Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-04908-MHP

Document 6

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 1 of 6

1 KATHARINE H. PARKER, Admission Pro Hac Vice Pending 2 1585 Broadway
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP New York, NY 10036-8299

3 Telephone: 212.969.3000 4 [email protected] 5 DAWN M. IRIZARRY
Fax: 212.969.2900

6 PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 7 32nd Floor
2049 Century Park East

GEORGE SAMUEL CLEAVER

8 Telephone 310.557.2900
Fax 310.557.2193

Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206

9 [email protected] 10
[email protected] Attorneys for Defendant

11 Cendant Corporation Short Term Disability Plan 12 13 14 15 JOHN DOE 16 17
v. DISABILITY PLAN, Defendant. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) Case No. C 07 - 04908 MHP ) ) ) ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ) ) ) ) ) ) )

18 CENDANT CORPORATION SHORT TERM 19 20 21 22 23

Defendant The Cendant Corporation Short Term Disability Plan ("Defendant"), by its

24 attorneys, Proskauer Rose LLP, answers the Complaint as follows: 25 26
1. AS TO JURISDICTION Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Complaint, except admits

27 that Plaintiff purports to bring the claims, seek the relief recited therein, and invoke the Court's 28 jurisdiction pursuant to the statutes referenced therein.
1
8086/76946-002 Current/10402044v1

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT C07-04908 MHP

Case 3:07-cv-04908-MHP

Document 6

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 2 of 6

1 2
2.

AS TO VENUE Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Complaint, except admits

3 that Plaintiff purports that venue is appropriate in this Court for the reasons and pursuant to the 4 statutes referenced therein. 5 6
3. AS TO INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT Denies the allegations of paragraph 3, except admits that Plaintiff purports that this

7 action was appropriately assigned pursuant to the rule cited therein. 8 9
4. AS TO THE PARTIES Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Complaint, except admits

10 that Plaintiff was eligible for benefits under Cendant Corporation's short-term disability plan (the 11 "Plan"), subject to the terms and conditions of the Plan including, without limitation, the Plan's 12 offset and benefit reduction provisions, and declines to plead to the extent the allegations assert 13 legal conclusions to which no response is required. 14
5. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Complaint, except declines

15 to plead to the extent the paragraph contains legal assertions that do not require a response, and 16 admits that Plaintiff was eligible for benefits under the Plan, subject to the terms and conditions of 17 the Plan, including, without limitation, the Plan's offset and benefit reduction provisions. 18 Defendant further admits that the Plan provided short-term disability benefits, that it was 19 sponsored by Cendant Corporation (n/k/a Avis Budget Group, Inc., located in Parsippany, New 20 Jersey) and that the Plan was self-funded by Cendant Corporation ("Cendant"). 21 22
6. AS TO THE FACTS Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Complaint, except admits

23 that on or about May 4, 1999, Trendwest hired Plaintiff as a Sales Representative and that he was 24 assigned employee identification number 187107. Defendant further admits that Trendwest 25 markets and sells vacation ownership interests, that on or about October 31, 2000, Plaintiff 26 became Assistant Sales Manager of Trendwest's Novato location, and that Plaintiff became a 27 Project Manager on or about July 20, 2001. 28
8086/76946-002 Current/10402044v1

2 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT C07-04908 MHP

Case 3:07-cv-04908-MHP

Document 6

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 3 of 6

1

7.

Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Complaint, except admits

2 that Cendant acquired 90% of Trendwest on or about May 1, 2002, and that Cendant acquired the 3 remaining 10% of Trendwest on or about June 3, 2002. 4
8. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Complaint, except admits

5 that on or about March 16, 2004, Plaintiff became Sales Manager of Trendwest's Walnut Creek 6 location. 7
9. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity

8 of the allegations contained in paragraph 9, except admits that, as a Sales Manager, Plaintiff was 9 responsible for managing a team of sales representatives and for overseeing sales and assisting 10 with closings. 11
10. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity

12 of the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Complaint. 13
11. Denies knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or

14 falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Complaint. 15
12. Denies knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or

16 falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Complaint. 17
13. Denies knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or

18 falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the Complaint. 19
14. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the Complaint, except admits

20 that the Plan provided short-term disability benefits to its employees and refers the Court to the 21 Plan documents for all of the Plan's terms and conditions. 22
15. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the Complaint, except admits

23 that the Plan provided short-term disability benefits, subject to certain terms and conditions, and 24 refers the Court to the Plan documents for all of the Plan's terms and conditions. 25
16. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the Complaint, except admits

26 that CORE WorkAbility acted as a claims administrator for the Plan, and declines to plead to the 27 extent the allegations assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 28
8086/76946-002 Current/10402044v1

3 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT C07-04908 MHP

Case 3:07-cv-04908-MHP

Document 6

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 4 of 6

1

17.

Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Complaint, except admits

2 that on or about June 2004, CORE Workability changed its name to Broadspire, and declines to 3 plead to the extent the allegations assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 4
18. Admits the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the Complaint and refers to

5 that document for the contents therein. 6
19. Admits the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the Complaint and refers to

7 that document for the contents therein. 8
20. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Complaint, except admits

9 that on or about September 13, 2004, CORE sent Plaintiff a letter informing Plaintiff that his 10 absence was clinically substantiated for August 23, 2004 through October 1, 2004, and refers the 11 Court to the letter for its contents. 12 13
21. 22. Admits the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the Complaint. Admits the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of the Complaint, and avers that

14 Plaintiff's benefits were further offset in accordance with the Plan by State Disability Insurance 15 benefits the Plaintiff received from the State of California. 16
23. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the Complaint, except admits

17 that Mr. Meic informed Plaintiff that his employment was terminated, and refers the Court to the 18 letter for its contents. 19 20 21
33. 24. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of the Complaint. AS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF1 Repeats and realleges its responses to paragraphs 1 24 of the Complaint as though

22 fully set forth herein. 23
34. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 34 of the Complaint, except declines

24 to plead to the extent the paragraph asserts legal conclusions that do not require a response. 25 26
Defendant has followed the same numbered paragraphs set forth in Plaintiff's complaint. 27 The numbered allegations in Plaintiff's complaint skip from numbered paragraph 24 to 33. 28 Accordingly, Defendant's numbered paragraphs also skip from 24 to 33. 4
8086/76946-002 Current/10402044v1
1

35.

Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 35 of the Complaint.

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT C07-04908 MHP

Case 3:07-cv-04908-MHP

Document 6

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 5 of 6

1 2 3 4

AS TO PLAINTIFF'S PRAYER FOR RELIEF Defendant denies the allegations in their entirety in Plaintiff's Prayer for Relief. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES As for separate Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint, and without conceding that

5 defendant bears the burden of proof or persuasion with respect to any of them, and without 6 prejudice to defendant's rights to assert any other defenses that it becomes aware of through 7 discovery, Defendant alleges as follows: 8 9
36. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Complaint fails, in whole or in part, to state a claim upon which relief may be

10 granted. 11 12
37. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The action is barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff has failed to properly

13 exhaust the administrative and claims review procedures of the Plan and under and pursuant to 14 ERISA and the regulations promulgated thereunder. 15 16
38. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, as to any matter not raised in the

17 administrative claim process. 18 19
39. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff is not entitled to

20 the damages he seeks. 21 22
40. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff was not entitled

23 to payment of any benefits under the Plan and/or his benefits were fully offset by the benefits 24 Plaintiff received from the State of California in accordance with the Plan's terms. 25 26
41. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of

27 limitations and/or filing periods and/or doctrine of laches. 28
8086/76946-002 Current/10402044v1

5 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT C07-04908 MHP

Case 3:07-cv-04908-MHP

Document 6

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 6 of 6

1

WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that the Court enter judgment in its favor and dismiss

2 the Complaint in its entirety, and award Defendant its attorneys' fees and costs and such other 3 relief as the Court deems just and proper. 4 5
CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-16, the undersigned certifies that the following listed persons,

6 associations or persons, firms, partnerships, corporations (including parent corporations) or other 7 entities (i) have a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the 8 proceeding, or (ii) have a non-financial interest in that subject matter or in a party that could be 9 affected by the outcome of this proceeding: Wyndham Worldwide Corporation ("Wyndham"). In 10 2006, Cendant Corporation executed a separation plan resulting in four successor corporations. 11 As part of the separation plan, Plaintiff's employer, Trendwest, became part of Wyndham. 12 Wyndham will be liable for the amount of any judgment in favor of Plaintiff. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
8086/76946-002 Current/10402044v1

DATED: December 3, 2007

KATHARINE H. PARKER DAWN M. IRIZARRY GEORGE SAMUEL CLEAVER PROSKAUER ROSE LLP /s/ George Samuel Cleaver George Samuel Cleaver Attorneys for Defendant, Cendant Corporation Short Term Disability Plan

6 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT C07-04908 MHP