Answer Unlimited Fee Applies

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.October 31, 2017

'Av) \OooqoxLA-mH fiBBBBx’BE‘oEEGEGESE NERD,” Phillip]. Griego (SBN 76616) F l L E D Law Office of Phillip J. Griego 95 s. Market Street, Suite 500 DEC 18 2311 San Jose, CA 95113 T 408-293-6341 91. “P ’ F THE COURT F 408-865-7936 U ERIOR LOU- E: phil@griegolaw.com gy UNTY OF ”N “0%?!“ Attorney for Defendant Galli Produce Company, Inc. ‘ ”5% 03‘ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Unlimited Jurisdiction RICARDO ALVAREZ, an individual, Plaintiff, Case Number: 17CV318468 v. DEFENDANT GALLI PRODUCE GALLI PRODUCE COMPANY, a California COMPANY ANSWER TO Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT Defendants. VVVVVVVVVVVVVV COMES NOW Defendant Galli Produce Company (“Defendant”) in answer to the Unverified Complaint (“Complaint”) filed on behalf of Plaintiff Ricardo Alvarez (“Plaintiff”) and alleges as follows: GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431 .30(d), Defendant, severing itself from its unserved and/or unnamed co-defendants, and for its Answer to the Complaint hereby generally denies each and every allegation contained therein, and the whole thereof, pursuant to section 431.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES DEFENDANT GALLI PRODUCE COMPANY ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT 1 '1 \OWQONLA-Pwlgr-fi {3:5 13 14 16 17 18 19 BB ERB'Eaibi’EBB Without waiving or excusing Plaintiffs burden of proof, or admitting that Defendant has any burden of proof, as separate and distinct affirmative defenses to Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant alleges as follows. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a first separate and affirmative defense to the unverified complaint, Defendant alleges the unverified Complaint fails to state a claim or cause of action upon which relief may be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a second separate and affirmative defense to the unverified complaint, Defendant alleges that the remedies sought by Plaintiff are barred in equity, including under the doctrines of in pari delicto and unclean hands. TI-HRD AF FIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a third separate and affirmative defense to the unverified complaint, Defendant alleges the plaintiffs claims for damages are barred or reduced to the extent that he failed to properly mitigate his alleged damages. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a fourth separate and affirmative defense to the unverified complaint, Defendant alleges Plaintiff‘s claims may be barred by the doctrine of after-acquired evidence. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a fifth separate and affirmative defense to the unverified complaint, Defendant alleges at all times herein relevant Defendant had legitimate, non-discriminatory (and/or non-retaliatory) reasons for any employment actions pertaining to Plaintiff. \OOOQQUI-PWNr-I §8B886555535§55 9388!} SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a sixth separate and affimiative defense to the unverified complaint, Defendant alleges Plaintiff failed to request any reasonable accommodation for any disability. Plaintiff had no disability during his employment. SEVENTH AF FIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a seventh separate and affirmative defense to the unverified complaint, Defendant alleges the defendant states that, even ifthe Plaintiff is able to prove that a prohibited factor motivated the Defendant's alleged employment action, which the Defendant expressly denies, the same action would have been taken even absent such motivation and, therefore, the Plaintiff‘s claims must fail. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As an eighth separate and affirmative defense to the unverified complaint, Defendant alleges Plaintiffs complaint is barred, in whole or in part, because the Defendant exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any discriminatory or retaliatory conduct and because Plaintiff unreasonably failed to properly take advantage of any preventive or con‘ective opportunities provided by the Defendant or to avoid hami otherwise. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a ninth separate and affirmative defense to the unverified complaint, Defendant alleges Defendant did not fail to engage in good faith interactive process to find a reasonable accommodation for any disability because he had no disability and he never asked for an accommodation. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE DEFENDANT GALLI PRODUCE COMPANY ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT 3 0‘2 \0 00 \l C\ LII A b.) [\J )-I EGEGEGEE 17 18 19 21 fiBlS 88888 As a tenth separate and affimiative defense to the unverified complaint, Defendant alleges Plaintiffis not a qualified individual with a disability as defined by California law. ELEVENTH AF F IRMATIVE DEFENSE As a eleventh separate and affirmative defense to the unverified complaint, Defendant alleges the plaintiff failed to provide proper notice as required by the CFRA. TWELFTH AF FIRMATIVE DEFENSE As an twelvth separate and affirmative defense to the unverified complaint, Defendant alleges Defendant does not employ 50 or more employees. Plaintiffs claims are preempted by California Workers Compensation procedure. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Defendant requests judgment as follows: 1. That Plaintiffs take nothing by reason oftheir Complaint; 2. That judgment be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs; 3. That Defendants recover their attorneys’ fees and costs of suit; and 4. That the Court award Defendants such other and/or further relief as the Court deems just and proper. JURY DEMAND Defendant demand a jury on all issues triable to a jury. Dated: / x f) ,2017 By: J Phillip J. Griegofé V V Attorney for De nda t G Galli Produce Company, Inc. DEFENDANT GALLI PRODUCE COMPANY ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT 4 \DCDVONU‘IVPOJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHr-Ir-IHHp-I 00\10\Ln1-l>03NHO\000\]c\LnrAmN1-IO PROOF OF SERVICE - F I L ED 1, the undersigned, hereby declare that: _ DEC ‘1 8 .20” I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within cause. I afifmo 1’, _ The Law Office of Phillip J Griego at 95 South Market Street, Suite 500, Slant n transmission. On December 18, 2017, I served: 6" - DEFENDANT GALLI PRODUCE COMPANY ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT upon the following interested party(s) in said cause: Ruben Guerra Law Offices of Ruben Guerra 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071-9500 VIA MAIL (CCP $8 1013(a), 2015. 5) [_X_'| By placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope(s), addressed as above, and by depositing a true copy thereof that same day 1n the United States Mail 111 San Jose, California, with postage thereon fully prepaid, following ordinary business practices. VIA EXPRESS MAIL/COURIER (CCP $8 1013(e), 2015.5) U By placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope(s), addressed as above, and on that date placing such for collection for express mail delivery by providing a true copy thereof with an authorized courier and/or express'mail carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided, for delivery on the following business day, following ordinary business practices. VIA FACSIMILE (CCP $8 1013(e), 2015.5, CRC 2008, FRCP Rule 5(e)) | X By arranging for the transmission(s) of a true copy thereof, from facsimile number (408)293-1959 to the facsimile number(s) noted above, prior to 5:00 pm, that same day, in the ordinary course of business. The transmission report confirms transmission was complete and without error. The parties have agreed to service by facsimile. VIA HAND-DELIVERY (CCP SS 1011, 2015.5) L1 By placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope(s), addressed as above, and causing same to be hand-served by either an employee of my firm or a retained courier, with delivery fees paid or provided, for delivery that same day, in the ordinary course of business. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct under the laws of the State of California. Executed on December 18, 2017, at San Jose, California. Geri golbath PROOF OF SERVICE CASE NUMBER 17CV318468 1