Doe v. The University of Texas Health Science Center At San Antonio et al

Western District of Texas, txwd-5:2019-cv-00453

ANSWER to [6] Amended Complaint by The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION MARY UTHSCSA-PM DOE, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CASE NO. 5:19-CV-00453-DAE § THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH § SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO § and MARCEL NOUJEIM, § § Defendants. § DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT TO THE HONORABLE DAVID A. EZRA: Defendant, the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio ("UTHSCSA" or "Defendant"), file this Original Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's 1 Second Amended Complaint [See Doc. 6]. 2 I. ORIGINAL ANSWER Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b), Defendant denies each and every allegation in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, except those expressly admitted herein, including those allegations for which Defendant lack sufficient knowledge or information to admit 1 Plaintiff is proceeding under a pseudonym in this lawsuit. UTHSCSA believes it knows Plaintiff's identity because counsel for Plaintiff informed counsel for UTHSCSA of her identity during the pendency of the state court lawsuit. Thus, UTHSCSA will proceed under the assumption that the identity of this Plaintiff is the same as in the state court lawsuit. IF UTHSCSA receives any information to the contrary, UTHSCSA will amend its answers accordingly. 2 Dr. Marcel Noujeim is no longer a Defendant based on the Court dismissing all claims against him on November 19, 2019. See Doc. 18. Therefore, this answer is strictly for UTHSCSA. If Plaintiff amends her petition with the information stated in the Court's ruling, Dr. Noujeim reserves the right to file either a Motion to Dismiss or Original Answer. Defendant's Original Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint 1 4 or deny. These numbered paragraphs and titles correspond to the sections and numbered paragraphs in the Second Amended Complaint. PREAMBLE This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements or arguments to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. A. NATURE OF THE SUIT 1. UTHSCSA admits that Plaintiff is from Iran and obtained a license in Dentistry before enrolling at UTHSCSA. UTHSCSA lacks sufficient knowledge at this time to admit or deny whether Plaintiff is of Persian and Islamic heritage. UTHSCSA denies the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph. 2. (a) This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. This Court has ruled that any Title IX claim that existed on or before September 11, 2018 is barred by res judicata, and as such no response is required to the extent it calls for a response to issues barred by res judicata. This Court has also dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff's claim under Title IX against Dr. Noujeim. (b) This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. This Court has ruled that any Section 504 claim that existed on or before September 11, 2018 is barred by res judicata, and as such no response is required to the extent it calls for a response to issues barred by res judicata. (c) This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. In addition, UTHSCSA asserts sovereign immunity to any claim under the ADA. This Court has ruled that any ADA claim that existed on or before September 11, 2018 is barred by res judicata, and as such no response is required to the extent it calls for a response to issues barred by res judicata. (d) This Court has dismissed Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against UTHSCSA. (e) Plaintiff has voluntarily withdrawn, and the Court has recognized such withdrawal, of Plaintiff's claims under the Texas Constitution. (f) Plaintiff has voluntarily withdrawn, and the Court has recognized such withdrawal, of Plaintiff's breach of educational contract claim. Defendant's Original Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint 2 4 B. PARTIES 3. UTHSCSA lacks sufficient knowledge at this time to admit or deny whether Plaintiff is an individual residing in the State of Texas. UTHSCSA denies the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph. 4. UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. 5. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. 6. UTHSCSA denies that it is "owned by" the State of Texas. UTHSCSA admits the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph. 7. UTHSCSA lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny at this time whether Dr. Noujeim is an individual residing in Texas. UTHSCSA denies the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph. C. JURISDICTION and VENUE 8. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. UTHSCSA does not deny that Title IX, Section 504 or the ADA involve a federal question, and UTHSCSA and does not contest venue. 9. Plaintiff has voluntarily withdrawn, and the Court has recognized such withdrawal, of Plaintiff's claims of her state claim. Therefore, UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. 10. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. UTHSCSA does not deny that Title IX, Section 504 or the ADA involve a federal question, and UTHSCSA and does not contest venue. Further, UTHSCSA denies that Dr. Noujeim is employed by UTHSCSA. D. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 11. UTHSCSA admits that Plaintiff is from Iran. UTHSCSA lacks sufficient knowledge or information at this time to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph. 12. UTHSCA admits the allegations in this paragraph. 13. UTHSCSA lacks sufficient knowledge or information at this time to admit or deny the the allegations in this paragraph. 14. UTHSCSA admits that that Plaintiff was admitted into the Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology Program ("OMRP") in Fall 2017. UTHSCSA denies that there was intent and full understanding from UTHSCSA that Plaintiff would also be admitted into the Masters of Science program ("Masters Program"). UTHSCSA lacks sufficient knowledge or information at this time Defendant's Original Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint 3 4 to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph. 15. UTHSCSA lacks sufficient knowledge or information at this time to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph. 16. UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. UTHSCSA specifically denies violating Plaintiff's civil rights. 17. UTHSCSA lacks sufficient knowledge or information at this time to admit or deny the allegations, including whether Plaintiff has any disabilities, in this paragraph. 18. UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. Defendants' Actions toward Mary 19. UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. 20. UTHSCSA admits that Plaintiff was placed on academic probation and that Plaintiff was denied entry into the Masters Program. UTHSCSA denies the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph. UTHSCSA specifically denies that her formal complaints and grievances were ignored by UTHSCSA. 21. UTHSCSA admits that Dr. Noujeim is a male from Lebanon. UTHSCSA lacks sufficient knowledge or information at this time to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph. 22. UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. 23. UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. 24. UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. UTHSCSA specifically denies it has turned a blind eye to Dr. Noujeim's alleged actions and specifically denies it has adopted any of Dr. Noujeim's alleged prejudices toward Plaintiff. 25. (a) – (e) This Court has ruled that any Title IX claim that existed on or before September 11, 2018 is barred by res judicata. Since these factual allegations were present in Plaintiff's state lawsuit on September 11, 2018, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, UTHSCSA denies the allegations in each of these paragraphs. (f) This Court has ruled that any Title IX claim that existed on or before September 11, 2018 is barred by res judicata. Since these factual allegations were present in Plaintiff's state lawsuit on September 11, 2018, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, UTHSCSA admits that Dr. Noujeim sent an email to Plaintiff containing music. UTHSCSA lacks sufficient knowledge or information at this time to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph. Defendant's Original Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint 4 4 (g) – (l) This Court has ruled that any Title IX claim that existed on or before September 11, 2018 is barred by res judicata. Since these factual allegations were present in Plaintiff's state lawsuit on September 11, 2018, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, UTHSCSA denies the allegations in each of these paragraphs. (k) – (dd) This Court has ruled that any Title IX claim that existed on or before September 11, 2018 is barred by res judicata and as such, no response is required to the extent it calls for a response to issues barred by res judicata. To the extent a response is required, UTHSCSA denies the allegations in each of these paragraphs. (ee) UTHSCSA admits that Plaintiff was removed from the dental clinic where she worked. UTHSCSA denies the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph. 26. UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. 27. Plaintiff has voluntarily withdrawn, and the Court has recognized such withdrawal, of Plaintiff's breach of educational contract claim, to which no response is required for that issue. To the extent this paragraph applies to any other claim Plaintiff brings, UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. 28. UTHSCSA lacks sufficient knowledge or information at this time to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph. 29. UTHSCSA admits that Plaintiff filed grievances and appeals but lacks sufficient knowledge or information at this time to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph. 30. UTHSCSA lacks sufficient knowledge or information at this time to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph. 31. UTHSCSA lacks sufficient knowledge or information at this time to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph. Harm to Mary 32. UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. 33. UTHSCSA admits that the American Board of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology is independent from UTHSCSA, and that the Board Exams are administered by the American Board of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. UTHSCSA denies the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph. 34. UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. 35. Plaintiff has voluntarily withdrew, and the Court has recognized such withdrawal, of Plaintiff's breach of educational contract claim, to which no response is required for that issue. Defendant's Original Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint 5 4 UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. 36. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. To the extent such a response is required, UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. 37. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. To the extent such a response is required, UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. 38. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. To the extent such a response is required, UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. Defendants' Action Under the Color of State Law. 39. This Court has dismissed Plaintiff's § 1983 claim. Plaintiff has voluntarily withdrawn, and the Court has recognized such withdrawal, of Plaintiff's Texas constitutional claims. Therefore, to the extent this paragraph is for those claims, no response is required for that issue. Otherwise, this paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. 40. This Court has dismissed Plaintiff's § 1983 claim. Plaintiff has voluntarily withdrawn, and the Court has recognized such withdrawal, of Plaintiff's Texas constitutional claims. Therefore, to the extent this paragraph is for those claims, no response is required for that issue. Otherwise, this paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. 41. This Court has dismissed Plaintiff's § 1983 claim. Plaintiff has voluntarily withdrawn, and the Court has recognized such withdrawal, of Plaintiff's Texas constitutional claims. Therefore, to the extent this paragraph is for those claims, no response is required for that issue. Otherwise, this paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. Administrative Remedies. 42. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. 43. UTHSCSA admits that Plaintiff engaged an attorney. UTHSCSA denies the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph. 44. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. Defendant's Original Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint 6 4 E. PLAINTIFF'S CAUSE OF ACTION 45. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. COUNT ONE: TITLE IX 46. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, UTHSCSA admits the allegations in this paragraph. 47. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. This Court has ruled that any Title IX claim that existed on or before September 11, 2018 is barred by res judicata, and as such no response is required to the extent it calls for a response to issues barred by res judicata. To the extent a response is required, UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. 48. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. This Court has ruled that any Title IX claim that existed on or before September 11, 2018 is barred by res judicata, and as such no response is required to the extent it calls for a response to issues barred by res judicata. To the extent a response is required, UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. 49. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. This Court has ruled that any Title IX claim that existed on or before September 11, 2018 is barred by res judicata, and as such no response is required to the extent it calls for a response to issues barred by res judicata. To the extent a response is required, UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. 50. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. This Court has ruled that any Title IX claim that existed on or before September 11, 2018 is barred by res judicata, and as such no response is required to the extent it calls for a response to issues barred by res judicata. To the extent a response is required, UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. 51. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. This Court has ruled that any Title IX claim that existed on or before September 11, 2018 is barred by res judicata, and as such no response is required to the extent it calls for a response to issues barred by res judicata. To the extent a response is required, UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. 52. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. This Court has ruled that any Title IX claim that existed on or before September 11, 2018 is barred by res judicata, and as such no response is required to the extent it calls for a response to issues barred by res judicata. To the extent a response is required, UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. Defendant's Original Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint 7 4 53. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. This Court has ruled that any Title IX claim that existed on or before September 11, 2018 is barred by res judicata, and as such no response is required to the extent it calls for a response to issues barred by res judicata. To the extent a response is required, UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. 54. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. This Court has ruled that any Title IX claim that existed on or before September 11, 2018 is barred by res judicata, and as such no response is required to the extent it calls for a response to issues barred by res judicata. To the extent a response is required, UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. 55. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. This Court has ruled that any Title IX claim that existed on or before September 11, 2018 is barred by res judicata, and as such no response is required to the extent it calls for a response to issues barred by res judicata. To the extent a response is required, UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. COUNT TWO: SECTION 504 VIOLATIONS 56. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, UTHSCSA admits the allegations in this paragraph. 57. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, UTHSCSA admits the allegations in this paragraph. 58. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. This Court has ruled that any Section 504 claim that existed on or before September 11, 2018 is barred by res judicata, and as such no response is required to the extent it calls for a response to issues barred by res judicata. To the extent a response is required, UTHSCSA lacks sufficient knoweldge to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph. 59. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. This Court has ruled that any Section 504 claim that existed on or before September 11, 2018 is barred by res judicata, and as such no response is required to the extent it calls for a response to issues barred by res judicata. To the extent a response is required, UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. 60. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. This Court has ruled that any Section 504 claim that existed on or before September 11, 2018 is barred by res judicata, and as such no response is required to the extent it calls for a response to issues barred by res judicata. To the extent a response is required, UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. Defendant's Original Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint 8 4 COUNT THREE: ADA VIOLATIONS 61. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. In addition, UTHSCSA asserts sovereign immunity to any claim under the ADA. This Court has ruled that any ADA claim that existed on or before September 11, 2018 is barred by res judicata, and as such no response is required to the extent it calls for a response to issues barred by res judicata. 62. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. In addition, UTHSCSA asserts sovereign immunity to any claim under the ADA. This Court has ruled that any ADA claim that existed on or before September 11, 2018 is barred by res judicata, and as such no response is required to the extent it calls for a response to issues barred by res judicata. In addition, UTHSCSA asserts sovereign immunity to any claim under the ADA. 63. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. This Court has ruled that any Section 504 claim that existed on or before September 11, 2018 is barred by res judicata, and as such no response is required to the extent it calls for a response to issues barred by res judicata. To the extent a response is required, UTHSCSA lacks sufficient knoweldge to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph. In addition, UTHSCSA asserts sovereign immunity to any claim under the ADA. 64. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. In addition, UTHSCSA asserts sovereign immunity to any claim under the ADA. This Court has ruled that any ADA claim that existed on or before September 11, 2018 is barred by res judicata, and as such no response is required to the extent it calls for a response to issues barred by res judicata. In addition, UTHSCSA asserts sovereign immunity to any claim under the ADA. To the extent a response is required, UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. 65. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. In addition, UTHSCSA asserts sovereign immunity to any claim under the ADA. This Court has ruled that any ADA claim that existed on or before September 11, 2018 is barred by res judicata, and as such no response is required to the extent it calls for a response to issues barred by res judicata. In addition, UTHSCSA asserts sovereign immunity to any claim under the ADA. To the extent a response is required, UTHSCSA denies the allegations in this paragraph. COUNT FOUR: SECTION 1983 66. This Court has dismissed Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against UTHSCSA. Therefore, no response is required. 67(a) – (f). This Court has dismissed Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against UTHSCSA. Therefore, no response is required. Defendant's Original Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint 9 4 68. This Court has dismissed Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against UTHSCSA. Therefore, no response is required. 69. This Court has dismissed Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against UTHSCSA. Therefore, no response is required. 70. This Court has dismissed Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against UTHSCSA. Therefore, no response is required. 71. This Court has dismissed Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against UTHSCSA. Therefore, no response is required. 72. This Court has dismissed Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against UTHSCSA. Therefore, no response is required. 73. This Court has dismissed Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against UTHSCSA. Therefore, no response is required. 74. This Court has dismissed Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against UTHSCSA. Therefore, no response is required. 75. This Court has dismissed Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against UTHSCSA. Therefore, no response is required. COUNT FIVE: BREACH OF CONTRACT 76. Plaintiff has voluntarily withdrawn, and the Court has recognized such withdrawal, of Plaintiff's breach of educational contract claim. Therefore, no response is required. 77. Plaintiff has voluntarily withdrawn, and the Court has recognized such withdrawal, of Plaintiff's breach of educational contract claim. Therefore, no response is required. 78. Plaintiff has voluntarily withdrawn, and the Court has recognized such withdrawal, of Plaintiff's breach of educational contract claim. Therefore, no response is required. COUNT SIX: VIOLATIONS OF THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION 79. Plaintiff has voluntarily withdrawn, and the Court has recognized such withdrawal, of Plaintiff's claims of violations of the Texas Constitution. Therefore, no response is required. 80. Plaintiff has voluntarily withdrawn, and the Court has recognized such withdrawal, of Plaintiff's claims of violations of the Texas Constitution. Therefore, no response is required. 81(a) – (e). Plaintiff has voluntarily withdrawn, and the Court has recognized such withdrawal, of Plaintiff's claims of violations of the Texas Constitution. Therefore, no response is required. Defendant's Original Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint 10 4 82. Plaintiff has voluntarily withdrawn, and the Court has recognized such withdrawal, of Plaintiff's claims of violations of the Texas Constitution. Therefore, no response is required. 83. Plaintiff has voluntarily withdrawn, and the Court has recognized such withdrawal, of Plaintiff's claims of violations of the Texas Constitution. Therefore, no response is required. 84(a) – (e). Plaintiff has voluntarily withdrawn, and the Court has recognized such withdrawal, of Plaintiff's claims of violations of the Texas Constitution. Therefore, no response is required. COUNT SEVEN: PUNITIVE DAMAGES 85. This Court has dismissed Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against UTHSCSA. Therefore, no response is required. In addition, this paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. In addition, UTHSCSA asserts sovereign immunity against any claim for punitive damages. COUNT EIGHT: ATTORNEYS' FEES 86. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. COUNT NINE: PRE and POST JUDGMENT INTEREST 87. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. F. REQUEST FOR JURY 88. This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. G. PRAYER FOR RELIEF This paragraph contains only assertions of law, conclusory statements, or arguments to which no response is required. Defendant's Original Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint 11 4 II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendants further assert the following affirmative defenses and reserves the right to timely amend its answer to include such additional defenses throughout the course of this case. 1. Defendant UTHSCSA asserts sovereign immunity from suit bars any and all of Plaintiff's claims to which that defense may apply. 2. Defendant UTHSCSA asserts sovereign immunity from liability bars Plaintiff's recovery to such an extent that it applies. 3. Defendant UTHSCSA assert immunity to suit and liability under the Eleventh Amendment, as to any and all claims to which those defenses may apply. 4. Defendant UTHSCSA asserts the affirmative defense of limitations to the extent that any of Plaintiff's claims are based upon acts or events which occurred outside of the applicable statute of limitations and for Plaintiff's violations of any other timeliness requirements stated under the applicable statutes. 5. Defendant UTHSCSA asserts the affirmative defense of res judicata based on the previous state litigation which was dismissed with prejudice. See Doc. 11-1, Ex. A (Plaintiff's Original Petition in state court); Ex. F (State court's order dismissing the case with prejudice). 6. Plaintiff's own acts and/or omissions caused or contributed to Plaintiff's injuries, if any. 7. Plaintiff's claims, in whole or in part, are denied because of unclean hands. 8. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages, if any. 9. Plaintiff's damages or losses, if any, are barred in whole or part by the after- acquired evidence doctrine. Defendant's Original Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint 12 4 10. Defendant UTHSCSA assert the right to raise additional affirmative defenses that become apparent throughout the factual development of this case. CONCLUSION Defendant UTHSCSA requests that Plaintiff take nothing and that Defendant be awarded its costs, and have such other and further relief, general and specific, at law and in equity, to which Defendant may show itself entitled, including attorneys' fees. Respectfully submitted, KEN PAXTON Attorney General of Texas JEFFREY C. MATEER First Assistant Attorney General DARREN L. MCCARTY Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation THOMAS A. ALBRIGHT Chief, General Litigation Division /s/ Glorieni M. Azeredo GLORIENI M. AZEREDO Texas Bar No. 24077840 Assistant Attorney General General Litigation Division P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2548 (512) 475-1969 | FAX: (512) 320-0667 Glorieni.Azeredo@oag.texas.gov ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT Defendant's Original Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint 13 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 3, 2019, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served via the Court's CM/ECF system to the following: Terry P. Gorman, Esq. tgorman@school-law.co 901 Mopac Expressway South, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78746 Phone: (972) 235-4700 Fax: (512) 597-1455 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF /s/ Glorieni M. Azeredo GLORIENI M. AZEREDO Assistant Attorney General Defendant's Original Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint 14