elizabeth staggs wilson, bar no. 183160 littler … · 2015-01-28 · information to form a belief...
TRANSCRIPT
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) .
ELIZABETH STAGGS WILSON, Bar No. 183160 [email protected] LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street 63rd Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: 213.443.4300 Facsimile: 213.443.4299 SHANNON R. BOYCE, Bar No. 229041 [email protected] FATEMEH MASHOUF, Bar No. 288667 [email protected] LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
Attorneys for Defendant PEAK CAMPUS MANAGEMENT, LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NICHOLAS SELBE, DANIEL GHYCZY, MAKAELA O'CONNELL, and ANNIYA LOUIS on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PEAK CAMPUS MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:14-cv-3238-MMC
FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
DEFENDANT PEAK CAMPUS MANAGEMENT, LLC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page1 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 1.
Defendant PEAK CAMPUS MANAGEMENT, LLC (thereinafter
“Defendant”) answers Plaintiffs NICHOLAS SELBE, DANIEL GHYCZY,
MAKAELA O'CONNELL, and ANNIYA LOUIS on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated (“Plaintiffs”) Complaint as set forth below:
INTRODUCTION AND CERTAIN DEFINITIONS
1. In answering Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
the Complaint purports to state claims against Defendant for violation of federal and
state wage and hour laws by and on behalf of former and current employees of
Defendant. Defendant also admits that Plaintiffs purports to define “Covered
Employees” in the manner stated. Except as admitted, Defendant denies each and
every remaining allegation contained therein.
2. In answering Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
Defendant required certain Covered Employees to reside in a building managed by
Defendant as a condition of employment. Defendant denies the remainder of the
paragraph on the grounds that it contains conclusions of law or legal principles
asserted by Plaintiffs, and such conclusions are not allegations of fact to which an
admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3. Answering Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
Plaintiffs purport to define “Covered Employees,” “Covered Positions,” and “All-
Stars” in the manner stated. Except as otherwise admitted, Defendant denies each and
every allegation and/or inference contained therein. To the extent Paragraph 3 of the
Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs, such
conclusions are not allegations of fact to which an admission or denial is required by
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation
and/or inference contained therein.
4. Answering paragraph 4 of the Complaint, said paragraph consists
of conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs that are not allegations
of fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page2 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 2.
Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. Answering Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
this Court has original federal question jurisdiction under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (“FLSA”) and supplemental jurisdiction over the existing state law claims.
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the
truth of the assertion that this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over state law
claims not yet discovered, and on that basis denies such an allegation. To the extent
Paragraph 5 of the Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal principles asserted
by Plaintiffs, such conclusions are not allegations of fact to which an admission or
denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and
every allegation and/or inference contained therein.
6. Answering Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that it
manages student apartment communities and has employees in this District.
Defendant denies that the events and omissions giving rise to the claims alleged in the
Complaint occurred in this District or that Covered Employees, as defined by
Plaintiffs, were employed in this District. Defendant admits that it conducts and has
conducted commercial business activities in this District. Except as otherwise
admitted, Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein. To the extent Paragraph 6 of the Complaint contains conclusions of law or
legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs, such conclusions are not allegations of fact to
which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained therein.
PARTIES
7. Answering Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that its
headquarters are in Atlanta, Georgia and that Defendant manages apartment
communities that are marketed to and intended primarily for college and university
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page3 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 3.
students. Defendant admits that Defendant’s website indicates that Defendant
manages properties in twenty-three states, including California. Defendant denies that
it is a Georgia limited liability company.
8. Answering Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
Plaintiff Nicholas Selbe was employed by Defendant at University Gateway
Apartments in Los Angeles, California from approximately October 2012 until May
2013 as a Leasing All-Star. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information
to form a belief as to the truth of Nicholas Selbe’s residence, and on that basis denies
the allegations contained therein. To the extent paragraph 8 of the Complaint contains
conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs, such conclusions are not
allegations of fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference
contained therein.
9. Answering Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
Plaintiff Daniel Ghyczy was employed by Defendant at University Gateway
Apartments in Los Angeles, California from approximately October 2012 until May
2013 as a Leasing All-Star. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information
to form a belief as to the truth of Daniel Ghyczy’s residence, and on that basis denies
the allegations contained therein. To the extent paragraph 8 of the Complaint contains
conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs, such conclusions are not
allegations of fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference
contained therein.
10. Answering Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
Plaintiff Makaela O’Connell was employed by Defendant at University Gateway
Apartments in Los Angeles, California from approximately February 2013 until
December 2013 as a Leasing All-Star. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of Makaela O’Connell’s residence, and on
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page4 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 4.
that basis denies the allegations contained therein. To the extent paragraph 8 of the
Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs, such
conclusions are not allegations of fact to which an admission or denial is required by
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation
and/or inference contained therein.
11. Answering Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
Plaintiff Anniya Louis was employed by Defendant at University Gateway
Apartments in Los Angeles, California from approximately October 2013 until
December 2013 as a Leasing All-Star. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of Anniya Louis’ residence, and on that
basis denies the allegations contained therein. To the extent paragraph 8 of the
Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs, such
conclusions are not allegations of fact to which an admission or denial is required by
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation
and/or inference contained therein.
FACTS
12. Answering paragraph 12 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
Defendant manages apartment properties marketed to and primarily for college and
university students in approximately twenty-three states, including California.
13. Answering paragraph 13 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
at some of the properties managed by Defendant, Defendant employs individuals who
are typically college and university students, in positions known as “All Stars.”
Except as otherwise admitted, Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or
inference contained therein.
14. Answering paragraph 14 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
All-Stars perform leasing and/or other clerical work, market the property to future
residents, and may also plan and execute parties, events, and competitions for
residents. To the extent that Defendant is able to understand Plaintiffs’ allegation that
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page5 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 5.
“All-Stars fill a role similar to a ‘resident advisor’ at a college or university,”
Defendant denies that all All-Stars fill such a role. Except as otherwise admitted,
Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained therein.
15. Answering paragraph 15 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
All-Stars are required to work a set number of hours per week. Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the average weekly hours
required of All-Stars and on that basis denies the allegations contained therein.
Except as otherwise admitted, Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or
inference contained therein.
16. Answering paragraph 16 of the Complaint, Defendant denies that
all All-Stars within the proposed class are required to live on-site in a property
managed by Defendant as a condition of employment.
17. Answering paragraph 17 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
it leases residential communities it manages on behalf of the owner(s) of the
applicable property. Defendant admits that some of the leases are for single bedrooms
which can be occupied by one or more people. Defendant admits that the leases are
sometimes called “Exclusive Bed Space.” Except as otherwise admitted, Defendant
denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained therein. To the extent
paragraph 17 of the Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal principles asserted
by Plaintiffs, especially with the use of the term “agent,” such conclusions are not
allegations of fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference
contained therein.
18. Answering paragraph 18 of the Complaint, Defendant denies that
all All-Stars within the proposed class are required to live on-site or to have a signed
lease on file with Defendant. To the extent paragraph 18 of the Complaint contains
conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs, such conclusions are not
allegations of fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page6 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 6.
Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference
contained therein.
19. Answering paragraph 19 of the Complaint, Defendant denies that
all All-Stars within the proposed class are required to sign a lease for lodging or reside
on the premises as a condition of employment.
20. Answering paragraph 20 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
certain All-Stars were generally not required to remit payment for lodging in exchange
for hours worked. Except as otherwise admitted, Defendant denies each and every
allegation and/or inference contained therein.
21. Answering paragraph 21 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
it provided lodging to certain All-Stars within the proposed class in exchange for the
All-Star working a set number of hours per week. Except as otherwise admitted,
Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained therein.
22. Answering paragraph 22 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
it generally valued the lodging provided to certain All-Stars within the proposed class
through their leases at the market rent for the applicable bedroom. To the extent
paragraph 22 of the Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal principles asserted
by Plaintiffs, such conclusions are not allegations of fact to which an admission or
denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and
every allegation and/or inference contained therein.
23. Answering paragraph 23 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
the practice of certain All-Stars within the proposed class definition working a
required number of hours in exchange for lodging is generally referred to as “work for
rent.” Except as otherwise admitted, Defendant denies each and every allegation
and/or inference contained therein. To the extent paragraph 23 of the Complaint
contains conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs, such conclusions
are not allegations of fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page7 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 7.
Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference
contained therein.
24. Answering paragraph 24 of the Complaint, Defendant denies that
when certain All-Stars within the proposed class were unable or failed to work the
required number of hours, they are required to “make up” hours during a different
workweek or remit payment to Defendant in order to make up the difference to pay
the full market rent of lodging.
25. Answering paragraph 25 of the Complaint, Defendant denies that
all All-Stars within the proposed class do not receive cash wages for working the
required number of hours. To the extent paragraph 25 of the Complaint contains
conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs, such conclusions are not
allegations of fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference
contained therein.
26. Answering paragraph 26 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
there is a lodging credit applied against wages as it relates to the compensation for
certain All-Stars within the proposed class. Defendant denies that no pay stubs are
ever given or that wages are never indicated on pay stubs. Except as otherwise
admitted, Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein. To the extent paragraph 26 of the Complaint contains conclusions of law or
legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs, such conclusions are not allegations of fact to
which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained therein.
27. Answering paragraph 27 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
it does not report any amount on account of lodging as wages or income to the
applicable federal, state, and local taxing authorities or to the Social Security
Administration.
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page8 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 8.
28. Answering paragraph 28 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
it has issued some IRS Form W-2’s indicating that the lodging provided does not
constitute wages or income to All-Stars.
29. Answering paragraph 29 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
IRS Form W-3s have been submitted on its behalf indicating that the lodging provided
does not constitute wages or income to All-Stars.
30. Answering paragraph 30 of the Complaint, Defendant denies that
all All-Stars within the proposed class are not given an option of receiving cash
wages. Defendant denies that all All-Stars within the proposed class are required to
live on-site in a property managed by Defendant as a condition of employment, or that
the residency requirement cannot be separated from the position. To the extent
paragraph 30 of the Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal principles asserted
by Plaintiffs, such conclusions are not allegations of fact to which an admission or
denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and
every allegation and/or inference contained therein.
31. Answering paragraph 31 of the Complaint, Defendant denies that
all All-Stars within the proposed class are required to live on-site in a property
managed by Defendant as a condition of employment. Defendant further denies the
remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 31. To the extent paragraph 31 of the
Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs, such
conclusions are not allegations of fact to which an admission or denial is required by
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation
and/or inference contained therein.
32. Answering paragraph 32 of the Complaint, said paragraph consists
of conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs that are not allegations
of fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein.
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page9 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 9.
33. Answering paragraph 33 of the Complaint, said paragraph consists
of conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs that are not allegations
of fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein.
34. Answering paragraph 34 of the Complaint, said paragraph consists
of conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs that are not allegations
of fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein.
35. Answering paragraph 35 of the Complaint, Defendant denies that
all All-Stars within the proposed class are required to live on-site in a property
managed by Defendant as a condition of employment. To the extent paragraph 35 of
the Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs,
such conclusions are not allegations of fact to which an admission or denial is required
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation
and/or inference contained therein.
36. Answering paragraph 36 of the Complaint, said paragraph consists
of conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs that are not allegations
of fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein.
37. Answering paragraph 37 of the Complaint, said paragraph consists
of conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs that are not allegations
of fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein.
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page10 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 10.
38. Answering paragraph 38 of the Complaint, said paragraph consists
of conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs that are not allegations
of fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein.
a) Answering Paragraph 38(a) of the Complaint, said paragraph
consists of conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by
Plaintiffs that are not allegations of fact to which an admission or
denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference
contained therein.
b) Answering Paragraph 38(b) of the Complaint, said paragraph
consists of conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by
Plaintiffs that are not allegations of fact to which an admission or
denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference
contained therein.
c) Answering Paragraph 38(c) of the Complaint, said paragraph
consists of conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by
Plaintiffs that are not allegations of fact to which an admission or
denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference
contained therein.
d) Answering Paragraph 38(d) of the Complaint, said paragraph
consists of conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by
Plaintiffs that are not allegations of fact to which an admission or
denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page11 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 11.
Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference
contained therein.
e) Answering Paragraph 38(e) of the Complaint, said paragraph
consists of conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by
Plaintiffs that are not allegations of fact to which an admission or
denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference
contained therein.
39. Answering paragraph 39 of the Complaint, said paragraph consists
of conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs that are not allegations
of fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein.
40. Answering paragraph 40 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
some of the “Covered Employees,” as defined by Plaintiffs, were employed in
California and elsewhere within the United States. Except as otherwise admitted,
Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained therein. To the
extent paragraph 40 of the Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal principles
asserted by Plaintiffs, such conclusions are not allegations of fact to which an
admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
41. Answering paragraph 41 of the Complaint, said paragraph consists
of conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs that are not allegations
of fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein.
FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
42. Answering paragraph 42 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
Plaintiffs purport to bring the First Claim for Relief, for violation of the FLSA, as a
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page12 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 12.
collective action pursuant to FLSA § 16(b), 29 U.S.C. §216(b), on behalf of all
Covered Employees employed by Defendant on or after the date that is three years
before the filing of the Complaint in this case. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs
purports to define “FLSA Collective Plaintiffs” in the manner stated. Except as
otherwise admitted, Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference
contained therein. To the extent paragraph 42 of the Complaint contains conclusions
of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs, such conclusions are not allegations of
fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
43. Answering paragraph 43 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
Plaintiffs purport to attach Plaintiffs’ Consent to Joint Collective Action to sue under
29 U.S.C. § 216 as Exhibit A. Except as otherwise admitted, Defendant denies each
and every allegation and/or inference contained therein. To the extent paragraph 43 of
the Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs,
such conclusions are not allegations of fact to which an admission or denial is required
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
44. Answering paragraph 44 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the
allegations therein. To the extent paragraph 44 of the Complaint contains conclusions
of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs, such conclusions are not allegations of
fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein.
45. Answering paragraph 45 of the Complaint, said paragraph consists
of conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs that are not allegations
of fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein.
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page13 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 13.
RULE 23 CLASS ALLEGATIONS - CALIFORNIA
46. Answering paragraph 46 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
Plaintiffs purport to bring the second, third, fourth, and fifth claims for relief pursuant
to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23, on behalf of all persons who were,
are, or will be employed by Defendant in California on or after the date that is 4 years
before the filing of the Complaint in this case. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs
purport to define “Class Period” in the manner stated. Except as otherwise admitted,
Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained therein. To the
extent paragraph 46 of the Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal principles
asserted by Plaintiffs, such conclusions are not allegations of fact to which an
admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
47. Answering paragraph 47 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
Plaintiffs purports to define “Covered Positions” and “California Class” in the manner
stated and Plaintiffs seek to represent the proposed class, as stated by Plaintiffs.
Except as otherwise admitted, Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or
inference contained therein. To the extent paragraph 47 of the Complaint contains
conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs, such conclusions are not
allegations of fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
48. Answering paragraph 48 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the
allegations therein. To the extent paragraph 48 of the Complaint contains conclusions
of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs, such conclusions are not allegations of
fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein.
49. Answering paragraph 49 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the
allegations therein. To the extent paragraph 49 of the Complaint contains conclusions
of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs, such conclusions are not allegations of
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page14 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 14.
fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein.
50. Answering paragraph 50 of the Complaint, Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in said paragraph, and on that basis denies the allegations contained therein.
To the extent paragraph 50 of the Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal
principles asserted by Plaintiffs, such conclusions are not allegations of fact to which
an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant
denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained therein.
51. Answering paragraph 51 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the
allegations therein. To the extent paragraph 51 of the Complaint contains conclusions
of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs, such conclusions are not allegations of
fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein.
52. Answering paragraph 52 of the Complaint, said paragraph consists
of conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs that are not allegations
of fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein.
53. Answering paragraph 53 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the
allegations therein. To the extent paragraph 53 of the Complaint contains conclusions
of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs, such conclusions are not allegations of
fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein.
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page15 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 15.
a) In response to Paragraph 53(a) of the Complaint, said paragraph
consists of conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by
Plaintiffs that are not allegations of fact to which an admission or
denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference
contained therein.
b) In response to Paragraph 53(b) of the Complaint, said paragraph
consists of conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by
Plaintiffs that are not allegations of fact to which an admission or
denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference
contained therein.
c) In response to Paragraph 53(c) of the Complaint, said paragraph
consists of conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by
Plaintiffs that are not allegations of fact to which an admission or
denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference
contained therein.
d) In response to Paragraph 53(d) of the Complaint, said paragraph
consists of conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by
Plaintiffs that are not allegations of fact to which an admission or
denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference
contained therein.
e) In response to Paragraph 53(e) of the Complaint, said paragraph
consists of conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by
Plaintiffs that are not allegations of fact to which an admission or
denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page16 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 16.
Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference
contained therein.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
FLSA Minimum Wage
29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq.
54. Answering paragraph 54 of the Complaint, Defendant incorporates
by reference its answers to all previous paragraphs. To the extent the allegations
contained in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint only incorporate by reference these
paragraphs no further response is required.
55. Answering paragraph 55 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
at all relevant times, Defendant has had gross operating revenues in excess of
$500,000. Except as otherwise admitted, Paragraph 55 of the Complaint consists of
conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs that are not allegations of
fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein.
56. Answering paragraph 56 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the
allegations therein to the extent Defendant did not require all “FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs,” as that term is defined by Plaintiffs, to reside in a building managed by
Defendant as a condition of employment during the relevant statutory period.
57. Answering paragraph 57 of the Complaint, Defendant denies each
and every allegation and/or inference contained therein. To the extent paragraph 57 of
the Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs,
such conclusions are not allegations of fact to which an admission or denial is required
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation
and/or inference contained therein.
58. Answering paragraph 58 of the Complaint, Defendant denies each
and every allegation and/or inference contained therein. To the extent paragraph 58 of
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page17 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 17.
the Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs,
such conclusions are not allegations of fact to which an admission or denial is required
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation
and/or inference contained therein.
59. Answering paragraph 59 of the Complaint, Defendant denies each
and every allegation and/or inference contained therein. To the extent paragraph 59 of
the Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs,
such conclusions are not allegations of fact to which an admission or denial is required
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation
and/or inference contained therein.
60. Answering paragraph 60 of the Complaint, Defendant denies each
and every allegation and/or inference contained therein. To the extent paragraph 60 of
the Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs,
such conclusions are not allegations of fact to which an admission or denial is required
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation
and/or inference contained therein.
61. Answering paragraph 61 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
Plaintiffs purport to seek damages as identified in paragraph 61. To the extent
paragraph 61 of the Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal principles asserted
by Plaintiffs, such conclusions are not allegations of fact to which an admission or
denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and
every allegation and/or inference contained therein.
62. Answering paragraph 62 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
Plaintiffs purport to seek the damages as identified in paragraph 62. To the extent
paragraph 62 of the Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal principles asserted
by Plaintiffs, such conclusions are not allegations of fact to which an admission or
denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and
every allegation and/or inference contained therein.
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page18 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 18.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
California Minimum Wage and Wage Credit Provisions
Cal. Wage Order No. 5; Cal. Labor Code §§ 1182.12,
1182.13, 1194, 1194.2 & 1194.5
63. Answering paragraph 63 of the Complaint, Defendant incorporates
by reference its answers to all previous paragraphs. To the extent the allegations
contained in Paragraph 63 of the Complaint only incorporate by reference these
paragraphs, no further response is required.
64. Answering paragraph 64 of the Complaint, said paragraph consists
of conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs that are not allegations
of fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein.
65. Answering paragraph 65 of the Complaint, Defendant denies each
and every allegation and/or inference contained therein. To the extent paragraph 65 of
the Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs,
such conclusions are not allegations of fact to which an admission or denial is required
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation
and/or inference contained therein.
66. Answering paragraph 66 of the Complaint, Defendant denies each
and every allegation and/or inference contained therein. To the extent paragraph 66 of
the Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs,
such conclusions are not allegations of fact to which an admission or denial is required
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation
and/or inference contained therein.
67. Answering paragraph 67 of the Complaint, Defendant denies each
and every allegation and/or inference contained therein. To the extent paragraph 67 of
the Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs,
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page19 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 19.
such conclusions are not allegations of fact to which an admission or denial is required
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation
and/or inference contained therein.
68. Answering paragraph 68 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
Plaintiffs purport to seek damages as identified in paragraph 68. To the extent
paragraph 68 of the Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal principles asserted
by Plaintiffs, such conclusions are not allegations of fact to which an admission or
denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and
every allegation and/or inference contained therein.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
California Waiting Period Penalties
Cal. Labor Code §§ 201-203
69. Answering paragraph 69 of the Complaint, Defendant incorporates
by reference all previous paragraphs. To the extent the allegations contained in
Paragraph 69 of the Complaint only incorporate by reference these paragraphs no
further response is required.
70. Answering paragraph 70 of the Complaint, said paragraph contains
conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs that are not allegations of
fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein.
71. Answering paragraph 71 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
there was a lodging credit applied against wages as it relates to the compensation for
certain All-Stars within the proposed class, but denies that that any wages were
knowingly or intentionally withheld. To the extent Paragraph 71 of the Complaint
contains conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs that are not
allegations of fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page20 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 20.
Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference
contained therein.
72. Answering paragraph 72 of the Complaint, Defendant denies each
and every allegation and/or inference contained therein. To the extent paragraph 72 of
the Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs,
such conclusions are not allegations of fact to which an admission or denial is required
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation
and/or inference contained therein.
73. Answering paragraph 73 of the Complaint, Defendant denies each
and every allegation and/or inference contained therein. To the extent paragraph 73 of
the Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs,
such conclusions are not allegations of fact to which an admission or denial is required
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation
and/or inference contained therein.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Failure to Furnish Accurate Wage Statements
Cal. Wage Order No. 5 and Cal. Labor Code §§ 226
74. Answering paragraph 74 of the Complaint, Defendant incorporates
by reference all previous paragraphs. To the extent the allegations contained in
Paragraph 74 of the Complaint only incorporate by reference these paragraphs no
further response is required.
75. Answering paragraph 75 of the Complaint, Defendant denies that it
failed to keep accurate information with respect to total wages paid each payroll
period to the “California Class,” as that term is defined by Plaintiffs, or that Defendant
failed to furnish itemized wage statements showing gross wages earned and hours
worked to the “California Class.” To the extent paragraph 75 of the Complaint
contains conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs, such conclusions
are not allegations of fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page21 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 21.
Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference
contained therein.
76. Answering paragraph 76 of the Complaint, Defendant denies each
and every allegation and/or inference contained therein. To the extent paragraph 76 of
the Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs,
such conclusions are not allegations of fact to which an admission or denial is required
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation
and/or inference contained therein.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
California Unfair Competition Law
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.
77. Answering paragraph 77 of the Complaint, Defendant incorporates
by reference all previous paragraphs. To the extent the allegations contained in
Paragraph 77 of the Complaint only incorporate by reference these paragraphs no
further response is required.
78. Answering paragraph 78 of the Complaint, said paragraph contains
conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs that are not allegations of
fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein.
79. Answering paragraph 79 of the Complaint, said paragraph contains
conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs that are not allegations of
fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein.
80. Answering paragraph 80 of the Complaint, said paragraph contains
conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs that are not allegations of
fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page22 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 22.
Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein.
81. Answering paragraph 81 of the Complaint, said paragraph contains
conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs that are not allegations of
fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein.
82. Answering paragraph 82 of the Complaint, said paragraph contains
conclusions of law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs that are not allegations of
fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein.
83. Answering paragraph 83 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
Plaintiffs and the California Class seek to recover attorneys’ fees and costs. To the
extent paragraph 82 of the Complaint contains conclusions of law or legal principles
asserted by Plaintiffs, such conclusions are not allegations of fact to which an
admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant
denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained therein.
84. Answering paragraph 84 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that
Plaintiffs and the California Class seek restitution as enumerated in paragraph 84 of
the Complaint. To the extent paragraph 84 of the Complaint contains conclusions of
law or legal principles asserted by Plaintiffs, such conclusions are not allegations of
fact to which an admission or denial is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant denies each and every allegation and/or inference contained
therein.
RELIEF REQUESTED
85. No answer is required to Plaintiffs’ Prayer for Relief, which
merely sets forth the type of relief sought by Plaintiffs. To the extent an answer is
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page23 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 23.
required, however, Defendant denies, generally and specifically, each and every
allegation and purported entitlement to relief set forth under Plaintiffs’ heading,
“Relief Requested.”
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendant asserts the following affirmative defenses. In so doing,
Defendant does not concede that it has the burden of production or proof as to any
affirmative defense asserted below. Further, Defendant does not presently know all
the factors concerning the conduct of Plaintiffs and/or the putative class they seek to
represent sufficient to state all affirmative defenses at this time. Accordingly,
Defendant will seek leave of this Court to amend this Answer should it later discover
facts demonstrating the existence of additional affirmative defenses.
SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unclean Hands)
1. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges
that all or portions of the claims of Plaintiffs and/or members of the putative class
Plaintiffs purport to represent are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of
unclean hands. Without limiting Defendant’s reliance on this affirmative defense, to
the extent Plaintiffs and/or members of the putative class Plaintiffs purport to
represent are seeking compensation for time or expenses which they willfully failed to
report or raise concerns regarding, their claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean
hands. As Plaintiffs provide factual background for their Complaint, Defendant
reserves the right to further amend this affirmative defense.
SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Estoppel)
2. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges
that all or portions of the claims of Plaintiffs and/or members of the putative class
Plaintiffs purport to represent are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of
estoppel. Without limiting Defendant’s reliance on this affirmative defense, to the
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page24 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 24.
extent Plaintiffs and/or members of the putative class Plaintiffs purport to represent
are seeking compensation for time or expenses which they willfully failed to report or
raise concerns regarding, their claims are estopped. As Plaintiffs provide factual
background for their Complaint, Defendant reserves the right to further amend this
affirmative defense.
SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unjust Enrichment)
3. As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that
Plaintiffs and/or members of the members of the putative class members they seek to
represent would be unjustly enriched if allowed to recover on the Complaint. Without
limiting Defendant’s reliance on this affirmative defense, to the extent that Plaintiffs
and/or members of the putative class Plaintiffs purport to represent, inter alia,
received lodging for hours worked, the value of said lodging (in whole or in part) must
be offset against any amounts claimed owed. As Plaintiffs provide factual background
for their Complaint, Defendant reserves the right to further amend this affirmative
defense.
SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Class Action – Standing)
4. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges
that Plaintiffs lack standing to assert the legal rights or interests of others. To the
extent that Plaintiffs and their counsel seek to represent each and every person who
performed similar job duties to All-Stars and Community Advisors (regardless of
position title or job duties), Defendant contends that Plaintiffs and their counsel
cannot adequately do so, as she worked in a different location, under a different
employing entity, under a different supervisor, and in a different position from
numerous of others they seek to represent.
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page25 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 25.
SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statute of Limitations)
5. As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the
claims of Plaintiffs and/or members of the putative class members they seek to
represent are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, including but not limited
to, 29 U.S.C. section 255, California Code of Civil Procedure sections 312, 338 and
340 and/or California Business & Professions Code section 17208.
SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Bona Fide Dispute)
6. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges
that the Complaint fails to state a claim for penalties under the California Labor Code
in that (1) there was a bona fide, good faith dispute as to Defendant’ obligations under
any applicable Labor Code provisions, including, without limitation, Labor Code
section 203, and (2) Defendant did not willfully violate Labor Code section 203.
SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Good Faith)
7. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges
that the Complaint and each cause of action set forth therein cannot be maintained
because, without admitting that any violation took place, Defendant alleges that any
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Labor Code, or of a Wage Order
of the Industrial Welfare Commission was an act or omission made in good faith, and
that in any participation in such acts, Defendant had reasonable grounds for believing
that the act or omission was not a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, California
Labor Code, or any Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission.
SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Avoidable Consequences)
8. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant is
informed and believes that further investigation and discovery will reveal, and on that
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page26 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 26.
basis alleges, that the damages and/or penalties, if any, are barred and/or limited
pursuant to the doctrine of avoidable consequences. Defendant will amend its answer
to assert further facts in support of this affirmative defense as they become known in
discovery. See Department of Health Services v. Superior Court, 31 Cal. 4th 1026
(2003).
SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Claims Discharged)
9. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges
that the Complaint and each cause of action set forth therein, or some of them, are
barred because all of a portion of the wages, overtime premiums, interest, attorneys’
fees, penalties and/or other relief sought by Plaintiffs on their own behalf and/or on
behalf of the putative class members were, or will be before the conclusion of this
action, paid or collected, and therefore, Plaintiffs’ claims and/or the claims of the
putative class members have been partially or completely discharged.
SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Accord and Satisfaction)
10. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges
that the Complaint and each cause of action set forth therein, or some of them, are
barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction, to the extent that some, or all,
members of the putative class members Plaintiffs seek to represent have received, or
will receive, compensation for any alleged outstanding wages, penalties, and/or
damages purportedly due.
SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Business & Professions Code § 17200 Violates Due Process)
11. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant asserts
that the Complaint and each cause of action set forth therein, or some of them, are
barred because Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq., is
unconstitutionally vague and overbroad as applied to the facts and circumstances of
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page27 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 27.
this case, and Plaintiffs’ Complaint is barred because the prosecution of this action by
Plaintiffs as representatives of persons allegedly similarly situated would constitute a
denial of Defendant’s due process rights, both procedural and substantive, in violation
of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Constitution
and laws of the State of California. See, e.g., People ex rel Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., 37 Cal. 4th 707 (2005).
SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Violation of Due Process)
12. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant asserts
that the Complaint and each cause of action set forth therein, or some of them, are
barred because the certification of a class, as applied to the facts and circumstances of
this case, would constitute a denial of Defendant’s due process rights and to a trial by
jury, both substantive and procedural, in violation of the Due Process and Equal
Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and
the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of Article I, Section 7 of the California
Constitution. See, e.g., State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408
(2003); People ex rel Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 37 Cal. 4th 707 (2005).
SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Excessive Fines)
13. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant asserts
that the Complaint and each cause of action set forth therein, or some of them, are
barred because, as applied in this putative class/collective action, an award of civil
penalties would result in the imposition of excessive fines in violation of the Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the California
Constitution. People ex rel Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 37 Cal. 4th 707
(2005).
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page28 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 28.
SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Multiple Penalties Unconstitutional)
14. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges
that the claims in the Complaint that seek the imposition of multiple penalties and/or
liquidated damages for the same basic wrongs are unconstitutional in that such relief
violates the Due Process clauses of the Constitutions of both the United States and the
State of California.
SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Adequate Remedy at Law)
15. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges
that Plaintiffs and the purported class members are not entitled to equitable relief
insofar as they have an adequate remedy at law.
SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Relevant Credits)
16. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges
that Plaintiffs’ claims are bared in whole or in part to the extent that the work
performed falls within exemptions, exclusions, exceptions, or credits provided for in
Section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207, the California Labor
Code, and/or relevant Wage Order authority.
SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Claims Subject to Arbitration)
17. As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that
Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part because some or all of those with
whom they are allegedly “similarly situated” entered into an agreement to submit all
employment related claims to binding arbitration.
SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Claims Subject to Arbitration on Individual Basis)
18. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part because some or all
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page29 of 30
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.4300
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
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (NO. 3:14-CV-3238-JSC) 29.
of the alleged putative class entered into an agreement to submit all employment
related claims to binding arbitration, which included a valid class action waiver
provision. See AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011).
SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Right to Assert Additional Defenses)
19. As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that
Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not describe the claims or facts being alleged with sufficient
particularity to permit Defendant to ascertain what other defenses may exist. Defendant
will rely on any and all further defenses that become available or appear during
discovery in this action and specifically reserves the right to amend their Answer for
purposes of asserting such additional defenses.
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that:
1. Plaintiffs’ Complaint be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice;
2. Plaintiffs and the putative class members take nothing by this
action;
3. Judgment be entered in Defendant’s favor and against Plaintiffs
and the putative class members;
4. Defendant be awarded its costs of suit and attorneys’ fees incurred
herein; and
5. Defendant be awarded such other and further relief as the Court
deems just and proper. Dated: September 4, 2014
/s/ Shannon R. Boyce ELIZABETH STAGGS WILSON LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant PEAK CAMPUS MANAGEMENT, LLC
Firmwide:128528804.3 068943.1006
Case3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document17 Filed09/04/14 Page30 of 30