Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00359-JJF-MPT

Document 10

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE TIMOTHY CARSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 07-359

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Defendant AstraZeneca LP, erroneously sued as AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (hereinafter, "Defendant"), by and through its attorneys, responds as follows to the Class Action Complaint (hereinafter "Complaint") filed by Plaintiff, Timothy Carson (hereinafter "Plaintiff"): 1. Admitted that Plaintiff purports to bring an action for violation of federal wage

and hour laws by and on behalf of former and current employees of Defendant. All remaining allegations are denied. Defendant further responds that all of the allegations contain legal conclusions or opinions that Defendant is not required to admit or deny. 2. All of the allegations contain legal conclusions or opinions that Defendant is not

required to admit or deny. 3. Denied that AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (and/or domestic affiliates and

subsidiaries) is a proper defendant in this action. 4. All of the allegations contain legal conclusions or opinions that Defendant is not

required to admit or deny. 5. Admitted.

-1DB02:6172287.1 063170.1003

Case 1:07-cv-00359-JJF-MPT

Document 10

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 2 of 8

6.

Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth of the allegation that a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District. Otherwise admitted. 7. AstraZeneca LP is a Delaware limited partnership with its principal place of

business in Wilmington, Delaware; and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP is a Delaware limited partnership with its principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware. Admitted that AstraZeneca LP does business in all fifty states. Defendant further responds that Plaintiff failed to specify what he means by "United States Territories" and denies that allegation on that basis. 8. Defendant admits, on information and belief, that Plaintiff is a New York

resident. Defendant admits that Plaintiff was employed by AstraZeneca LP from in or about November 2003 through August 2005 as a Pharmaceutical Sales Specialist. Defendant denies that Plaintiff worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek. Admitted that AstraZeneca LP did not pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff because he was an exempt employee. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant denies all remaining allegations. 9. Admitted that AstraZeneca LP employed Plaintiff and other pharmaceutical sales

specialists. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant denies all remaining allegations. Defendant further responds that the allegations contain legal conclusions or opinions that Defendant is not required to admit or deny. 10. 11. Admitted. Admitted that AstraZeneca LP employs and has employed thousands of

pharmaceutical sales specialists in the United States. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant denies all remaining allegations.

-2DB02:6172287.1 063170.1003

Case 1:07-cv-00359-JJF-MPT

Document 10

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 3 of 8

12.

Admitted that Plaintiff and other pharmaceutical sales specialists were paid a

salary and were eligible for incentive compensation. Defendant denies all remaining allegations. 13. Admitted that AstraZeneca LP does not pay pharmaceutical sales specialists

overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week because they are exempt employees. Defendant denies all remaining allegations. 14. Admitted that Plaintiff was employed by AstraZeneca LP. Except as expressly

admitted, Defendant denies all remaining allegations. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. The allegations contain legal conclusions or opinions that Defendant is not

required to admit or deny. 20. 21. Denied. The allegations contain legal conclusions or opinions that Defendant is not

required to admit or deny. 22. through 21. 23. Defendant admits that AstraZeneca LP is an employer engaged in commerce Defendant realleges and incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1

within the meaning of the FLSA. Defendant also admits that AstraZeneca LP has employed and continues to employ Pharmaceutical Sales Specialists as employees within the meaning of the FLSA, and that AstraZeneca LP has gross operating revenues in excess of $500,000. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant denies the remaining allegations.

-3DB02:6172287.1 063170.1003

Case 1:07-cv-00359-JJF-MPT

Document 10

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 4 of 8

24. 25.

Denied. Defendant admits that AstraZeneca LP does not pay overtime compensation to

pharmaceutical sales specialists because they are properly classified as exempt employees. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant denies all remaining allegations. 26. Defendant admits that AstraZeneca LP does not pay overtime compensation to

pharmaceutical sales specialists because they are properly classified as exempt employees. Defendant denies all remaining allegations. 27. The allegations in paragraph 27 contain legal conclusions or opinions that

Defendant is not required to admit or deny. DEFENSES First Defense 28. Plaintiff's Complaint (as it relates to Plaintiff and the putative class members), in

whole or in part, fails to state claims upon which relief can be granted. Second Defense 29. Plaintiff's claims (and the claims of the putative class members) are barred, in

whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of limitations, 29 U.S.C. § 255. Third Defense 30. Plaintiff's claims (and the claims of the putative class members) are barred, in

whole or in part, to the extent that they waived and/or released the claims asserted in the Complaint. Fourth Defense 31. Plaintiff's claims (and the claims of the putative class members) are barred, in

whole or in part, by the doctrines of waiver and/or estoppel.

-4DB02:6172287.1 063170.1003

Case 1:07-cv-00359-JJF-MPT

Document 10

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 5 of 8

Fifth Defense 32. Plaintiff's claims (and the claims of the putative class members) are barred, in

whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches. Sixth Defense 33. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part because Defendant's actions were

not "willful" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255. Seventh Defense 34. The claims for liquidated damages should be denied because any act or omission

of Defendant allegedly giving rise to Plaintiff's claims was in good faith and Defendant had reasonable grounds for believing that its acts or omissions did not violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and that it was in compliance with applicable law and its regulations. Eighth Defense 35. Plaintiff is not entitled to collective action certification under the FLSA because

he cannot satisfy the applicable standards. Ninth Defense 36. Even if they were found to have worked uncompensated overtime, which

Defendant expressly denies, Plaintiff and the putative class members would be entitled to no more than one-half their regular rate of pay in that workweek for any overtime hours worked in that workweek. Tenth Defense 37. The claims of Plaintiff (and the putative class members) are barred as to all hours

during which they were engaged in activities that were preliminary to or after their principal activities.

-5DB02:6172287.1 063170.1003

Case 1:07-cv-00359-JJF-MPT

Document 10

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 6 of 8

Eleventh Defense 38. The claims of Plaintiff (and the putative class members) are barred as to all hours

allegedly worked of which Defendant lacked actual or constructive knowledge. Twelfth Defense 39. Plaintiff's claims (and those of putative class members) are barred, in whole or in

part, due to their violations of Defendant's policies. Thirteenth Defense 40. Plaintiff's attempts to pursue this case as a collective action fail because an

independent and individual analysis of Plaintiff's claims and the claims of each putative class member and each of Defendant's defenses is required. Fourteenth Defense 41. The Complaint and each and every claim alleged therein is barred since, at all

times relevant and material herein, Plaintiff and those he purports to represent were exempt from the overtime compensation requirements of the FLSA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1), 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.100, et seq.; 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.200, et seq.; 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.500, et seq.; and 29 C.F.R. § 541.601, in that Plaintiff and those he purports to represent were employed in an administrative, executive, or outside sales capacity and/or were highly compensated employees and/or qualify for the Motor Carrier exemption within the meaning of the FLSA and applicable implementing federal regulations. Fifteenth Defense 42. Prosecution of this matter as a collective action would violate Defendant's rights

to due process and to trial by jury.

-6DB02:6172287.1 063170.1003

Case 1:07-cv-00359-JJF-MPT

Document 10

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 7 of 8

Sixteenth Defense 43. Defendant has not knowingly or intentionally waived any applicable defenses and

reserves the right to assert and rely on such other applicable defenses as may later become available or apparent. Defendant further reserves the right to amend its answer and/or defenses accordingly and/or to delete defenses that it determines are not applicable during the course of subsequent discovery. Nothing stated herein constitutes a concession as to whether or not Plaintiff bears the burden of proof on any issue. WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff, together with costs, fees and any other relief that the Court deems appropriate.

-7DB02:6172287.1 063170.1003

Case 1:07-cv-00359-JJF-MPT

Document 10

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 8 of 8

Dated: August 13, 2007

Respectfully submitted,

s/Sheldon N. Sandler Sheldon N. Sandler YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP The Brandywine Building 1000 West Street, 17th Floor P.O. Box 391 Wilmington, DE 19899-0391 Telephone: 302-571-6673 Facsimile: 302-576-3330 Matthew M. Lampe (pro hac vice) JONES DAY 325 John H. McConnell Boulevard Suite 600 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Telephone: (614) 469-3939 Facsimile: (614) 461-4198 Harry I. Johnson, III (pro hac vice) JONES DAY 555 S. Flower Street Fiftieth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 489-3939 Facsimile: (213) 243-2539 Theresia Moser (pro hac vice) JONES DAY 1420 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 800 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 521-3939 Facsimile: (404) 581-8330 Counsel for Defendant ASTRAZENECA LP

-8DB02:6172287.1 063170.1003