant to Minn. Stat.

466.03, subd. 8 and 466.04, subd. 1(a).

3
CASE 0:17-cv-04712-ADM-SER Document 3 Filed 10/17/17 Page 4 of 4

12. That Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief

may be granted.

WHEREFORE, Defendants deny liability to the Plaintiff and pray that Plaintiff

take nothing against them by his pretended claim for relief herein, and that Plaintiffs

alleged cause of action be dismissed. Defendants demand judgment in their favor along

with their costs and disbursements incurred herein including attorneys fees pursuant to

Minn. Stat. 549.211.

Dated: October 16, 2017 SAMUEL J. CLARK


City Attorney

s/ Lawrence J. Hayes, Jr.


LAWRENCE J. HAYES, JR., #42821
Assistant City Attorney
750 City Hall and Courthouse
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Telephone: (651) 266-8728
Fax: (651) 266-8787
larry.hayes@ci.stpaul.mn.us
Attorneys for Defendants