defendant ninthdecimal inc s answer to complaint

Cal. Super. - 1st Dist.December 29, 2020

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 13777.023 4843-1995-7425.2 1 Case No. CGC-19-580436 DEFENDANT NINTHDECIMAL, INC.’S ANSWER C O B L E N T Z P A T C H D U F F Y & B A S S L L P O n e M o n t g o m e r y S t r e e t , S u it e 3 0 0 0 , S a n F r a n c is c o , C a l if o r n ia 9 4 1 0 4 -5 5 0 0 4 1 5 .3 9 1 .4 8 0 0 • F a x 4 1 5 .9 8 9 .1 6 6 3 STAN ROMAN (State Bar No. 87652) SARAH PETERSON (State Bar No. 309733) COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, California 94104-5500 Telephone: 415.391.4800 Facsimile: 415.989.1663 Email: ef-sgr@cpdb.com ef-sep@cpdb.com Attorneys for Defendant NINTHDECIMAL, Inc. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO THE MEET GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. KIIP, INC., a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in San Francisco, NINTHDECIMAL, INC., a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in San Francisco, and ROES 1-25, Defendants. Case No. CGC-19-580436 DEFENDANT NINTHDECIMAL, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Action Filed: October 31, 2019 Trial Date: None Set Defendant NinthDecimal, Inc. (“NinthDecimal”) answers the Complaint of Plaintiff The Meet Group, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) as follows: GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant to Section 431.30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, NinthDecimal denies each and every allegation in the Complaint and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever from NinthDecimal. / / / / / / ELECTRONICALLY F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 01/13/2020 Clerk of the Court BY: EDWARD SANTOS Deputy Clerk 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 13777.023 4843-1995-7425.2 2 Case No. CGC-19-580436 DEFENDANT NINTHDECIMAL, INC.’S ANSWER C O B L E N T Z P A T C H D U F F Y & B A S S L L P O n e M o n t g o m e r y S t r e e t , S u it e 3 0 0 0 , S a n F r a n c is c o , C a l if o r n ia 9 4 1 0 4 -5 5 0 0 4 1 5 .3 9 1 .4 8 0 0 • F a x 4 1 5 .9 8 9 .1 6 6 3 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES NinthDecimal pleads the following affirmative defenses. NinthDecimal reserves the right to amend its answer to assert additional defenses upon revelation of facts during the course of investigation and discovery in this matter. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Successor Liability) 1. NinthDecimal is not liable as a successor corporation because, inter alia, NinthDecimal did not purchase all or substantially all of Kiip, Inc.’s assets; NinthDecimal paid adequate consideration for the assets that it did purchase; and NinthDecimal acquired such assets indirectly, following a foreclosure sale to a third party. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Claim) 2. The Complaint fails to state sufficient facts to support a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Fraud) 3. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because consent to the alleged contract was obtained through fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation by Plaintiff, and as a result is invalid. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Mitigate Damages) 4. Plaintiff’s claim for damages is barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff has failed to use reasonable care to mitigate the damages complained of. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver) 5. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of waiver. / / / / / / / / / 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 13777.023 4843-1995-7425.2 3 Case No. CGC-19-580436 DEFENDANT NINTHDECIMAL, INC.’S ANSWER C O B L E N T Z P A T C H D U F F Y & B A S S L L P O n e M o n t g o m e r y S t r e e t , S u it e 3 0 0 0 , S a n F r a n c is c o , C a l if o r n ia 9 4 1 0 4 -5 5 0 0 4 1 5 .3 9 1 .4 8 0 0 • F a x 4 1 5 .9 8 9 .1 6 6 3 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Novation) 6. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by reason of the provisions of California Civil Code sections 1530 et seq. concerning novation. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Set-off) 7. Plaintiff’s recovery, if any, is subject to set-off by the amount for which Plaintiff is liable due to the acts and wrongdoings of Plaintiff. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) 8. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, including, but not limited to, Sections 337(a), 338(c), 338(d), 339(1), 340(c), and 343 of the California Code of Civil Procedure; Section 17208 of the California Business and Professions Code; and Section 3439.09 of the California Civil Code. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Reliance) 9. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because Plaintiff has failed to plead and cannot prove that it reasonably or justifiably relied on any alleged misstatements or omissions. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Good Faith / No Culpable Participation) 10. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because NinthDecimal at all times acted in good faith without scienter or any knowledge or intent to commit fraud, and/or did not directly or indirectly culpably participate in the actionable acts or omissions, if any, of any other person or entity, or induce any of the acts alleged to give rise to any of Plaintiff’s alleged causes of action. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) 11. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. 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 13777.023 4843-1995-7425.2 4 Case No. CGC-19-580436 DEFENDANT NINTHDECIMAL, INC.’S ANSWER C O B L E N T Z P A T C H D U F F Y & B A S S L L P O n e M o n t g o m e r y S t r e e t , S u it e 3 0 0 0 , S a n F r a n c is c o , C a l if o r n ia 9 4 1 0 4 -5 5 0 0 4 1 5 .3 9 1 .4 8 0 0 • F a x 4 1 5 .9 8 9 .1 6 6 3 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) 12. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Laches) 13. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of laches. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Privilege to Protect Own Financial Interest) 14. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because NinthDecimal acted only to protect its legitimate financial interests. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Good Faith) 15. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because NinthDecimal took assets from a third party, who had taken the property in good faith, and NinthDecimal took such property for a reasonably equivalent value. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Adequate Legal Remedy) 16. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive or other equitable relief is barred because an adequate and complete remedy at law is available. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Election of Remedies) 17. One or more of Plaintiff’s claims is barred by the doctrine of election of remedies because such claims seek duplicative remedies redressing the same alleged harm as other claims asserted in the Complaint. PRAYER WHEREFORE, NinthDecimal prays that: 1. The Complaint be dismissed with prejudice; 2. Judgment be entered against Plaintiff and in favor of NinthDecimal; 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 13777.023 4843-1995-7425.2 5 Case No. CGC-19-580436 DEFENDANT NINTHDECIMAL, INC.’S ANSWER C O B L E N T Z P A T C H D U F F Y & B A S S L L P O n e M o n t g o m e r y S t r e e t , S u it e 3 0 0 0 , S a n F r a n c is c o , C a l if o r n ia 9 4 1 0 4 -5 5 0 0 4 1 5 .3 9 1 .4 8 0 0 • F a x 4 1 5 .9 8 9 .1 6 6 3 3. Plaintiff take nothing by the Complaint; 4. NinthDecimal be awarded its costs and attorney’s fees incurred in defending this action; and 5. NinthDecimal be awarded such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: January 13, 2020 COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP By: Stan Roman Attorneys for Defendant NINTHDECIMAL, Inc., a Delaware corporation 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 13777.023 4843-1995-7425.2 6 Case No. CGC-19-580436 DEFENDANT NINTHDECIMAL, INC.’S ANSWER C O B L E N T Z P A T C H D U F F Y & B A S S L L P O n e M o n t g o m e r y S t r e e t , S u it e 3 0 0 0 , S a n F r a n c is c o , C a l if o r n ia 9 4 1 0 4 -5 5 0 0 4 1 5 .3 9 1 .4 8 0 0 • F a x 4 1 5 .9 8 9 .1 6 6 3 PROOF OF SERVICE Meet v. Kiip, et al. Case No. CGC-19-580436 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. My business address is One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000, San Francisco, CA 94104-5500. On January 13, 2020, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as DEFENDANT NINTHDECIMAL, INC.’S ANSWER on the interested parties in this action as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I electronically served the document(s) described above via File & ServeXpress, on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the File & ServeXpress website (https://secure.fileandservexpress.com) pursuant to the Court Order establishing the case website and authorizing service of documents. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 13, 2020, at San Francisco, California. Kathy Leduc 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 13777.023 4843-1995-7425.2 7 Case No. CGC-19-580436 DEFENDANT NINTHDECIMAL, INC.’S ANSWER C O B L E N T Z P A T C H D U F F Y & B A S S L L P O n e M o n t g o m e r y S t r e e t , S u it e 3 0 0 0 , S a n F r a n c is c o , C a l if o r n ia 9 4 1 0 4 -5 5 0 0 4 1 5 .3 9 1 .4 8 0 0 • F a x 4 1 5 .9 8 9 .1 6 6 3 SERVICE LIST Meet v. Kiip, et al. Case No. CGC-19-580436 Chris Holland (SBN 164053) Pei Hsien Ren (SBN 294252) HOLLAND LAW LLP 220 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: 415.200.4980 Facsimile: 415.200-4989 Email: CHolland@HollandLawLLP.com PRen@HollandLawLLP.com Attorneys for Plaintiff THE MEET GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation Brendan Radke (SBN 275284) GOODWIN PROCTOR LLP 3 Embarcadero Center San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: 415.733.6046 Facsimile: 415.634.1556 Email: BRadke@goodwinlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant KIIP, INC., a Delaware corporation