HomeMy WebLinkAbout20260123_Answer Filed- Laurel Creek and Patrick Smith_City v Smith
1
Verified Answer to Verified Complaint
25CV-0667
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
Robert A. Curtis, SBN 203870
Kevin D. Gamarnik, SBN 273445
Jordan A. Liebman, SBN 317930
FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
15 W. Carrillo Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 962-9495
Facsimile: (805) 962-0722
Email: rcurtis@foleybezek.com
kgamarnik@foleybezek.com
liebman@foleybezek.com
Attorneys for Laurel Creek, LP, Laurel Creek II, LP
1160 Laurel Lane, LLC, Patrick N. Smith, and
Patrick N. Smith, as trustee of the Patrick N. Smith
2004 Living Trust
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, EX REL, J. CHRISTINE
DIETRICK, CITY ATTORNEY OF THE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO; and,
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a
California municipal corporation,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
LAUREL CREEK, LP, a California Limited
Partnership; LAUREL CREEK, II, L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership; 1160 LAUREL
LANE, LLC, a California limited liability
company; PATRICK N. SMITH a/k/a
PATRICK SMITH, an individual; SMITH
AND COMPANY, A REAL ESTATE
INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, a California corporation;
PATRICK N. SMITH a/k/a PATRICK
SMITH, AS TRUSTEE OF THE PATRICK N
SMITH 2004 LIVING TRUST; CPIF
CALIFORNIA LLC, a California limited
liability company; CPIF LAUREL CREEK,
Case No. 25CV-0667
Assigned to the Honorable Tana Coates
VERIFIED ANSWER TO VERIFIED
COMPLAINT
Complaint filed on October 16, 2025
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
1/23/2026 4:17 PM
2
Verified Answer to Verified Complaint
25CV-0667
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
LLC, a Washington limited liability company;
ALL WALL SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; AMERICAN RIVIERA BANK, a
California corporation; ARNOLD BUILDERS,
INC., a California corporation; B & B
CONSTRUCTION CLEANUP INC., a
California corporation BLUE STEEL
CONCRETE, LLC, a California limited liability
company; COAST ENGINEERING &
DESIGN INC., a California corporation;
CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL
DISTRIBUTORS, INC., d/b/a CALIFORNIA
ELECTRICAL SUPPLY, a Delaware
corporation; CULBERT PLUMBING INC.,
F/K/A CULBERT CONSTRUCTION AND
PLUMBING, INC., a California stock
corporation; EMPIRE ELECTRICAL
SOLUTIONS, INC., a California corporation;
FAMCON PIPE & SUPPLY, INC., a California
corporation; G W SURFACES, a California
corporation; HOMER T. HAYWARD
LUMBER CO., a California corporation; KIRK
CONSTRUCTION, a California corporation;
LC LENDERS, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; LW CONSTRUCTION,
INC., a California corporation; MAHOGANY
CONSTRUCTION, INC., a California
corporation; NOLAN CHURCH DOING
BUSINESS AS COLORTRENDS PAINTING
& DECORATING, a California sole ownership
or proprietor business; THE SHERWIN-
WILLIAMS COMPANY, an Ohio corporation;
UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA)
INC., a Delaware corporation; US AIR
CONDITIONING DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and,
DOES 1-50, inclusive
Defendants.
3
Verified Answer to Verified Complaint
25CV-0667
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
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.10, et seq., defendants Laurel Creek,
L.P.; Laurel Creek II, L.P.; 1160 Laurel Lane, LLC, Patrick N. Smith, Patrick N. Smith, as trustee of the
Patrick N. Smith 2004 Living Trust (collectively, “LC Defendants”) answer the Verified Complaint
(“Complaint”) of The People of the State of California, Ex Rel., J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney of
the City of San Luis Obispo and The City of Sant Luis Obispo ("Plaintiffs"). The LC Defendants admit,
deny, and allege as follows:
Summary
1. Answering paragraph 1, the LC Defendants admit that Plaintiffs have filed a Complaint
for Nuisance Abatement, Violation of State Health & Safety Laws, Unfair Business Practices and
Receivership but deny the remaining allegations contained therein.
2. Answering paragraph 2, the LC Defendants admit that Plaintiffs seek nuisance
abatement, injunctive relief, the appointment of a receiver and other remedies of law but deny the
remaining allegations contained therein.
Parties
3. Answering paragraph 3, the LC Defendants admit that Plaintiffs admit that the action is
being brought in through the city attorney of the city in which the property at issue exists but deny the
remaining allegations contained therein.
4. Answering paragraph 4, the LC Defendants admit this allegation.
5. Answering paragraph 5, the LC Defendants admit this allegation.
6. Answering paragraph 6, the LC Defendants admit this allegation.
7. Answering paragraph 7, the LC Defendants admit this allegation.
8. Answering paragraph 8, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
9. Answering paragraph 9, the LC Defendants admit Defendant Patrick N. Smith is an
Manager of Defendants 1160 Lauren Lane, LLC, Laurel Creek LP and Laurel Creek II LP but deny the
remaining allegations contained therein.
10. Answering paragraph 10, the LC Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
4
Verified Answer to Verified Complaint
25CV-0667
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
11. Answering paragraph 11, the LC Defendants admit Defendant Patrick N. Smith is the
trustee of the Patrick N. Smith 2004 Living Trust and that he acts on behalf of and directs the actions of
the Trust but deny the remaining allegations contained therein.
12. Answering paragraph 12, the LC Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
13. Answering paragraph 13, the LC Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
14. Answering paragraph 14, the LC Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
15. Answering paragraph 15, the LC Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
16. Answering paragraph 16, the LC Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
17. Answering paragraph 17, the LC Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
18. Answering paragraph 18, the LC Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
19. Answering paragraph 19, the LC Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
///
5
Verified Answer to Verified Complaint
25CV-0667
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
20. Answering paragraph 20, the LC Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
21. Answering paragraph 21, the LC Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
22. Answering paragraph 22, the LC Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
23. Answering paragraph 23, the LC Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
24. Answering paragraph 24, Cross-Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to
form a belief concerning the truth of the factual allegations contained therein and, on that basis, denies
such allegations.
25. Answering paragraph 25, the LC Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
26. Answering paragraph 26, the LC Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
27. Answering paragraph 27, the LC Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
28. Answering paragraph 28, the LC Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
6
Verified Answer to Verified Complaint
25CV-0667
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
29. Answering paragraph 29, the LC Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
30. Answering paragraph 30, the LC Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
31. Answering paragraph 31, the LC Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
32. Answering paragraph 32, the LC Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
33. Answering paragraph 33, the LC Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
34. Answering paragraph 34, the LC Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
35. Answering paragraph 35, the LC Defendants categorically deny such allegations.
Facts
36. Answering paragraph 36, the LC Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to
all previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
37. Answering paragraph 37, the LC Defendants admit such allegation.
38. Answering paragraph 38, the LC Defendants admit such allegations.
39. Answering paragraph 39, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
40. Answering paragraph 40, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
41. Answering paragraph 41, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
7
Verified Answer to Verified Complaint
25CV-0667
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
42. Answering paragraph 42, the LC Defendants admit that these referenced Notice of
Violations were issued but deny the remaining allegations contained therein.
43. Answering paragraph 43, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
44. Answering paragraph 44, the LC Defendants admit the issuance of the TCOs referenced
therein and that some were extended but deny the remaining allegations contained therein.
45. Answering paragraph 45, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
46. Answering paragraph 46, the LC Defendants admit the issuance of the March 10, 2025
Notice of Violation and that the NOV allowed warehousing activity to remain but deny the remaining
allegations contained therein.
47. Answering paragraph 47, the LC Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
48. Answering paragraph 48, the LC Defendants admit such allegation.
49. Answering paragraph 49, the LC Defendants admit such allegation.
50. Answering paragraph 50, the LC Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
51. Answering paragraph 51, the LC Defendants admit that on May 5, 2025, the CBOA held a
formal public hearing, that the CBOA voted unanimously to deny the appeal, and upheld the NOV and
the violations but deny the remaining allegations contained therein.
52. Answering paragraph 52, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
53. Answering paragraph 53, the LC Defendants admit that certain permits issued before the
CBOA Resolution had expired but deny the remaining allegations contained therein.
54. Answering paragraph 54, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
55. Answering paragraph 55, the LC Defendants admit that on September 2, 2025, the City
issued a Notice and Order to Repair or Abate on the subject property but deny the remaining allegations
contained therein.
56. Answering paragraph 56, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
8
Verified Answer to Verified Complaint
25CV-0667
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
57. Answering paragraph 57, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
58. Answering paragraph 58, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
59. Answering paragraph 59, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
60. Answering paragraph 60, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
61. Answering paragraph 61, the LC Defendants admit that on September 2, 2025, the Notice
and Order to Repair or Abate was posted on the property and that the Notice and Order to Repair and
Abate was received by mail but deny the remaining allegations contained therein.
62. Answering paragraph 62, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
63. Answering paragraph 63, the LC Defendants admit that on September 8, 2025, the City
recorded a Notice of Pendency of Nuisance Abatement Action on title to the subject property but deny
the remaining allegations contained therein.
64. Answering paragraph 64, the LC Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
65. Answering paragraph 65, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
66. Answering paragraph 66, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
67. Answering paragraph 67, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
First Cause of Action
68. Answering paragraph 68, the LC Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to
all previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
69. Answering paragraph 69, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
70. Answering paragraph 70, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
71. Answering paragraph 71, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
72. Answering paragraph 72, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
73. Answering paragraph 73, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
74. Answering paragraph 74, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
75. Answering paragraph 75, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
///
9
Verified Answer to Verified Complaint
25CV-0667
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
Second Cause of Action
76. Answering paragraph 76, the LC Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to
all previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
77. Answering paragraph 77, the LC Defendants admit the authority that the Plaintiffs cited
is the authority that Plaintiffs appear to rely upon but deny its applicability to the LC Defendants.
78. Answering paragraph 78, the LC Defendants admit that summary of Civil Code section
3479 contained in this paragraph is an accurate statement of the law but deny its applicability to the LC
Defendants.
79. Answering paragraph 79, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
80. Answering paragraph 80, the LC Defendants admit that summary of Civil Code section
3480 contained in this paragraph is an accurate statement of the law but deny its applicability to the LC
Defendants.
81. Answering paragraph 81, the LC Defendants admit that summary of SLOMC 1.12.070
and 1.24.040 contained in this paragraph is an accurate statement of the law but deny its applicability to
the LC Defendants.
82. Answering paragraph 82, the LC Defendants admit that summary of SLOMC 1.12.090
contained in this paragraph is an accurate statement of the law but deny its applicability to the LC
Defendants.
83. Answering paragraph 83, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
84. Answering paragraph 84, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
85. Answering paragraph 85, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
86. Answering paragraph 86, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
87. Answering paragraph 87, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
88. Answering paragraph 88, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
89. Answering paragraph 89, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
90. Answering paragraph 90, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
91. Answering paragraph 91, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
92. Answering paragraph 92, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
10
Verified Answer to Verified Complaint
25CV-0667
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
93. Answering paragraph 93, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
94. Answering paragraph 94, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
95. Answering paragraph 95, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
96. Answering paragraph 96, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
97. Answering paragraph 97, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
98. Answering paragraph 98, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
99. Answering paragraph 99, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
100. Answering paragraph 100, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
101. Answering paragraph 101, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
102. Answering paragraph 102, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
Third Cause of Action
103. Answering paragraph 103, the LC Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to
all previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
104. Answering paragraph 104, the LC Defendants admit the authority that the Plaintiffs cited
is the authority that Plaintiffs appear to rely upon but deny its applicability to the LC Defendants.
105. Answering paragraph 105, the LC Defendants admit that summary of SLOMC 1.12.070
and 1.24.040 contained in this paragraph is an accurate statement of the law but deny its applicability to
the LC Defendants.
106. Answering paragraph 106, the LC Defendants admit that summary of SLOMC 1.12.090
contained in this paragraph is an accurate statement of the law but deny its applicability to the LC
Defendants.
107. Answering paragraph 107, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
108. Answering paragraph 108, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
109. Answering paragraph 109, the LC Defendants admit that summary of SLOMC 15.2.130
contained in this paragraph is an accurate statement of the law but deny its applicability to the LC
Defendants.
///
11
Verified Answer to Verified Complaint
25CV-0667
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
110. Answering paragraph 110, the LC Defendants admit that summary of SLOMC 17.76.060
contained in this paragraph is an accurate statement of the law but deny its applicability to the LC
Defendants.
111. Answering paragraph 111, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
112. Answering paragraph 112, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
113. Answering paragraph 113, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
114. Answering paragraph 114, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
115. Answering paragraph 115, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
116. Answering paragraph 116, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
Fourth Cause of Action
117. Answering paragraph 117, the LC Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to
all previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
118. Answering paragraph 118, the LC Defendants admit that summary of B&P Code section
17200 contained in this paragraph is an accurate statement of the law but deny its applicability to the LC
Defendants.
119. Answering paragraph 119, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
120. Answering paragraph 120, the LC Defendants admit that summary of B&P Code section
17203 contained in this paragraph is an accurate statement of the law but deny its applicability to the LC
Defendants.
121. Answering paragraph 121, the LC Defendants admit that summary of B&P Code section
17205 contained in this paragraph is an accurate statement of the law but deny its applicability to the LC
Defendants.
122. Answering paragraph 122, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
123. Answering paragraph 123, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
124. Answering paragraph 124, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
125. Answering paragraph 125, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
126. Answering paragraph 126, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
127. Answering paragraph 127, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
12
Verified Answer to Verified Complaint
25CV-0667
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
128. Answering paragraph 128, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
129. Answering paragraph 129, the LC Defendants deny such allegations.
Prayer for Relief
The LC defendants completely and categorically deny all paragraphs and subparagraphs of the
Prayer for Relief.
Affirmative Defenses
The LC Defendants plead the following separate defenses. The LC Defendants reserve the right
to assert additional affirmative defenses that discovery indicates are proper.
First Defense — Failure to State a Claim
1. As a separate and affirmative defense, the LC Defendants allege that the Verified
Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the LC Defendants on any
cognizable legal theory, whether plead in the Verified Complaint or otherwise.
Second Defense —Complainant’s Breach
2. As a separate and affirmative defense, the LC Defendants allege that the Complainant
breached its agreements with the LC Defendants and thereby relieved the LC Defendants from any
liability for performing under any of the LC Defendants alleged obligations.
Third Defense — Unclean Hands
3. As a separate and affirmative defense, the LC Defendants allege that Complainant’s
claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands. Complainant should not be
permitted to recover the relief it seeks, or any relief whatsoever, because Complainant has engaged in
wrongful and inequitable conduct related to the present controversy.
Fourth Defense — Waiver
4. As a separate and affirmative defense, the LC Defendants allege that Complainant has
waived its right to assert the claims in its Verified Complaint.
Fifth Defense — Estoppel
5. As a separate and affirmative defense, the LC Defendants allege that Complainant is
estopped from asserting the claims in its Verified Complaint.
///
13
Verified Answer to Verified Complaint
25CV-0667
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
Sixth Defense — Excuse of Performance
6. As a separate and affirmative defense, the LC Defendants allege that the LC Defendants'
performance, as alleged in the Verified Complaint, was excused by Complainant’s acts.
Seventh Defense — Bad Faith
7. As a separate and affirmative defense, the LC Defendants allege that Complainant acted
in bad faith.
Eighth Defense — Prevention of Performance
8. As a separate and affirmative defense, the LC Defendants allege that the LC Defendants'
performance of the agreements alleged in the Verified Complaint was prevented by Complainant’s acts.
Ninth Defense — Laches
9. As a separate and affirmative defense, the LC Defendants allege that Complainant
delayed unreasonably in prosecuting its claims to the prejudice of the LC Defendants and is therefore
barred from bringing its claims by the equitable doctrine of laches.
Tenth Defense — Failure of Conditions Precedent
10. As a separate and affirmative defense, the LC Defendants allege that Complainant’s
claims are barred because there has been a failure of conditions precedent.
Eleventh Defense — Consent
11. As a separate and affirmative defense, the LC Defendants allege that Complainant’s
claims are barred because Complainant consented to the action, conduct, and/or omission alleged in the
Verified Complaint.
Twelfth Defense — Statute of Limitations and Repose
12. As a separate and affirmative defense, the LC Defendants allege that Complainant’s
claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations and repose.
Thirteenth Defense — Actions of Third Parties
13. As a separate and affirmative defense, the LC Defendants allege that if Complainant
suffered any damages as alleged in the Verified Complaint, said damages were wholly or partly the result
of the actions of third parties and not of the LC Defendants.
///
14
Verified Answer to Verified Complaint
25CV-0667
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
Fourteenth Defense — Ratification
14. As a separate and affirmative defense, the LC Defendants allege that Complainant’s
claims are barred because Complainant ratified the action, conduct, and/or omissions alleged in the
Verified Complaint.
Fifteenth Defense — Superseding Cause
15. As a separate and affirmative defense, the LC Defendants allege that Complainant’s
injuries, if any, were the result of a superseding cause, not the LC Defendants' actions, conduct, and/or
omissions.
Sixteenth Defense — Negligence of Others
16. As a separate and affirmative defense, the LC Defendants allege that Complainant’s
damages, if any, were caused in whole or in part by the negligence of others, and any award of damages
against the LC Defendants must be reduced by the amount of negligence attributed to third persons.
Seventeenth Defense — Lack of Standing
17. As a separate and affirmative defense, the LC Defendants allege that Complainant has no
standing or capacity to bring some or all of the claims alleged in the Verified Complaint.
Reservation
18. The LC Defendants presently have insufficient knowledge or information upon which to
form a belief as to whether they may have additional, as yet unstated, affirmative defenses available. The
LC Defendants herein reserve the right to assert additional defenses in the event that discovery indicates
that they would be appropriate.
///
15
Verified Answer to Verified Complaint
25CV-0667
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
Prayer for Relief
Wherefore, the LC Defendants pray for relief as follows:
1.That the Verified Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice and in its entirety;
2.That Complainant take nothing by reason of its Verified Complaint and that judgment be
entered against Complainant and in favor of the LC Defendants;
3.That no receiver be appointed on the subject property;
4.That the LC Defendants be awarded costs incurred in defending against the Verified
Complaint; and
5.That the LC Defendants be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.
Dated: January 9, 2026 FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
By ___________________________
ROBERT A. CURTIS
Attorneys for the LC Defendants
Verification
Patrick N.Smith,hereby declare:
|am individually and as Trsutee of the Patrick N.Smith 2004 Living Trust a Defendant
in the above-entitled matter.|am a Defendant as the manager of 1160 Laurel Lane,LLC,a
Delaware limited liability company and general partner of Cross-Defendants Laurel Creek,L.P.
and Laurel Creek I!,L.P.
|have read the foregoing VERIFIED ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT and know the
contents thereof.The same is true of my own knowledge,except as to those matters which are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
therein stated on information and belief,and,as to those matters,|believe them to be true.9
Executed on January 9,2026 at Santa Barbara County,California.
|declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing it true and correct.
PATRICK N.SMITH
Individually and as general manager of 1 160 Laurel
Lane,LLC,general partner of Laurel Creek,L.P.and
Laurel Creek II,L.P.and as Trustee to the Patrick N.
Smith 2004 Living Trust
15
Verified Answer to Verified Complaint
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
Verified Answer to Verified Complaint
25CV-0667
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
Jury Trial Demanded
The LC Defendants hereby demand a jury trial on all causes of action for which a jury is available
under the law.
Dated: January 9, 2026 FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
By ___________________________
Robert A. Curtis
Attorneys for Defendants
i
Proof of Service
25CV-0667
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
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
I am employed in the County of Santa Barbara, in the State of California. I am over the age of 18
and am not a party to the within action. My business address is 15 West Carrillo Street in Santa Barbara,
California 93101.
On January 9, 2026, I served a copy of: Verified Answer to Verified Complaint on the interested
parties in this action addressed as follows:
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
BY HAND DELIVERY: I caused a true copy of the above-referenced document(s) to be personally
delivered the person(s) listed above.
BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I am familiar with the practice at my place of business for collection
and processing of documents for overnight delivery with an overnight courier service. The above-
referenced document(s) will be placed in an envelope, addressed to the person(s) listed above, sealed,
and placed for collection and delivery the next business day with fees fully prepaid in accordance with
ordinary business practices.
BY E-MAIL: I submitted an electronic version of the above-referenced document(s) to the person(s)
whose e-mail address(es) is/are known to me as listed above.
BY MAIL: I am familiar with the practice at my place of business for collection and processing of
correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. The above-referenced
document(s) will be placed in an envelope, addressed to the person(s) listed above, sealed, and
deposited with the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid in accordance with the
ordinary course of business.
Executed on January 9, 2026, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct.
Vianey Hernandez
ii
Proof of Service
25CV-0667
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
SERVICE LIST
J. CHRISTINE DIETRICK, SBN 206539
City Attorney, City of San Luis Obispo
MATTHEW R. SILVER, SBN 245528
MSilver@CivicaLaw.com
SEAN E. MORRISSEY, SBN 297371
SMorrissey@CivicaLaw.com
CIVICA LAW GROUP APC
4000 Barranca Parkway, Suite 250, PMB #782
Irvine, California 92604
Phone: 949-592-0165
Fax: 949-335-1701
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
City of San Luis Obispo, and
People of the State of California