Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of California - California

Case 5:08-cv-00769-RMW

Document 6

Filed 03/17/2008

Page 1 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

MARGARET HART EDWARDS, Bar No. 65699 LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation 650 California Street 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108.2693 Telephone: 415.433.1940 Attorneys for Defendant EASTFIELD MING QUONG, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRENDA DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. EASTFIELD MING QUONG, INC. and DOES One through Ten, Defendants. Case No. C08-00769 RMW ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N 650 C a lifornia Stre e t 20th F loor Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693 415. 433. 1940

Defendant Eastfield Ming Quong, Inc. (hereinafter "Defendant"), by and through its undersigned counsel, answers Plaintiff's Complaint filed February 1, 2008. All allegations not specifically admitted in this Answer are denied. Defendant admits, denies and alleges as follows: NATURE OF CLAIM 1. In response to paragraph 1 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that Plaintiff

purports to brings this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California Wage Orders and Statutes. Defendant denies any liability to Plaintiff for overtime wages, liquidated damages, waiting time penalties, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment interest, compensatory damages, restitution, or any other form of relief. 2. In response to paragraph 2 of the Complaint, Defendant alleges that fictitious

defendants may not be sued in this court, and denies each and every other allegation of this paragraph.
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C08-00769 RMW

Case 5:08-cv-00769-RMW

Document 6

Filed 03/17/2008

Page 2 of 10

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
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N 650 C a lifornia Stre e t 20th F loor Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693 415. 433. 1940

3. contained therein. 4. contained therein.

In response to paragraph 3 of the Complaint, Defendant admits the allegations

In response to paragraph 4 of the Complaint, Defendant admits the allegations

JURISDICTION 5. In response to paragraph 5 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that Plaintiff

purports to bring this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the supplemental jurisdiction of this court. 6. In response to paragraph 6 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that Plaintiff is

a citizen of the State of California and that Defendant is a California nonprofit corporation doing business in the State of California. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 7. In response to paragraph 7 of the Complaint, Defendant alleges that it

employed Plaintiff in the position of Family Specialist II from October 2001 through March 5, 2007. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph. 8. In response to paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Defendant alleges that it

employed Plaintiff as an at-will employee. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph. 9. of this paragraph. 10. In response to paragraph 10 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the In response to paragraph 9 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the allegations

allegations of this paragraph. COUNT ONE 11. In response to paragraph 11 of the Complaint, Defendant repeats and realleges

its responses to paragraphs 1-10 of the Complaint as though set forth in full. 12. In response to paragraph 12 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph.

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2

C08-00769 RMW

Case 5:08-cv-00769-RMW

Document 6

Filed 03/17/2008

Page 3 of 10

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
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N 650 C a lifornia Stre e t 20th F loor Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693 415. 433. 1940

13.

In response to paragraph 13 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph. 14. In response to paragraph 14 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph. 15. In response to paragraph 15 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph. 16. In response to paragraph 16 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph, and denies that Plaintiff has been damaged in any sum whatsoever. 17. In response to paragraph 17 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph. 18. In response to paragraph 18 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph. COUNT TWO 19. In response to paragraph 19 of the Complaint, Defendant repeats and realleges

its responses to paragraphs 1-18 of the Complaint as though set forth in full. 20. In response to paragraph 20 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph. 21. In response to paragraph 21 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph. 22. In response to paragraph 22 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph. 23. In response to paragraph 23 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph. 24. In response to paragraph 24 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph, and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any form of damages in any sum whatsoever. 25. In response to paragraph 25 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph.
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

3

C08-00769 RMW

Case 5:08-cv-00769-RMW

Document 6

Filed 03/17/2008

Page 4 of 10

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
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N 650 C a lifornia Stre e t 20th F loor Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693 415. 433. 1940

26.

In response to paragraph 26 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph. COUNT THREE 27. In response to paragraph 27 of the Complaint, Defendant repeats and realleges

its responses to paragraphs 1-26 of the Complaint as though set forth in full. 28. In response to paragraph 28 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph. 29. In response to paragraph 29 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph. 30. In response to paragraph 30 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph. 31. In response to paragraph 31 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph. 32. In response to paragraph 32 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph, and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to damages or restitution in any sum whatsoever. 33. In response to paragraph 33 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph. 34. In response to paragraph 34 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph. COUNT FOUR 35. In response to paragraph 35 of the Complaint, Defendant repeats and realleges

its responses to paragraphs 1-34 of the Complaint as though set forth in full. 36. In response to paragraph 36 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph. 37. In response to paragraph 37 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph, and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to recover penalties of any kind in any amount whatsoever.
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

4

C08-00769 RMW

Case 5:08-cv-00769-RMW

Document 6

Filed 03/17/2008

Page 5 of 10

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
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N 650 C a lifornia Stre e t 20th F loor Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693 415. 433. 1940

38.

In response to paragraph 38 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph, and that Plaintiff is entitled to penalties of any kind in any amount whatsoever. COUNT FIVE 39. In response to paragraph 39 of the Complaint, Defendant repeats and realleges

its responses to paragraphs 1-38 of the Complaint as though set forth in full. 40. In response to paragraph 40 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph and denies that Defendant owed any sum in any amount to Plaintiff. 41. In response to paragraph 41 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph. 42. In response to paragraph 42 of the Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations of this paragraph, and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to penalties of any kind in any amount whatsoever. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 43. In response to Plaintiff's various prayers for relief, Defendant denies the

Plaintiff is entitled to any type of relief in any sum. DEFENSES 44. relief may be granted. 45. Plaintiff's claims, in whole or in part, are barred by the applicable statute of Plaintiff's complaint and each count therein fails to state a claim upon which

limitations, including but not limited to Section 6(a) of the Portal-to Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. section 255(a) respect to Counts Two and Three, California Business and Professions Code section 17208 with respect to Count Three, California Code of Civil Procedure sections 338 or 340 with respect to Counts One and Five, and California Code of Civil Procedure section 340 with respect to Count Four. 46. Plaintiff was not entitled to overtime compensation because she was an

employee exempted by the overtime requirements pursuant to, but not limited to 29 U.S.C. section

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

5

C08-00769 RMW

Case 5:08-cv-00769-RMW

Document 6

Filed 03/17/2008

Page 6 of 10

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
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N 650 C a lifornia Stre e t 20th F loor Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693 415. 433. 1940

213 et seq., the California Labor Code, and the provisions of the California Industrial Welfare Commission's wage orders, including any combination exemptions. 47. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the provisions of Section 10

of the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. § 259, because actions taken in connection with Plaintiff's compensation were done in good faith in conformity with and reliance upon written administrative regulations, orders, rulings, approvals, interpretations, and written and unwritten administrative practices or enforcement policies of the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor. 48. Defendant alleges that any violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act was an

act or omission made in good faith and Defendant had reasonable grounds for believing that the act or omission was not a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act so that, pursuant to Section 11 of the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. section 260, liquidated damages cannot be awarded. 49. Defendant alleges that the amounts described in section 7(e) of the Fair Labor

Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 207(e), must be excluded from the regular rate on which any overtime due is calculated under either federal or California law. 50. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part to the extent that the work she

performed falls within exemptions, exclusions, exceptions, or credits provided for in Section 7 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 207. 51. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the provisions of Section 4

of the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. § 254, as to all hours during which Plaintiff was engaged in activities which were preliminary or postliminary to her principal activities. 52. non curat lex. 53. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of payment, as Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of de minimis

Plaintiff has been properly compensated for purposes of the FLSA and the California Labor Code. 54. Defendant at all times acted in good faith to comply with the FLSA and with

reasonable grounds to believe that its actions did not violate the statutes cited in the Complaint, and

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

6

C08-00769 RMW

Case 5:08-cv-00769-RMW

Document 6

Filed 03/17/2008

Page 7 of 10

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
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N 650 C a lifornia Stre e t 20th F loor Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693 415. 433. 1940

Defendant asserts a lack of willfulness or intent to violate the FLSA or California law as a defense to any claim by Plaintiffs for liquidated damages or other penalties. 55. Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to properly state a claim for

penalties under California Labor Code section 203 because any failure to pay wages found to be due Plaintiff was not willful. 56. Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to properly state a claim for

penalties under California Labor Code section 203 because there is a bona fide, good faith dispute with respect to Defendant's obligation to pay any wages that may be found to be due. 57. 58. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring her claims as to all or a

portion of the claims presented in the Complaint. 59. doctrine of laches. 60. Defendant alleges that all or portions of Plaintiff's claims are barred by the Defendant alleges that all or portions of Plaintiff's claims are barred by the

doctrine of unclean hands. 61. Defendant alleges that all or portions of Plaintiff's claims are barred by the

doctrine of avoidable consequences because Defendant took reasonable steps to prevent and correct improper wage payments, Plaintiff unreasonably failed to use the preventative and corrective opportunities provided to her by Defendant, and the reasonable use of Defendant's procedures would have prevented at least some, if not all, of the harm Plaintiff allegedly suffered. 62. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief insofar as she

has adequate remedies at law. 63. Defendant alleges that all or portions of Plaintiff's claims are barred by the

doctrines of waiver or release. 64. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff consented to, encouraged, or voluntarily

participated in all actions taken, if any. // //
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

7

C08-00769 RMW

Case 5:08-cv-00769-RMW

Document 6

Filed 03/17/2008

Page 8 of 10

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
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N 650 C a lifornia Stre e t 20th F loor Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693 415. 433. 1940

65.

Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's claims for recovery pursuant to California

Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. are barred with respect to penalties of any nature. 66. Defendant alleges that, to the extent Plaintiff seeks statutory or other

penalties, such claims must comport with the due process requirements of State Farm v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003). 67. Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause of action therein, or

some of them, are barred because the applicable wage orders of the California Industrial Welfare Commission or the provisions of the California Labor Code are unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous and violate Defendant's rights under the United States and California Constitutions to, among other things, due process of law. 68. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's prayers for restitution, disgorgement, or

injunctive relief under California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. are barred with respect to any alleged violations that have discontinued, ceased, or are not likely to recur. 69. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part because

Plaintiff's alleges injuries were not proximately caused by any unlawful policy, custom, practice or procedure promulgated or tolerated by Defendant. 70. Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to properly state a claim for

prejudgment interest, as the damages claimed are not sufficiently certain to support an award of prejudgment interest. 71. Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to properly state a claim for

prejudgment interest, as the damages claimed are not sufficiently certain to support an award of prejudgment interest. 72. Defendant alleges that further investigation and discovery will reveal that

Defendant is entitled to an offset against any relief due Plaintiff, based upon her wrongful conduct or monies owed to Defendant. 73. Defendant alleges that any unlawful or other wrongful acts of any person(s)

employed by Defendant were outside of the scope of his or her authority and such acts, if any, were
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

8

C08-00769 RMW

Case 5:08-cv-00769-RMW

Document 6

Filed 03/17/2008

Page 9 of 10

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
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N 650 C a lifornia Stre e t 20th F loor Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693 415. 433. 1940

not authorized, ratified, or condoned by Defendant, nor did Defendant know or have reason to be aware of such alleged conduct. 74. Defendant is entitled to a set-off with respect to Plaintiff for monies paid in

salary for any hours where Plaintiff was not working. 75. Code section 558. 76. Plaintiff has no standing to sue under California Labor Code section 2699, and Plaintiff has no private right of action for penalties under California Labor

has not satisfied the requirements to bring a civil action under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 because she has not complied with the terms of California Labor Code section 2699.3. 77. Defendant reserves the right to assert additional defenses or claims, which

may become known during the course of discovery. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment from this Court as follows: 1. 2. Plaintiff takes nothing by this action; That the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered

against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant on each of Plaintiff's claims for relief; 3. That Plaintiff be ordered to pay Defendant its reasonable costs and attorney's

fees, including, but not limited to, costs and attorney's fees provided under 29 U.S.C. section 216 and Labor Code section 218.5; and 4. Such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate and proper. Respectfully submitted,

Dated: March 17, 2008

/s/ Margaret Hart Edwards MARGARET HART EDWARDS LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation Attorneys for Defendant EASTFIELD MING QUONG, INC.

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

9

C08-00769 RMW

Case 5:08-cv-00769-RMW

Document 6

Filed 03/17/2008

Page 10 of 10

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
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N 650 C a lifornia Stre e t 20th F loor Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693 415. 433. 1940

JURY TRIAL DEMAND Defendant Eastfield Ming Quong, Inc. hereby requests a jury trial on all issues triable by a jury. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Margaret Hart Edwards MARGARET HART EDWARDS LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation Attorneys for Defendant EASTFIELD MING QUONG, INC.

Firmwide:84570024.1 010782.1034

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

10

C08-00769 RMW