ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND DEMAND FOR JURY (C05-5575RBL) -

1

CHRISTIE LAW GROUP, PLLC 2100 WESTLAKE AVENUE N., SUITE 206

SEATTLE, WA 98109

206-957-9669

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DOUGLAS WOOD and SANDRA KARLSVIK,

husband and wife,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KITSAP COUNTY; WEST SOUND

NARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT TEAM;

OFFICER MATTHEW DOUGIL, WestNET);

GIG HARBOR POLICE DEPARTMENT

DETECTIVE JOHN DOE SCHUSTER

(WestNET) DETECTIVE JOHN HALSTED

(POULSBO POLICE DEPT, WestNET, Badge

#606); DETECTIVE G.R. MARS (WSP

STATEWIDE INCIDENT RESPONSE TEAM,

Badge #685); DETECTIVE JOHN DOE

WILSON and JOHN DOES 1-25

Defendants.

NO. C05-5575RBL

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

OF GIG HARBOR POLICE DEPARTMENT,

OFFICER MATTHEW DOUGIL,

DETECTIVE JOHN DOE SCHUSTER AND

DETECTIVE JOHN HALSTED TO

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR

DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY

The defendants Gig Harbor Police Department, Matthew Dougil, John Doe Schuster

and John Halsted answer the plaintiffs’ Complaint for Damages as follows:

1. Paragraph 1.1 states legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the 

Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 21 Filed 12/19/05 Page 1 of 10
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND DEMAND FOR JURY (C05-5575RBL) -

2

CHRISTIE LAW GROUP, PLLC 2100 WESTLAKE AVENUE N., SUITE 206

SEATTLE, WA 98109

206-957-9669

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

extent an answer is required, defendants admit this court has jurisdiction, but deny that

jurisdiction is pursuant to 28 USC 1332.

2. In answering paragraph 1.2 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendants admit that the 

warrant service and arrest of plaintiff occurred in Fox Island, Pierce County, Washington. The 

Gig Harbor Police Department is located in Pierce County, Washington. Office Matt Dougil

resides in Pierce County, Washington. Officer Schuster resides in Kitsap County, Washington.

Officer Halsted resides in Kitsap County, Washington. Except as so stated, defendants are 

without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in

said paragraph and therefore deny the same.

3. In answering paragraph 2.1 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendants are without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in said

paragraph and therefore deny the same.

4. In answering paragraph 2.2 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, Officer Matt Dougil is

employed by the Gig Harbor Police Department, Officer Dale Schuster is employed by the Port

Orchard Police Department, and Officer John Halsted is employed by the Poulsbo Police 

Department. Officers Dougil, Schuster and Halsted are or were assigned to the West Sound

Narcotic Enforcement Team (WestNET). Except as so stated, defendants are without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in said

paragraph and therefore deny the same.

5. In answering paragraph 2.3 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendants are without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and

therefore deny the same.

Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 21 Filed 12/19/05 Page 2 of 10
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND DEMAND FOR JURY (C05-5575RBL) -

3

CHRISTIE LAW GROUP, PLLC 2100 WESTLAKE AVENUE N., SUITE 206

SEATTLE, WA 98109

206-957-9669

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

6. In answering paragraph 2.4 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendants admit that

WestNET is a multi-jurisdictional drug task force. Defendants further assert that WestNET is not

an entity against which suit can be brought, and is not a proper defendant in this action.

7. Paragraph 2.5 of plaintiffs’ Complaint contains legal assertions to which no 

answer is required. To the extent an answer is required, defendants admit that officers Dougil,

Schuster and Halsted were among officers from several jurisdictions during the issuance of a

warrant and arrest of plaintiff Wood, and were acting within the course and scope of their

employment. Except as so stated, denied.

8. In answering paragraph 2.6 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendants deny.

9. In answering paragraph 2.7 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendants were acting 

pursuant to the WestNET Interlocal Agreement. Except as so stated, denied.

10. In answering paragraph 2.8 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendants deny the 

allegations in said paragraph.

11. In answering paragraph 3.1 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendants admit that on

September 5, 2002, several police officers, assisted by the Washington State Patrol Statewide 

Incident Response Team, served upon plaintiff a valid search warrant leading to plaintiff’s

arrest. Except as admitted, defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 3.1.

12. In answering paragraph 3.2 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendants admit the 

search of plaintiffs’ home was conducted pursuant to a search warrant obtained by a member

of WestNET and believed to be signed by Kitsap County Superior Court Judge Russell

Hartman. Except as admitted, defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 3.2.

Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 21 Filed 12/19/05 Page 3 of 10
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND DEMAND FOR JURY (C05-5575RBL) -

4

CHRISTIE LAW GROUP, PLLC 2100 WESTLAKE AVENUE N., SUITE 206

SEATTLE, WA 98109

206-957-9669

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

13. In answering paragraph 3.3 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendants deny the 

allegations in said paragraph.

14. In answering paragraph 3.4 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendants deny the 

allegations in said paragraph.

15. In answering paragraphs 3.5 through 3.7 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendants

admit upon information and belief that SIRT members encountered three large growling dogs

coming up the basement stairs as the team was descending them. Pepper balls were deployed

on the lead dog in order to deter its aggressive approach. The dog was struck in the head area 

and immediately fled the house with the other dogs following. Except as admitted, defendants

deny the allegations in paragraphs 3.5 through 3.7.

16. In answering paragraph 3.8 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendants admit that

pursuant to a valid search warrant, illegal drugs were located on plaintiffs’ property. Except as

admitted, defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 3.8.

17. In answering paragraph 3.9 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendants are without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as the truth of the allegations of said

paragraph and therefore deny the same.

18. In answering paragraphs 3.10 and 3.11 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendants

admit plaintiff presented a note written by his wife recommending his use of marijuana. Except

as admitted, defendants deny the allegations of paragraphs 3.10 and 3.11.

19. In answering paragraph 3.12 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendants admit plaintiff

was properly arrested and booked at the Pierce County Jail. Except as admitted, defendants

deny the allegations in paragraph 3.12.

Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 21 Filed 12/19/05 Page 4 of 10
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND DEMAND FOR JURY (C05-5575RBL) -

5

CHRISTIE LAW GROUP, PLLC 2100 WESTLAKE AVENUE N., SUITE 206

SEATTLE, WA 98109

206-957-9669

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

20. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 3.13 of plaintiffs’ Complaint.

21. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 3.14 of plaintiffs’ Complaint.

22. In answering paragraph 4.1 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendants reassert each

and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

23. In answering paragraph 4.2 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendants deny the 

allegations contained in said paragraph.

24. In answering paragraph 4.3 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendants admit that they

were acting lawfully and within the course of their respective employment. Except as admitted,

defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 4.3.

25. In answering paragraph 4.4 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendants deny the 

allegation contained in the stated paragraph.

26. In answering paragraph 4.5 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendants deny the 

allegations contained in said paragraph.

27. In answering paragraph 5.1 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendants deny the 

allegations contained in said paragraph.

28. In answering paragraph 5.2 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendants are without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in said

paragraph and therefore deny the same.

29. In answering paragraph 5.3 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendants are without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in said

paragraph and therefore deny the same.

Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 21 Filed 12/19/05 Page 5 of 10
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND DEMAND FOR JURY (C05-5575RBL) -

6

CHRISTIE LAW GROUP, PLLC 2100 WESTLAKE AVENUE N., SUITE 206

SEATTLE, WA 98109

206-957-9669

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

30. In answering paragraph 5.4 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendants deny the 

allegations in said paragraph.

31. In answering paragraph 5.5 of plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendants deny the 

allegations in said paragraph.

32. Defendants deny the allegations contained in the prayer for relief, subsections

(a) through (d).

FURTHER, AND BY WAY OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, defendants allege as follows:

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

The Complaint and each purported claim therein fail to state a claim against defendant

upon which relief can be granted.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

defendants.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by doctrines of qualified immunity or

immunity.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

All or some of plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, if any, may have been caused and/or

contributed to in whole or in part by the plaintiffs’ contributory or comparative fault or

negligence. The contributory fault or comparative fault chargeable to the plaintiffs bars

plaintiffs’ recovery or, in the alternative, diminishes proportionately the amount that can be 

Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 21 Filed 12/19/05 Page 6 of 10
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND DEMAND FOR JURY (C05-5575RBL) -

7

CHRISTIE LAW GROUP, PLLC 2100 WESTLAKE AVENUE N., SUITE 206

SEATTLE, WA 98109

206-957-9669

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

awarded as compensatory damages. Defendants are entitled to an apportionment of fault

under RCW 4.22.070.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred in whole or in part by plaintiffs’ own course of conduct.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of assumption of risk. Plaintiffs’ injuries and

damages, if any, arise out of conditions which plaintiffs had knowledge and to which plaintiffs

voluntarily subjected themselves through their actions.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

The defendants are entitled to a reduction in any damages that may be awarded against

them by virtue of, and to the full extent of, any failure by plaintiffs to mitigate damages.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Any claims that plaintiffs may assert against these defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

are frivolous, entitling defendants to an award of costs, including a reasonable attorney’s fee,

under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for having to defend against plaintiffs’ claim under this statute.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

The damages, if any, allegedly incurred by the plaintiffs are caused by the actions or

omissions of plaintiffs and/or others, and were not proximately caused by defendants.

Defendants are entitled to an apportionment of fault under RCW 4.22.070.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Plaintiffs’ claims, and/or some of them, may be barred by the applicable statutes of

limitations.

Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 21 Filed 12/19/05 Page 7 of 10
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND DEMAND FOR JURY (C05-5575RBL) -

8

CHRISTIE LAW GROUP, PLLC 2100 WESTLAKE AVENUE N., SUITE 206

SEATTLE, WA 98109

206-957-9669

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

If any loss or damage was suffered by plaintiffs, which defendants deny, then the loss or

damage may have been caused by or contributed to by the superseding, intervening, and

unexpected acts and conduct of other persons and parties, all of which bar the plaintiffs’ right

to recovery from defendants.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred in whole or in part by the public duty doctrine.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Some or all of plaintiffs’ claims in the complaint are barred against the defendants

because, pursuant to RCW 4.96.010 “[f]iling a claim for damages within the time allowed by

law shall be a condition precedent to the commencement of any action claiming damages,”

and the plaintiffs did not comply with RCW 4.96.010(1).

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Some or all of plaintiffs’ claims in the complaint are barred against defendants because 

plaintiffs did not comply with RCW 4.96.020, including RCW 4.96.020(2), (3) and (4).

Pursuant to RCW 4.96.020(4), “No action shall be commenced against any local government

entity for damages arising out of tortuous conduct until sixty days have elapsed after the claim

has first been presented to and filed with the governing body thereof.” This claim statute also 

requires such a filing to pursue claims against an employee.

WHEREFORE, having answered plaintiffs’ Complaint and asserted affirmative

defenses, defendants Gig Harbor Police Department, Matt Dougil, Dale Schuster and John

Halsted pray for relief as follows:

Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 21 Filed 12/19/05 Page 8 of 10
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND DEMAND FOR JURY (C05-5575RBL) -

9

CHRISTIE LAW GROUP, PLLC 2100 WESTLAKE AVENUE N., SUITE 206

SEATTLE, WA 98109

206-957-9669

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

1. That plaintiffs’ Complaint against defendants be dismissed with prejudice;

2. That plaintiffs recover nothing against these defendants on their claims;

3. That defendants be awarded their costs and disbursements herein, including

reasonable attorneys’ fees as available under applicable statutes and principles of law; and

4. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

DATED this 19th day of December, 2005.

CHRISTIE LAW GROUP, PLLC

By /s/ Robert L. Christie

ROBERT L. CHRISTIE, WSBA #10895

JASON M. ROSEN, WSBA #26550

Attorneys for Defendants Gig Harbor Police

Department, Officer Matthew Dougil,

Detective John Doe Schuster and

Detective John Halsted

2100 Westlake Avenue N., Suite 206

Seattle, WA 98109

Telephone: (206) 957-9669

Fax: (206) 352-7875

Email: bob@christielawgroup.com

Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 21 Filed 12/19/05 Page 9 of 10
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND DEMAND FOR JURY (C05-5575RBL) -

10

CHRISTIE LAW GROUP, PLLC 2100 WESTLAKE AVENUE N., SUITE 206

SEATTLE, WA 98109

206-957-9669

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on December 19, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing with

the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to 

the following:

Mark Leemon, WSBA #5005

LEEMON & ROYER PLLC

2505 Second Avenue, Suite 610

Seattle, WA 98121

leemon@leeroylaw.com

Ione S. George, WSBA #18236

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office

614 Division Street, MS-35A

Port Orchard, WA 98366-4676

CHRISTIE LAW GROUP, PLLC

By /s/ Robert L. Christie

ROBERT L. CHRISTIE, WSBA # 10895

JASON M. ROSEN, WSBA #26550

Attorneys for Defendants Gig Harbor Police

Department, Officer Matthew Dougil,

Detective John Doe Schuster and

Detective John Halsted

2100 Westlake Avenue N., Suite 206

Seattle, WA 98109

Telephone: (206) 957-9669

Fax: (206) 352-7875

Email: bob@christielawgroup.com

Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 21 Filed 12/19/05 Page 10 of 10