Answer Unlimited Fee Applies

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.April 5, 2021

QONUI-bUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Patrick C. Stokes (State Bar No. 25 1558) JACKSON LEWIS P.C. Riverpark Tower 333 West San Carlos Street, Suite 1625 San Jose, California 951 10-2714 Telephone: (408) 579-0404 Facsimile: (408) 454-0290 E-mail: Neda.Dalcielo@iacksonlewis.com Patrick.Stokes@iacksonlewis.com Kate L. Brown (State Bar N0. 308134) JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, California 941 1 1-4615 Telephone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 E-mail: Kate.Brown(aDiacksonlewis.com Attorneys for Defendant D.P.M.S., INC., d/b/a Danco Machine Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 6/7/2021 1:49 PM Reviewed By: L Del Mundo Case #21 CV379148 Envelope: 6595898 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA KODY WALKER, individually and 0n behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, VS. D.P.M.S., Inc., a Corporation, d/b/a DANCO MACHINE, and DOES 1 t0 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 21CV379148 Complex DEFENDANT D.P.M.S., INC., D/B/A DANCO MACHINE’S ANSWER T0 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Dept: 1 Judge: Hon. Brian C. Walsh Complaint Filed: April 5, 2021 Trial Date: Not Set 1 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case N0. 2 1 CV379148 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO THE COURT, PLAINTIFF AND HIS COUNSEL: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant D.P.M.S., INC. d/b/a Danco Machine (“Defendant”), hereby answers the unverified Class and Representative Action Complaint (“Complaint”) filed by PlaintiffKODY WALKER (“Plaintiff’) as follows: GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant t0 Code 0f Civil Procedure Section 431.30(d), Defendant denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Defendant further denies, generally and specifically, that Plaintiff has been injured in any sum therein alleged, 0r that Plaintiff is entitled to damages or any other reliefwhatsoever by reason ofany act or omission 0n the part of Defendant. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES By way of affirmative defenses to the allegations of the Complaint herein, Defendant alleges as follows: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure t0 State a Cause 0f Action) 1. The Complaint as a Whole, and each and every cause 0f action alleged therein on behalf of Plaintiff and the purported class, fails t0 state a claim upon Which relief can be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute 0f Limitations) 2. The Complaint as a Whole, and each and every cause of action alleged therein 0n behalf of Plaintiff and the purported class, is barred, in Whole or in part, by any and all applicable statutes of limitations, including but not limited t0 California Code 0f Civil Procedure §§ 338(a), 339, 340(a), California Business & Professions Code § 17208, and California Labor Code §§ 203(b) and 210, and any other administrative regulation or requirement. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (N0 Violation) 3. The Complaint as a Whole, and each and every cause of action alleged therein 0n behalf 0f Plaintiff and the purported class, fails because Defendant did not Violate, or cause t0 be 2 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case N0. 21CV379148 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 violated, the California Labor Code or applicable Wage Orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”). FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (N0 Failure t0 Provide Meal and Rest Breaks) 4. The Complaint as a Whole, and each and every cause of action alleged therein 0n behalf 0f Plaintiff and the purported class, fails because Defendant did not fail t0 provide meal periods 0r rest breaks pursuant t0 the California Labor Code, applicable Wage Orders issue by the IWC, 0r any other basis. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Not Suffered 0r Permitted t0 Work) 5. The Complaint as a Whole, and each and every cause of action alleged therein 0n behalf of Plaintiff and the purported class, fails because Plaintiff and the purported class were not suffered 0r permitted to work during any time for Which they were not paid the appropriate wage rate, including the proper minimum wage and overtime rates. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Not Hours Worked) 6. The Complaint as a Whole, and each and every cause of action alleged therein 0n behalf 0f Plaintiff and the purported class, fails because some 0r all 0f the hours for which Plaintiff and the purported class claim compensation are not considered hours worked under California state law. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack 0f Knowledge - Plaintiff’s Conduct) 7. The Complaint as a Whole, and each and every cause of action alleged therein 0n behalf of Plaintiff and the purported class, is barred to the extent that Defendant has no knowledge 0r reason t0 know that Plaintiff and the purported class were working for time for Which they were not paid, or that they were not taking meal or rest periods in accordance With the law. /// /// 3 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case N0. 21CV379148 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (N0 Willful Violation / Good Faith Dispute) 8. To the extent Plaintiff and the purported class seek penalties for any alleged Willful failure t0 comply with the requirements 0f the California Labor Code, including but not limited t0 Labor Code section § 203, such penalties are barred because Defendant did not willfully Violate any provision of the California Labor Code, and good faith disputes exist concerning any alleged Violation. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Wage Statements - N0 Knowing and Intentional Failure) 9. Even assuming arguendo Plaintiff and the purported class was not provided With a proper itemized statement 0f wages and deductions, a recovery 0f damages 0r penalties is not permitted because Defendant’s alleged failure t0 comply With California Labor Code § 226(a) was not a “knowing and intentional failure” under California Labor Code § 226(a). TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Wage Statements - N0 Injury) 10. Even assuming arguendo Plaintiff and the purported class were not provided With a proper itemized statement of wages and deductions, a recovery 0f damages 0r penalties is not permitted because Plaintiff and the putative class did not suffer any injury. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Wage Statements - Cure) 11. Plaintiff’s claims and the claims 0f the purported class for failure to provide compliant wage statements are barred in Whole or in part, and recovery 0f damages 0r penalties is not permitted, because Defendant cured the alleged Violation. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Voluntary Waiver 0f Meal & Rest Periods) 12. Plaintiff’s claims and the claims 0f the purported class for failure t0 provide meal and rest periods are barred in whole 0r in part t0 the extent Defendant provided meal and rest periods in compliance with California law, and Plaintiffand the purported class voluntarily waived 4 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case N0. 21CV379148 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 meal and rest breaks and/or agreed to on-duty meal breaks as allowed by the relevant provisions of the applicable IWC Wage Orders. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (De Minimis) 13. Plaintiff’s claims and the claims 0f the purported class are barred, in whole 0r in part, by the de minimis doctrine. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (N0 Violation 0f Underlying State Law) 14. Defendant is not liable for Violation 0f unlawful business practices pursuant to California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 er seq. because it is not liable t0 Plaintiff or the purported class for any alleged Violation 0f underlying state or federal laws. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Adequate Remedy at Law) 15. Plaintiff and the purported class are not entitled t0 a recovery 0f equitable relief, including any relief requested pursuant t0 California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. because of the existence of an adequate remedy at law. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (N0 Proscribed Conduct/No “Business Practice”) 16. Plaintiff’ s claims and that of the purported class for alleged Violations 0f California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. fail because Defendant did not engage in a conduct proscribed by the Unfair Business Practice Act 0r has not engaged in a “business practice” subj ect t0 the Act. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Comparative Fault and/or Negligence) 17. Plaintiff’ s claims and that of the purported class are barred t0 the extent any loss, injury, damage, or detriment as alleged in the Complaint was caused or contributed t0 by the actions of Plaintiff, herself, 0r the purported class in that their own actions and omissions proximately caused and contributed t0 the loss, injury, damages and detriment alleged. Plaintiff 5 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case N0. 21CV379148 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0r the purported class’s recovery from Defendants, if any, should be reduced in proportion t0 the percentage 0f their own negligence or proportion of fault. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver and Release) 18. Some 0r all of Plaintiff” s claims and the claims of the purported class are barred, in whole or in part, by prior waiver and or release agreement. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (N0 Standing) 19. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff lacks standing as a representative of the purported class and does not and cannot adequately represent the putative class members as to some or all claims. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Res Judicata / Collateral Estoppel) 20. As a separate affirmative defense to the Complaint and every cause 0f action alleged therein, Plaintiff’s claims and the claims 0f the purported class are barred in whole 0r in part by the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure t0 Mitigate / Avoidable Consequences) 21. Plaintiff’s claims and the claims of the purported class are barred, in Whole 0r in part, to the extent Plaintiff and members of the purported class have not appropriately nor adequately mitigated his alleged damages, if any, or taken advantage of any preventative 0r corrective safeguards to avoid harm. Plaintiff’s claims and the claims 0f the purported class are barred, in whole 0r in part, 0r any recovery should be reduced, pursuant to the avoidable consequences doctrine, because Defendant took reasonable steps t0 prevent and correct alleged Violations 0f wage-and-hour laws; Plaintiff and purported class members unreasonably failed t0 use the preventative and corrective opportunities provided by Defendants; Defendants communicated those procedures to Plaintiff and purported class members during their employment; Plaintiff and purported class members were aware of such procedures; and 6 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case N0. 21CV379148 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 reasonable use 0f Defendant’s procedures would have been prevented at least some of the harm that Plaintiff and purported class members allegedly suffered. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Accord, Satisfaction and Payment) 22. Plaintiff’s claims and the claims 0f the purported class are barred, in whole 0r in part, by the principles of accord and satisfaction, and payment. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) 23. Plaintiff’s claims and the claims 0f the purported class are barred, in Whole 0r in part by, the doctrine 0f unclean hands. TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) 24. Plaintiff’s claims and the claims of the purported class are barred, in Whole 0r in part by, the doctrine 0f estoppel. TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unconstitutional Penalties) 25. To the extent Plaintiff and the purported class seek to recover liquidated damages 0r any penalties that are disproportionate to the actual harm suffered, if any, such an award under the circumstances 0f this case would constitute excessive fine and would otherwise be in Violation of Defendant’s due process and other rights under California and United States Constitution. TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unjust, Arbitrary, Oppressive, and Confiscatory Penalties) 26. Plaintiff and the purported class are not entitled t0 recovery any civil penalties because, under the circumstances of this case, any such recovery would be unjust, arbitrary, oppressive, and confiscatory. TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Offset) 27. Without admitting the allegations 0f the Complaint, but rather expressly denying 7 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case N0. 21CV379148 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 them, Defendant is entitled t0 and offset for amounts Plaintiffand alleged putative class members owe Defendant for receipt 0f any wages and other benefits t0 Which they were not entitled or did not earn. See Witt v. Jackson (1961) 57 Cal.2d 57. TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (All Due Compensation Paid) 28. The Complaint is barred, in whole 0r in part because Defendant paid Plaintiff and alleged putative class members employed by Plaintiff s employer all income, compensation and pay t0 which they have ever been entitled to under the California Labor Code and the applicable orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission. TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Reimbursement 0f Business Expenses) 29. To the extent Plaintiff and the purported aggrieved employees were employees, Which Defendant expressly denies, Plaintiffs and the purported aggrieved employees” claims under Labor Code section 221 are barred, in Whole or in part, because, at all relevant times, Defendant reimbursed its employees for the costs 0f expenses incurred in the discharge of their duties and/or did not otherwise require them t0 bear such costs. THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies) 30. Plaintiffs PAGA claim is barred because Plaintiffs failed t0 exhaust administrative remedies that are a precondition t0 suit under PAGA. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS Defendant alleges that the 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 0r appear during discovery in this action and specifically reserves the right t0 seek t0 amend this Answer for purposes 0f asserting such additional affirmative defenses, in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure. /// 8 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case N0. 21CV379148 QONUI-bUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows: 1. That Plaintiff take nothing herein; 2. That the Complaint be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice; 3. That Plaintiff be denied each demand and prayer for relief in the Complaint; 4. For costs of suit herein, including reasonable attorney’s fees to the extent permitted by law; and 5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: June 7, 2021 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. WWW 6.1%; Patrick C. Stokes Kate L. Brown Attorneys for Defendants D.P.M.S., 1110., d/b/a Danco Machine 9 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case N0. 21CV379148 QONUI-bUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE [CCP 8 1010.6(2). CRC Rule 2.253(b)(1)(A) and General LR 6] I, the undersigned, declare that I am employed With the law firm of Jackson Lewis P.C., whose address is 333 W. San Carlos St., Suite 1625, San Jose, CA 951 10; I am over the age 0f eighteen (1 8) years and am not a party to this action. On the dated indicated below, I caused to be e-served the attached DEFENDANT D.P.M.S., INC. D/B/A DANCO MACHINE’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT in this action by uploading a true and correct copy thereof, in PDF format, for electronic filing and service by ASAP Legal (a court-approved Electronic Filing Service Provider), pursuant to Local Rule 1.3. Said document to be filed with the Court and e- served 0n Plaintiff’s counsel 0f record, Whose contact information is as follows: Matthew J. Matern Attorneyfor Plaintiff Tagore O. Subramanian CODY WALKER Julia Z. Wells MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Ave., Ste. 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (3 10) 53 1-1900 Facsimile: (3 10) 53 1-1901 E-mail: mmatem®matemlawgrouncom tagore@matemlawgroup.com iwells@matemlawgroup.com I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the above is true and correct. Executed on June 7, 2021, at San Jose, California. MW <26M» y Valynn R. Castro 4850-0708-6827, v. 1 10 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case N0. 21CV379148