Preview
1 CHRISTOPHER J. DIAZ, Bar No. 235249
christopher.diaz@bbklaw.com
2 DENISE HANSEN, Bar No. 156363
denise.hansen@bbklaw.com
3 JOANNA GIN, Bar No. 323715
joanna.gin@bbklaw.com
4 ANDREW E. LOPEZ, Bar No. 337993
andrew.lopez@bbklaw.com
5 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
1333 N. California Blvd., Suite 220
6 Walnut Creek, California 94596
Telephone: (925) 977-3300
7 Facsimile: (925) 977-1870
8 Attorneys for Respondents
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO
9 COUNTY HEALTH, PUBLIC HEALTH, POLICY
AND PLANNING; PROGRAM MANAGER OF EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES PURSUANT
10 ANIMAL CONTROL AND LICENSING TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103
11
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1333 N. CALIFORNIA BLVD , SUITE 220
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596
12
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13
14
MAHMOOD PANJWANI, Case No. 23-CIV-04568
15
Petitioner, RESPONDENTS’ ANSWER TO
16 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
v. PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE
17 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO 1094.5, 1094.6 SEEKING JUDICIAL
18 COUNTY HEALTH, PUBLIC HEALTH, REVIEW OF DECISION OF LOCAL
POLICY AND PLANNING; PENINSULA ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY
19 HUMANE SOCIETY & SPCA
(“PHS/SPCA”); TOWN OF
20 HILLSBOROUGH; PROGRAM MANAGER [Deemed verified under Code Civ. Proc.,
OF ANIMAL CONTROL AND LICENSING, § 446.]
21
Respondent(s).
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
61236.06000\42190242.1
RESPONDENTS’ ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 RESPONDENTS’ ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
2 Respondents County of San Mateo, San Mateo County Public Health, Policy and Planning
3 and Program Manager of San Mateo County Animal Control and Licensing (“Respondents”)
4 answer the Petition for Writ of Mandate (“Petition”) filed by Mahmood Panjwani (“Petitioner”) as
5 follows:
6 RESPONSE TO GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
7 1. Answering Paragraph 1, Respondents are not required to answer as the Town of
8 Hillsborough (“Town”) lodged the administrative record (“Agency File”) with the Court on
9 March 21, 2024 pursuant to a minute order dated February 23, 2024. All relevant facts and
10 documents related to the administrative hearing will be contained in the Agency File, which will
11 speak for itself and will be the best evidence of all proceedings conducted regarding this matter.
1333 N. CALIFORNIA BLVD , SUITE 220
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596
12 2. Answering Paragraph 2, Respondents admit that Petitioner owns Timmy.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 Regarding the decision, San Mateo County Public Health, Policy and Planning admits that it issued
14 a decision on behalf of the Town after an administrative hearing was conducted affirming Timmy’s
15 designation as a “vicious animal” in accordance with Hillsborough Municipal Code section
16 6.04.010. Respondents admit that the PHS/SPCA designated that Timmy should be deemed a
17 “vicious animal.” Respondent Program Manager of San Mateo County Animal Control and
18 Licensing admits that she was required to be notified of Petitioner’s intent to file the Petition.
19 3. Answering Paragraph 3, Respondents admit that Timmy left Petitioner’s property
20 on February 25, 2024 and became at-large.
21 4. Answering Paragraph 4, Respondents admit Timmy bit another dog, Teddy, multiple
22 times (at least two and likely three times) that resulted in puncture wounds requiring stitches.
23 Respondents are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the
24 remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 4, and on that basis, deny the remaining allegations.
25 All relevant facts and documents related to the administrative hearing will be contained in the
26 Agency File, which will speak for itself.
27 5. Answering Paragraph 5, Respondents admit the PHS/SPCA designated Timmy a
28 “vicious animal” under Hillsborough Municipal Code section 6.04.010.
61236.06000\42190242.1
RESPONDENTS’ ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 6. Answering Paragraph 6, Respondents deny that the administrative hearing was
2 conducted on June 25, 2023 because the hearing was conducted on June 23, 2023. Respondents
3 admit that the hearing was conducted before Travis Kelly, Esq. to allow Petitioner to contest the
4 “vicious animal” designation. Respondents deny that Mr. Kelly is with San Mateo County Public
5 Health, Policy & Planning; Mr. Kelly was acting as an independent hearing officer on behalf of the
6 Town.
7 7. Answering Paragraph 7, Respondents deny that Mr. Kelly upheld the determination
8 that Timmy was a “vicious dog”; Mr. Kelly upheld the finding that Timmy was a “vicious animal.”
9 8. Answering Paragraph 8, Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or information to
10 form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, on that basis, deny each and
11 every allegation in Paragraph 8.
1333 N. CALIFORNIA BLVD , SUITE 220
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596
12 9. Answering Paragraph 9, Respondents lack sufficient information or belief to either
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 admit or deny the allegations of said Paragraph and, on that basis, deny each and every allegation
14 contained therein.
15 10. Answering Paragraph 10, Respondents admit that Teddy survived being bitten by
16 Timmy. All relevant facts related to the administrative hearing will be contained in the Agency
17 File.
18 11. Answering Paragraph 11, Respondents admit that no human beings were injured or
19 killed when Timmy bit Teddy.
20 12. Answering Paragraph 12, Respondents lack sufficient information or belief to either
21 admit or deny the allegations of said Paragraph and, on that basis, deny each and every allegation
22 contained therein. All relevant facts and documents related to the administrative hearing will be
23 contained in the Agency File, which will speak for itself and will be the best evidence of all
24 proceedings conducted regarding this matter.
25 RESPONSE TO BASIS FOR RELIEF
26 1. Answering Paragraph 1, the allegations of this Paragraph contain Petitioner’s legal
27 theories and conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent any response is required,
28 Respondents deny generally and specifically each and every allegation in Paragraph 1.
61236.06000\42190242.1 -3-
RESPONDENTS’ ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 2. Answering Paragraph 2, the allegations of this Paragraph contain Petitioner’s legal
2 theories and conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent any response is required,
3 Respondents deny generally and specifically each and every allegation in Paragraph 2.
4 3. Answering Paragraph 3, the allegations of this Paragraph contain Petitioner’s legal
5 theories and conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent any response is required,
6 Respondents deny generally and specifically each and every allegation in Paragraph 3.
7 RESPONSE TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF
8 1. Answering Prayer for Relief Paragraph 1, Paragraph 1 contains Petitioner’s prayer
9 for relief, to which no response is required. To the extent the prayer for relief requires an answer,
10 Respondents deny generally and specifically each and every allegation in Paragraph 1, and
11 affirmatively alleges that Petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.
1333 N. CALIFORNIA BLVD , SUITE 220
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596
12 2. Answering Prayer for Relief Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2 contains Petitioner’s prayer
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 for relief, to which no response is required. To the extent the prayer for relief requires an answer,
14 Respondents deny generally and specifically each and every allegation in Paragraph 2, and
15 affirmatively alleges that Petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.
16 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
17 Respondents submit the following separate and independent affirmative defenses to the
18 Petition, and each and every claim therein, without assuming or undertaking any burden or burdens
19 of proof not otherwise assigned to it by law and without admitting any allegations of the Petition.
20 Respondents are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief, allege as follows:
21 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 (Failure to State a Claim)
23 1. As a first separate affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim
24 therein, Respondents allege that the Petition, and each claim asserted therein, fails to state facts to
25 support any claim upon which relief can be granted. California Food and Agricultural Code
26 section 31683 provides that state law does not prevent the Town “from adopting or enforcing its
27 own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs” and allows the Town to
28 “impose a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs.”
61236.06000\42190242.1 -4-
RESPONDENTS’ ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Reasonable Conduct)
3 2. As a second separate affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim
4 therein, Respondents allege that the Petition, and each claim asserted therein, fails because where
5 applicable, Respondents acted in an objectively reasonably fashion given the totality of the
6 circumstances.
7 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 (Unclean Hands)
9 3. As a third separate affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim
10 therein, Respondents allege that the Petition fails due to the equitable doctrine of unclean hands.
11 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
1333 N. CALIFORNIA BLVD , SUITE 220
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596
12 (Waiver)
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 4. As a fourth affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein, the
14 Petition fails because Petitioner is not entitled to relief against Respondents as sought by the
15 Petition to the extent Petitioner’s claims are barred by the equitable doctrine of waiver.
16 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (Estoppel)
18 5. As a fifth affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein,
19 Petitioner is not entitled to relief against Respondents as sought by the Petition to the extent
20 Petitioner’s claims are barred by the equitable doctrine of estoppel.
21 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 (Qualified Immunity)
23 6. As a sixth affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein,
24 individual government officials are shielded from liability based on the doctrine of “qualified
25 immunity.” Ogborn v. City of Lancaster (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 448, 458.
26
27
28
61236.06000\42190242.1 -5-
RESPONDENTS’ ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Acts in Accordance With Law and Substantial Evidence)
3 7. As a seventh affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein,
4 Respondents allege with respect to all actions referred to in the Petition, that Respondents
5 proceeded in the manner required by law; did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or wholly without
6 evidentiary support; did not abuse their discretion; and made all required findings, which supported
7 Respondents’ actions and were supported by substantial evidence.
8 RESPONDENTS’ PRAYER FOR RELIEF
9 WHEREFORE, Respondents pray that:
10 1. Petitioner takes nothing by the Petition;
11 2. This Court deny Petitioner’s request for a writ of mandamus;
1333 N. CALIFORNIA BLVD , SUITE 220
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596
12 3. This Court deny every and all relief prayed for by Petitioner;
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 4. This Court deny the Petition in its entirety, with prejudice;
14 5. That Respondents be awarded costs of suit and attorneys’ fees incurred in defense
15 of this action, and any and all costs and fees, including attorneys’ fees, associated with preparation
16 of the administrative record; and
17 6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
18
19 Dated: April 10, 2024 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
20
21 By:
22 CHRISTOPHER J. DIAZ
DENISE HANSEN
23 JOANNA GIN
ANDREW E. LOPEZ
24 Attorneys for Respondents
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, SAN
25 MATEO COUNTY HEALTH, PUBLIC
HEALTH, POLICY AND PLANNING;
26 PROGRAM MANAGER OF ANIMAL
CONTROL AND LICENSING
27
28
61236.06000\42190242.1 -6-
RESPONDENTS’ ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I, Pamela Crawford, declare:
I am a citizen of the United States and employed in San Bernardino County, California. I
3 am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business
4 address is 2855 East Guasti Road, Ontario, California 91761. On April 10, 2024, I served a copy
of the within document(s):
5
RESPONDENTS’ ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF
6 MANDATE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE SECTION 1094.5, 1094.6 SEEKING JUDICIAL
7 REVIEW OF DECISION OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY
8
9 by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon
fully prepaid, the United States mail at Ontario, California addressed as set forth
below.
10
11
1333 N. CALIFORNIA BLVD , SUITE 220
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596
12 Michael H. Porrazzo Attorney for Petitioner
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
The Porrazzo Law Firm MAHMOOD PANJWANI
13 30212 Tomas, Suite 365
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
14
mhporrazzo@porrazzolaw.com
15
16 I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence
for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same
17 day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on
motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage
18 meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
20 is true and correct.
Executed on April 10, 2024, at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
21
22
23
24 Pamela Crawford
25
26
27
28
61236.06000\42190242.1
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
1 CHRISTOPHER J. DIAZ, Bar No. 235249 christopher.diaz@bbklaw.com 2 DENISE HANSEN, Bar No. 156363 denise.hansen@bbklaw.com 3 JOANNA GIN, Bar No. 323715 joanna.gin@bbklaw.com 4 ANDREW E. LOPEZ, Bar No. 337993 andrew.lopez@bbklaw.com 5 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 1333 N. California Blvd., Suite 220 6 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Telephone: (925) 977-3300 7 Facsimile: (925) 977-1870 8 Attorneys for Respondents COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO 9 COUNTY HEALTH, PUBLIC HEALTH, POLICY AND PLANNING; PROGRAM MANAGER OF EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES PURSUANT 10 ANIMAL CONTROL AND LICENSING TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1333 N. CALIFORNIA BLVD , SUITE 220 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 12 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 14 MAHMOOD PANJWANI, Case No. 23-CIV-04568 15 Petitioner, RESPONDENTS’ ANSWER TO 16 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE v. PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE 17 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO 1094.5, 1094.6 SEEKING JUDICIAL 18 COUNTY HEALTH, PUBLIC HEALTH, REVIEW OF DECISION OF LOCAL POLICY AND PLANNING; PENINSULA ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY 19 HUMANE SOCIETY & SPCA (“PHS/SPCA”); TOWN OF 20 HILLSBOROUGH; PROGRAM MANAGER [Deemed verified under Code Civ. Proc., OF ANIMAL CONTROL AND LICENSING, § 446.] 21 Respondent(s). 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 61236.06000\42190242.1 RESPONDENTS’ ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 RESPONDENTS’ ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 2 Respondents County of San Mateo, San Mateo County Public Health, Policy and Planning 3 and Program Manager of San Mateo County Animal Control and Licensing (“Respondents”) 4 answer the Petition for Writ of Mandate (“Petition”) filed by Mahmood Panjwani (“Petitioner”) as 5 follows: 6 RESPONSE TO GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 7 1. Answering Paragraph 1, Respondents are not required to answer as the Town of 8 Hillsborough (“Town”) lodged the administrative record (“Agency File”) with the Court on 9 March 21, 2024 pursuant to a minute order dated February 23, 2024. All relevant facts and 10 documents related to the administrative hearing will be contained in the Agency File, which will 11 speak for itself and will be the best evidence of all proceedings conducted regarding this matter. 1333 N. CALIFORNIA BLVD , SUITE 220 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 12 2. Answering Paragraph 2, Respondents admit that Petitioner owns Timmy. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 Regarding the decision, San Mateo County Public Health, Policy and Planning admits that it issued 14 a decision on behalf of the Town after an administrative hearing was conducted affirming Timmy’s 15 designation as a “vicious animal” in accordance with Hillsborough Municipal Code section 16 6.04.010. Respondents admit that the PHS/SPCA designated that Timmy should be deemed a 17 “vicious animal.” Respondent Program Manager of San Mateo County Animal Control and 18 Licensing admits that she was required to be notified of Petitioner’s intent to file the Petition. 19 3. Answering Paragraph 3, Respondents admit that Timmy left Petitioner’s property 20 on February 25, 2024 and became at-large. 21 4. Answering Paragraph 4, Respondents admit Timmy bit another dog, Teddy, multiple 22 times (at least two and likely three times) that resulted in puncture wounds requiring stitches. 23 Respondents are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the 24 remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 4, and on that basis, deny the remaining allegations. 25 All relevant facts and documents related to the administrative hearing will be contained in the 26 Agency File, which will speak for itself. 27 5. Answering Paragraph 5, Respondents admit the PHS/SPCA designated Timmy a 28 “vicious animal” under Hillsborough Municipal Code section 6.04.010. 61236.06000\42190242.1 RESPONDENTS’ ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 6. Answering Paragraph 6, Respondents deny that the administrative hearing was 2 conducted on June 25, 2023 because the hearing was conducted on June 23, 2023. Respondents 3 admit that the hearing was conducted before Travis Kelly, Esq. to allow Petitioner to contest the 4 “vicious animal” designation. Respondents deny that Mr. Kelly is with San Mateo County Public 5 Health, Policy & Planning; Mr. Kelly was acting as an independent hearing officer on behalf of the 6 Town. 7 7. Answering Paragraph 7, Respondents deny that Mr. Kelly upheld the determination 8 that Timmy was a “vicious dog”; Mr. Kelly upheld the finding that Timmy was a “vicious animal.” 9 8. Answering Paragraph 8, Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or information to 10 form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, on that basis, deny each and 11 every allegation in Paragraph 8. 1333 N. CALIFORNIA BLVD , SUITE 220 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 12 9. Answering Paragraph 9, Respondents lack sufficient information or belief to either ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 admit or deny the allegations of said Paragraph and, on that basis, deny each and every allegation 14 contained therein. 15 10. Answering Paragraph 10, Respondents admit that Teddy survived being bitten by 16 Timmy. All relevant facts related to the administrative hearing will be contained in the Agency 17 File. 18 11. Answering Paragraph 11, Respondents admit that no human beings were injured or 19 killed when Timmy bit Teddy. 20 12. Answering Paragraph 12, Respondents lack sufficient information or belief to either 21 admit or deny the allegations of said Paragraph and, on that basis, deny each and every allegation 22 contained therein. All relevant facts and documents related to the administrative hearing will be 23 contained in the Agency File, which will speak for itself and will be the best evidence of all 24 proceedings conducted regarding this matter. 25 RESPONSE TO BASIS FOR RELIEF 26 1. Answering Paragraph 1, the allegations of this Paragraph contain Petitioner’s legal 27 theories and conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent any response is required, 28 Respondents deny generally and specifically each and every allegation in Paragraph 1. 61236.06000\42190242.1 -3- RESPONDENTS’ ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2. Answering Paragraph 2, the allegations of this Paragraph contain Petitioner’s legal 2 theories and conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent any response is required, 3 Respondents deny generally and specifically each and every allegation in Paragraph 2. 4 3. Answering Paragraph 3, the allegations of this Paragraph contain Petitioner’s legal 5 theories and conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent any response is required, 6 Respondents deny generally and specifically each and every allegation in Paragraph 3. 7 RESPONSE TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF 8 1. Answering Prayer for Relief Paragraph 1, Paragraph 1 contains Petitioner’s prayer 9 for relief, to which no response is required. To the extent the prayer for relief requires an answer, 10 Respondents deny generally and specifically each and every allegation in Paragraph 1, and 11 affirmatively alleges that Petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. 1333 N. CALIFORNIA BLVD , SUITE 220 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 12 2. Answering Prayer for Relief Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2 contains Petitioner’s prayer ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 for relief, to which no response is required. To the extent the prayer for relief requires an answer, 14 Respondents deny generally and specifically each and every allegation in Paragraph 2, and 15 affirmatively alleges that Petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. 16 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 17 Respondents submit the following separate and independent affirmative defenses to the 18 Petition, and each and every claim therein, without assuming or undertaking any burden or burdens 19 of proof not otherwise assigned to it by law and without admitting any allegations of the Petition. 20 Respondents are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief, allege as follows: 21 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 (Failure to State a Claim) 23 1. As a first separate affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim 24 therein, Respondents allege that the Petition, and each claim asserted therein, fails to state facts to 25 support any claim upon which relief can be granted. California Food and Agricultural Code 26 section 31683 provides that state law does not prevent the Town “from adopting or enforcing its 27 own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs” and allows the Town to 28 “impose a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs.” 61236.06000\42190242.1 -4- RESPONDENTS’ ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Reasonable Conduct) 3 2. As a second separate affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim 4 therein, Respondents allege that the Petition, and each claim asserted therein, fails because where 5 applicable, Respondents acted in an objectively reasonably fashion given the totality of the 6 circumstances. 7 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 (Unclean Hands) 9 3. As a third separate affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim 10 therein, Respondents allege that the Petition fails due to the equitable doctrine of unclean hands. 11 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 1333 N. CALIFORNIA BLVD , SUITE 220 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 12 (Waiver) ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 4. As a fourth affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein, the 14 Petition fails because Petitioner is not entitled to relief against Respondents as sought by the 15 Petition to the extent Petitioner’s claims are barred by the equitable doctrine of waiver. 16 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (Estoppel) 18 5. As a fifth affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein, 19 Petitioner is not entitled to relief against Respondents as sought by the Petition to the extent 20 Petitioner’s claims are barred by the equitable doctrine of estoppel. 21 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 (Qualified Immunity) 23 6. As a sixth affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein, 24 individual government officials are shielded from liability based on the doctrine of “qualified 25 immunity.” Ogborn v. City of Lancaster (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 448, 458. 26 27 28 61236.06000\42190242.1 -5- RESPONDENTS’ ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Acts in Accordance With Law and Substantial Evidence) 3 7. As a seventh affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein, 4 Respondents allege with respect to all actions referred to in the Petition, that Respondents 5 proceeded in the manner required by law; did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or wholly without 6 evidentiary support; did not abuse their discretion; and made all required findings, which supported 7 Respondents’ actions and were supported by substantial evidence. 8 RESPONDENTS’ PRAYER FOR RELIEF 9 WHEREFORE, Respondents pray that: 10 1. Petitioner takes nothing by the Petition; 11 2. This Court deny Petitioner’s request for a writ of mandamus; 1333 N. CALIFORNIA BLVD , SUITE 220 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 12 3. This Court deny every and all relief prayed for by Petitioner; ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 4. This Court deny the Petition in its entirety, with prejudice; 14 5. That Respondents be awarded costs of suit and attorneys’ fees incurred in defense 15 of this action, and any and all costs and fees, including attorneys’ fees, associated with preparation 16 of the administrative record; and 17 6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 18 19 Dated: April 10, 2024 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 20 21 By: 22 CHRISTOPHER J. DIAZ DENISE HANSEN 23 JOANNA GIN ANDREW E. LOPEZ 24 Attorneys for Respondents COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, SAN 25 MATEO COUNTY HEALTH, PUBLIC HEALTH, POLICY AND PLANNING; 26 PROGRAM MANAGER OF ANIMAL CONTROL AND LICENSING 27 28 61236.06000\42190242.1 -6- RESPONDENTS’ ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I, Pamela Crawford, declare: I am a citizen of the United States and employed in San Bernardino County, California. I 3 am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business 4 address is 2855 East Guasti Road, Ontario, California 91761. On April 10, 2024, I served a copy of the within document(s): 5 RESPONDENTS’ ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF 6 MANDATE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1094.5, 1094.6 SEEKING JUDICIAL 7 REVIEW OF DECISION OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY 8 9 by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, the United States mail at Ontario, California addressed as set forth below. 10 11 1333 N. CALIFORNIA BLVD , SUITE 220 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 12 Michael H. Porrazzo Attorney for Petitioner ATTORNEYS AT LAW The Porrazzo Law Firm MAHMOOD PANJWANI 13 30212 Tomas, Suite 365 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 14 mhporrazzo@porrazzolaw.com 15 16 I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same 17 day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage 18 meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above 20 is true and correct. Executed on April 10, 2024, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. 21 22 23 24 Pamela Crawford 25 26 27 28 61236.06000\42190242.1 PROOF OF SERVICE