• No results found

Case 6:14-cv AA Document 14 Filed 01/19/15 Page 1 of 5

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Case 6:14-cv AA Document 14 Filed 01/19/15 Page 1 of 5"

Copied!
5
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Robert S. Wagner, OSB #844115 Stan LeGore, OSB #943691 MILLER & WAGNER LLP

Trial Lawyers 2210 N.W. Flanders Street Portland, OR 97210-3408 Telephone: (503) 299-6116 Facsimile: (503) 299-6106 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

Of Attorneys for Defendant Mikkola

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PETER LICHTE, JARROD BOWERS and DANIEL KELLY,

Plaintiffs, v.

CITY OF WOODBURN, WOODBURN, POLICE CHIEF SCOTT RUSSELL; WOODBURN POLICE CAPTAIN JASON ALEXANDER; WOODBURN POLICE SGT. JOHN MIKKOLA; and MICHAEL

HEREFORD, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR; all by and through the Woodburn Police Department and Human Resources Department, City of Woodburn, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon; and John Does 1-10, unknown-named individuals, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 6:14-cv-01521-AA

DEFENDANT JOHN MIKKOLA’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

(2)

In answer to plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendant John Mikkola, for himself alone, admits, denies and alleges as follows:

1.

Admit jurisdiction and venue are proper based on plaintiffs allegations and claims.

2.

Incorporate by this reference the admissions in paragraphs 5 - 9 of DEFENDANTS CITY OF WOODBURN, SCOTT RUSSELL, JASON ALEXANDER AND MICHAEL

HEREFORD’S ANSWER.

3.

Admit the following: Defendant Mikkola was hired as a Patrol Officer by the City of Woodburn Police Department in approximately 1997. In 2008 defendant Mikkola was one of multiple officers who responded to a report of a suspicious package outside a bank in Woodburn. The package turned out to be a bomb, which detonated, killing two officers and severely injuring another. In 2009 defendant Mikkola was promoted to Sergeant. In March, 2010 defendant Mikkola was shot multiple times in the line of duty while attempting to apprehend a criminal suspect and was off work for an extended period as a result of his injuries. In November, 2011 defendant Mikkola was placed on administrative leave by the Woodburn Chief of Police. Although defendant Mikkola remained an employee of the City of Woodburn for an extended period of time thereafter, he never returned to work at the Woodburn Police Department, nor did he Page 2 - DEFENDANT JOHN MIKKOLA’S ANSWER TO

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

MILLER & WAGNERLLP

Trial Lawyers 2210 N.W. Flanders Street Portland, Oregon 97210-3408

(3)

perform the duties/functions of a Woodburn police officer and his employment relationship with the City eventually ended. To the extent any conduct by defendant Mikkola as alleged in the Complaint actually occurred, he was acting at all times within the course and scope of his employment with defendant City.

4.

Except as expressly admitted above, defendant Mikkola denies the remaining allegations of the Complaint either because they are untrue, and/or because they are inaccurate as phrased, and/or because he lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth, and/or because they are directed at other parties and/or because they are conclusions of law. Defendant Mikkola specifically denies each Claim for Relief alleged against him.

BY WAY OF FURTHER ANSWER AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, defendant Mikkola alleges:

5.

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations and/or statute of ultimate repose.

BY WAY OF FURTHER ANSWER AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, defendant Mikkola alleges:

6.

Plaintiffs’ state law claims are subject to the conditions, limitations and immunities contained in Oregon’s Tort Claims Act, including, but not limited to the

(4)

limitations period for commencing such claims, the tort claims notice period, and the cap/limitation on damages. ORS 30.265 et. seq.

BY WAY OF FURTHER ANSWER AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, defendant Mikkola alleges:

7.

Defendant Mikkola is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs’ federal law claims.

BY WAY OF FURTHER ANSWER AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, defendant Mikkola alleges:

8.

Defendant Mikkola is not a proper party on all or some of plaintiffs’ state law claims.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered plaintiffs’ Complaint, defendant Mikkola prays for judgment in his favor, to include an award of his costs, disbursements and attorney fees incurred herein pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 on the grounds that some or all of plaintiffs’ claims are frivolous.

Defendant Mikkola respectfully demands trial by jury. DATED this 19th day of January, 2015.

MILLER & WAGNER LLP

By: /s/ Robert S. Wagner Robert S. Wagner, OSB #844115 Stan LeGore, OSB #943691 Page 4 - DEFENDANT JOHN MIKKOLA’S ANSWER TO

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

MILLER & WAGNERLLP

Trial Lawyers 2210 N.W. Flanders Street Portland, Oregon 97210-3408

(5)

Of Attorneys for Def. Mikkola (503) 299-6116

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I served the foregoing DEFENDANT JOHN MIKKOLA’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT, on the following parties at the following addresses by notice of electronic filing using the CM/ECF system:

Jeffrey H. Boiler Attorney at Law P.O. Box 101 Vida, Oregon 97488 541-683-1901 jboiler@[email protected] Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs Karen M. Vickers Mersereau Shannon LLP 1 SW Columbia St., Suite 1600 Portland, Oregon 97258 503-226-6400, ext. 206 [email protected]

Of Attorneys for Woodburn Defendants DATED this 19th day of January, 2015.

/s/ Robert S. Wagner Robert S. Wagner, OSB #844115 Stan LeGore, OSB #943691 503-299-6116

References

Related documents

Partners are external actors or organizations (public or private) that are not included in the value chain’s core stages but occupy a critical role in the functioning of the business

We describe the concept of integrated collaborative reflection and implement a computer supported collaborative reflection system (CSCRS) as proof of this

Defendants Madison County, Dorning, Morrison, Johnson, Williams, and ACH were on notice that the above-described customs or policies regarding medical care for inmates were harmful

NON-SPORTING GROUP Loraine Boutwell Douglas A Johnson HERDING GROUP Sulie Greendale-Paveza Julie Felten NOHS BEST IN SHOW Janie M Bousek Jamie Hubbard NOHS SPORTING GROUP Douglas

Carbonyl gp Carbonyl gp present Ketone Test Ketones are present Aldehyde Test Aldehyde are absent Protein test (Buriet Test) 15%(approx.).. FeCl 3 Test

 MD5 Algorithm Descrip on with an example 

(a) Plaintiff, like all Class members, became an Amazon Prime Program Member during the period that the Terms and Conditions governing his Amazon Prime Program

As a result of each of Defendants’ knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of treble damages in an amount up to $1,500.00 for each and