LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP

Lake Merritt Plaza

1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2600

Oakland, CA 94612 - 3541

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

31208-45806 MML 684220.1 1

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK

MATTHEW S. CONANT, SBN 94920

msc@llcllp.com

MARIA M. LAMPASONA, SBN 259675

mlampasona@llcllp.com

ALEXEI N. OFFILL-KLEIN, SBN 288448

aoffillklein@llcllp.com

LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP

Lake Merritt Plaza

1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2600

Oakland, CA 94612-3541

Telephone: (510) 433-2600

Facsimile: (510) 433-2699

Attorneys for Defendants FORTY NINERS 

FOOTBALL COMPANY LLC, FORTY NINERS 

SC STADIUM COMPANY LLC, FORTY 

NINERS STADIUM MANAGEMENT 

COMPANY LLC, CITY OF SANTA CLARA, 

SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ABDUL NEVAREZ, PRISCILLA 

NEVAREZ, and SEBASTIAN 

DEFRANCESCO, on behalf of themselves 

and all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

FORTY NINERS FOOTBALL 

COMPANY, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:16-cv-07013-LHK

DEFENDANTS FORTY NINERS FOOTBALL 

COMPANY LLC, FORTY NINERS SC 

STADIUM COMPANY LLC, FORTY NINERS 

STADIUM MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC, 

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, AND SANTA 

CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY’S ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

Defendants FORTY NINERS FOOTBALL COMPANY LLC, FORTY NINERS SC 

STADIUM COMPANY LLC, FORTY NINERS STADIUM MANAGEMENT COMPANY 

LLC, CITY OF SANTA CLARA, and SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY

(“defendants”) answer the Third Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs ABDUL NEVAREZ, 

PRISCILLA NEVAREZ, and SEBASTIAN DEFRANCESCO (“plaintiffs”) as follows:

/ / /
LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP

Lake Merritt Plaza

1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2600

Oakland, CA 94612 - 3541

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

31208-45806 MML 684220.1 2

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph one and on that basis deny them.

2. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph two and on that basis deny them.

3. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph three.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. Defendants admit that federal question jurisdiction is proper based on the 

allegations of the Complaint.

5. Defendants admit that venue is proper based on the allegations of the Complaint.

6. Defendants admit that venue is proper based on the allegations of the Complaint.

III. PARTIES

7. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph seven and on that basis deny them.

8. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph eight and on that basis deny them.

9. Defendants deny all of the allegations in paragraph nine except as expressly 

admitted herein. Defendants admit that Santa Clara Stadium Authority owns Levi’s Stadium, 

located at 4900 Marie P. DeBartolo Way in Santa Clara, California, and admit that City of Santa 

Clara owns the real property on which the Stadium is located. Defendants contend that Forty 

Niners Stadium Management Company LLC manages and operates the stadium on behalf of 

Santa Clara Stadium Authority. Defendants contend that the City of Santa Clara leases the real 

property, not the Stadium, to the Santa Clara Stadium Authority.

10. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph ten and on that basis deny them.

11. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph eleven and on that basis deny them.

12. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph twelve.
LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP

Lake Merritt Plaza

1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2600

Oakland, CA 94612 - 3541

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

31208-45806 MML 684220.1 3

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

13. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph thirteen, and on that basis deny them, except that defendants admit that 

the Stadium is a “public accommodation” as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. 12181(7), and a 

“business establishment” as that term is defined in the Unruh Civil Rights Act. 

14. Defendants admit that the Stadium was constructed after March 15, 2012, but are 

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

paragraph fourteen, and on that basis deny them. 

15. Defendants deny all of the allegations contained in paragraph fifteen, except that 

defendants admit that multiple parking lots are offered in the City of Santa Clara. 

16. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph sixteen.

17. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph seventeen.

18. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph eighteen.

19. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph nineteen.

20. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph twenty beginning with “Plaintiff” and ending with “two years,” and on 

that basis deny them. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph twenty.

21. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph twenty-one beginning with “Plaintiff” and ending with “her husband Mr. 

Nevarez,” and on that basis deny them. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 

twenty-one.

22. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph twenty-two, and on that basis deny them.

23. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph twenty-three, and on that basis deny them.

24. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph twenty-four, and on that basis deny them.

25. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph twenty-five beginning with “The 
LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP

Lake Merritt Plaza

1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2600

Oakland, CA 94612 - 3541

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

31208-45806 MML 684220.1 4

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK

Stadium had” and ending with “are located.” Defendants are without sufficient information to 

form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph twenty-five, and on that 

basis deny them.

26. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph twenty-six, and on that basis deny them.

27. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph twenty-seven, and on that basis deny them.

28. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph twenty-eight, and on that basis deny them.

29. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph twenty-nine, and on that basis deny them.

30. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph thirty, and on that basis deny them.

31. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph thirty-one, and on that basis deny them.

32. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph thirty-two, and on that basis deny them.

33. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations in paragraph thirty-three, and on that basis deny them.

34. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph thirty-four beginning with “On or about” and ended with 

“Ticketmaster.com website for the event,” and on that basis deny them. Defendants deny the 

remaining allegations in paragraph thirty-four.

35. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph thirty-five, and on that basis deny them.

36. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph thirty-six, and on that basis deny them.

37. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 
LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP

Lake Merritt Plaza

1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2600

Oakland, CA 94612 - 3541

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

31208-45806 MML 684220.1 5

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK

allegations in paragraph thirty-seven, and on that basis deny them.

38. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph thirty-eight, and on that basis deny them.

39. Defendants deny that the allegations in paragraph thirty-nine beginning with “Gate 

entries” and ending with “for a wheelchair.” Defendants are without sufficient information to 

form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph thirty-nine, and on that basis 

deny them,

40. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph forty, and on that basis deny them.

41. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph forty-one, and on that basis deny them.

42. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph forty-two that “the elevator” was 

“still not marked/signed appropriately.” Defendants are without sufficient information to form a 

belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph forty-two, and on that basis deny 

them.

43. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph forty-three, and on that basis deny them.

44. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph forty-four, and on that basis deny them.

45. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph forty-five, and on that basis deny them.

46. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph forty-six, and on that basis deny them.

47. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph forty-seven, and on that basis deny them.

48. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph forty-eight, and on that basis deny them.

49. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 
LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP

Lake Merritt Plaza

1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2600

Oakland, CA 94612 - 3541

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

31208-45806 MML 684220.1 6

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK

allegations in paragraph forty-nine, and on that basis deny them.

50. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph fifty, and on that basis deny them.

51. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph fifty-one.

52. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph fifty-two.

53. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph fifty-three beginning with “Plaintiff” 

and ending with “through Stadium doorways.” Defendants are without sufficient information to 

form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph fifty-three, and on that basis 

deny them.

54. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph fifty-four.

55. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph fifty-five.

56. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph fifty-six.

57. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph fifty-seven, and on that basis deny them.

58. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph fifty-eight.

59. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph fifty-nine, and on that basis deny them.

60. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph sixty, and on that basis deny them.

61. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph sixty-one, and on that basis deny them.

V. CLASS ALLEGATIONS

62. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph sixty-two, and deny that plaintiffs 

are entitled to class certification.

63. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph sixty-three, and deny that plaintiffs 

are entitled to class certification.

64. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph sixty-four, and deny that plaintiffs 

are entitled to class certification.
LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP

Lake Merritt Plaza

1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2600

Oakland, CA 94612 - 3541

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

31208-45806 MML 684220.1 7

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK

65. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph sixty-five, and deny that plaintiffs 

are entitled to class certification.

66. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph sixty-six, and deny that plaintiffs are 

entitled to class certification.

67. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph sixty-seven, and deny that plaintiffs 

are entitled to class certification.

68. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph sixty-eight, and deny that plaintiffs 

are entitled to class certification.

69. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph sixty-nine, and deny that plaintiffs 

are entitled to class certification.

70. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph seventy, and deny that plaintiffs are 

entitled to class certification.

71. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph seventy-one, and deny that plaintiffs 

are entitled to class certification.

72. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph seventy-two, and deny that plaintiffs 

are entitled to class certification.

73. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph seventy-three, and deny that 

plaintiffs are entitled to class certification.

74. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph seventy-four, and deny that plaintiffs 

are entitled to class certification.

75. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph seventy-five, and deny that plaintiffs 

are entitled to class certification.

FIRST CLAIM

VIOLATION OF THE ADA, TITLE III

(Against all Defendants except the City of Santa Clara and the Santa Clara Stadium 

Authority)

Defendants Santa Clara Stadium Authority and City of Santa Clara state no answer or 

defense to the first claim in the Complaint, as the first claim does not allege a claim for relief 
LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP

Lake Merritt Plaza

1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2600

Oakland, CA 94612 - 3541

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

31208-45806 MML 684220.1 8

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK

against said defendants.

76. Defendants Forty Niners Football Company LLC, Forty Niners SC Stadium 

Company LLC, and Forty Niners Stadium Management Company LLC (“Forty Niners 

Defendants”) incorporate their responses to the allegations contained in paragraphs one through 

seventy-five above in answer to the allegations contained in paragraph seventy-six.

77. Forty Niners Defendants contend that paragraph seventy-seven inaccurately cite

the current iteration of the statute, but do not otherwise admit or deny this legal conclusion, to 

which no response is necessary. 

78. Forty Niners Defendants contend that no response to the legal conclusion in 

paragraph seventy-eight is necessary. 

79. Forty Niners Defendants admit that the Stadium constitutes a “public 

accommodation” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7), but deny the remaining allegations in 

paragraph seventy-nine.

80. Forty Niners Defendants do not admit or deny the legal conclusion beginning with 

“The ADA states that” and ending with “if such methods are readily achievable,” for which no 

response is necessary, but deny the allegations in paragraph eighty beginning with “The acts and 

omissions” and ending with “28 CFR Part 36 et seq.”

81. Forty Niners Defendants admit that the Stadium was constructed after January 26, 

1993. Forty Niners Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth 

of the remaining allegations in paragraph eighty-one, and on that basis deny them, aside from the 

allegation beginning with “Here, Defendants violated” and ending with “to do so,” which 

allegation Forty Niners Defendants specifically deny.

82. Forty Niners Defendants do not admit or deny the legal conclusion in paragraph 82 

beginning with “The ADA” and ending with “alter their nature,” to which no response is required. 

Defendants deny the allegations beginning with “Here, Defendants violated” and ending “with 

mobility disabilities.” 

83. Forty Niners Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph eighty-three.

84. Forty Niners Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph eighty-four.
LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP

Lake Merritt Plaza

1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2600

Oakland, CA 94612 - 3541

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

31208-45806 MML 684220.1 9

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK

85. Forty Niners Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph eighty-five.

86. Forty Niners Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph eighty-six.

SECOND CLAIM

VIOLATION OF THE ADA, TITLE II

(42 U.S.C. § 12201, et seq.)

(Against the City of Santa Clara and the Santa Clara Stadium Authority)

Forty Niners Defendants state no answer or defense to the second claim in the Complaint, 

as it does not allege a claim for relief against said defendants.

87. Defendants City of Santa Clara and Santa Clara Stadium Authority (“Santa Clara 

Defendants”) incorporate their responses to the allegations contained in paragraphs one through 

eighty-six above in answer to the allegations contained in paragraph eighty-seven.

88. The allegations contained in paragraph eighty-eight are conclusions of law to 

which no response is required.

89. Santa Clara Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph eighty-nine, and on that basis deny them.

90. Santa Clara Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph ninety, and on that basis deny them.

91. Santa Clara Defendants admit that some portions of the premises owned, operated, 

or administered by said defendants may fall within the purview of the 2010 ADA Accessibility 

Standards. Santa Clara Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph ninety-one.

92. Santa Clara Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph ninety-two.

93. Santa Clara Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph ninety-three.

94. Santa Clara Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph ninety-four.

95. Santa Clara Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph ninety-five.

THIRD CLAIM

VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

(Cal. Civil Code § 51, et seq.)

(Against all Defendants)
LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP

Lake Merritt Plaza

1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2600

Oakland, CA 94612 - 3541

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

31208-45806 MML 684220.1 10

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK

96. Defendants incorporate their responses to the allegations contained in paragraphs 

one through ninety-five above in answer to the allegations contained in paragraph ninety-six.

97. The allegations contained in paragraph ninety-seven are conclusions of law to 

which no response is required.

98. Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in paragraph ninety-eight, and on that basis deny them.

99. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph ninety-nine.

100. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph one hundred.

101. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph one hundred and one.

102. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph one hundred and two.

103. In response to paragraph 103, defendants deny that improvement was legally

required. To the extent it was required, defendants deny that the features, policies, and 

procedures have not improved.

104. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph one hundred and four.

105. The allegations contained in paragraph one hundred and five are conclusions of 

law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, defendants deny the 

allegations.

106. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph one hundred and six.

107. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph one hundred and seven.

108. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph one hundred and eight.

109. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph one hundred and nine.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (hereinafter “Complaint”), and each cause of 

action and discrete claim therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a claim for relief 

against defendants.

2. Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages.

3. Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.

4. Each cause of action is barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of 
LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP

Lake Merritt Plaza

1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2600

Oakland, CA 94612 - 3541

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

31208-45806 MML 684220.1 11

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK

limitations.

5. Plaintiffs’ injuries were proximately caused and contributed to, in whole or in part, 

by his or her acts or omissions. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ recovery from defendants, if any, should 

be reduced in proportion to the percentage of Plaintiff’s negligence, legal responsibility, or 

proportion of fault.

6. Plaintiffs’ injuries, if any, were proximately caused and contributed to, in whole or 

in part, by an intervening or superseding cause. The damages, if any, recoverable by Plaintiffs

herein must be diminished in proportion to the fault attributable to said intervening or superseding 

cause.

7. Plaintiffs’ injures, if any, were proximately caused and contributed to, in whole or 

in part, by other defendants or parties. 

8. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is barred in that defendants’ actions were a just and proper 

exercise of management discretion, undertaken for a fair and honest reason regulated by good 

faith under the circumstances then existing.

9. The removal of barriers Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint is not “readily 

achievable” as defined in 42 USC §12181.

10. The remedies for the barriers of which Plaintiffs complain are unduly burdensome,

structurally impracticable, could not have been made without substantial and unreasonable 

alterations, and the alterations sought would be disproportionate to the cost of the overall 

alteration.

11. The complained-of eligibility criteria were necessary for the provision of the 

goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations being offered and/or were 

legitimate safety requirements necessary for purposes of safety based on actual risk. 28 C.F.R. § 

36.301.

12. Plaintiffs’ proposed modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the 

goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations. 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(a).

13. Defendants adequately provided access to Plaintiffs through readily achievable 

“alternative methods.”
LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP

Lake Merritt Plaza

1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2600

Oakland, CA 94612 - 3541

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

31208-45806 MML 684220.1 12

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK

14. Plaintiffs were reasonably accommodated to the extent required by applicable laws 

and regulations, and the Stadium’s specifications provided “substantially equivalent or greater 

access to and usability of the facility.” ADAAG § 2.2.

15. Plaintiffs’ claims are completely or partially barred because all actions and 

conduct by defendants and their agents or employees were justified and subject to immunities, 

including but not limited to the immunities arising under the United States Constitution and 

federal law, immunities arising under the California Constitution and California law, immunities 

arising under California Civil Code § 47 and immunities arising under California Government 

Code § 810, et seq., including immunities arising under California Government Code §§ 815, 

815.2, 818, 818.2, 818.8, 820.2, 820.4, 820.6, 820.8, 821, 821.2, 821.6 and 822.2.

16. Plaintiffs’ claims fail because plaintiffs have failed to join necessary and 

indispensable parties and / or because necessary and indispensable parties are not and cannot be 

parties to this lawsuit following the Court’s ruling on the Motion to Compel Arbitration. 

17. Plaintiffs lack standing.

18. Plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred to the extent the alleged conduct took place 

outside the applicable limitations period. 

19. The claims made by Plaintiffs and members of the purported class on whose behalf 

they purport to sue are precluded because the alleged conduct would have affected, if anyone,

only an insubstantial number of putative class members. 

20. The purported class cannot be certified because the purported class, class 

representatives, and/or class counsel fail to meet the typicality, commonality, adequacy, 

superiority, and predominance requirements for class actions. 

Defendants reserve the right to allege additional affirmative defenses as they become 

known during discovery and to amend their answer accordingly.

WHEREFORE, defendants pray for judgment as follows:

1. In favor of defendants on all causes of action in the Complaint;

2. For defendants’ cost of suit incurred herein, including attorney’s fees;

3. For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP

Lake Merritt Plaza

1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2600

Oakland, CA 94612 - 3541

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

31208-45806 MML 684220.1 13

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK

Dated: September 1, 2017

LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP

By: /s/ Maria M. Lampasona

MARIA M. LAMPASONA