Preview
1 Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP
Andrew E. Calderon (SBN 316673)
2 acalderon@piercebainbridge.com ELECTRONICALLY
355 South Grand Avenue, 44th Floor F I L E D
3 Los Angeles, California 90071 Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
Tel: (213) 262-9333
4 Fax: (213) 279-2008 03/23/2020
Clerk of the Court
BY: ANGELICA SUNGA
5 Deputy Clerk
Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP
6 Christopher N. LaVigne (NY Bar No. 4811121)
(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
7 clavigne@piercebainbridge.com
277 Park Avenue, 45th Floor
8 New York, NY 10172
Tel.: (646) 694-9666
9 Fax: (646) 968-412
10 Attorneys for Defendants Payward,
Inc. d/b/a Kraken and Kaiser Ng
11
12
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
14
15
NATHAN PETER RUNYON, an Case No. CGC-19-581099
16 individual
Assigned to the Hon. Garrett L. Wong
17 Plaintiff, Courtroom: Room 610
18 v. DEFENDANTS PAYWARD, INC.
d/b/a KRAKEN AND KAISER NG’S
19 PAYWARD, INC., a California ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF NATHAN
PETER RUNYON’S FIRST
Corporation d/b/a/ KRAKEN; and AMENDED COMPLAINT
20
KAISER NG, an individual; and
21 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive Compl. filed: November 26, 2019
FAC filed: January 6, 2020
22 Defendants.
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FAC
1 ANSWER
2 Defendants Payward, Inc. d/b/a Kraken (“Payward”) and Kaiser Ng (collectively
3 “Defendants”), pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30, hereby
4 answer Plaintiff Nathan Peter Runyon’s unverified First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) as
5 follows:
6 GENERAL DENIAL
7 Defendants hereby deny, both generally and specifically, each and every allegation
8 contained in the FAC, and the whole thereof, and each and every alleged cause of action
9 thereof and further deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever, suffered any
10 injury, or sustained any damages in any sum as alleged by reason of any alleged act, breach,
11 omission, or any conduct whatsoever on the part of Defendants.
12 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
13 The statement of any defense hereinafter does not assume the burden of proof for
14 any issue as to which applicable law places the burden upon Plaintiff. Defendants
15 expressly reserve the right to amend and/or supplement their defenses as may be necessary.
16 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (Failure to State a Claim)
18 The FAC, and each and every allegation therein, fails to state facts sufficient to
19 constitute a cause of action, or any cause of action, against Defendants for which relief can
20 be granted.
21 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 (After-Acquired Evidence)
23 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Plaintiff is not
24 entitled to any relief because of the after-acquired evidence doctrine.
25 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 (Failure to Mitigate)
27 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Plaintiff failed
28 to mitigate his alleged damages.
–1–
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FAC
1 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Good Faith)
3 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s
4 claims fail, in whole or in part, because Defendants acted in good faith, with the absence
5 of malicious intent, and Defendants’ actions constituted lawful, proper, and justified means
6 to accomplish legitimate business objectives with respect to the conduct at issue.
7 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 (Unclean hands)
9 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that Plaintiff,
10 by his acts, conduct, inactions, and omissions, is barred from asserting his claims under the
11 equitable doctrine of unclean hands.
12 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 (In Pari Delicto)
14 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Plaintiff’s
15 claim is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of in pari delicto.
16 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (Undue Hardship)
18 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Plaintiff’s
19 allegedly requested accommodations would have constituted an undue hardship for
20 Defendants.
21 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 (Reasonable Business Decisions/Legitimate Business Purposes)
23 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Defendants’
24 conduct and actions concerning Plaintiff’s allegations were based on reasonable business
25 decisions and were undertaken for legitimate business purposes.
26
27
28
–2–
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FAC
1 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Non-Discriminatory/Non-Retaliation)
3 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Defendants’
4 conduct and actions concerning Plaintiff’s allegations were based on legitimate, non-
5 discriminatory, and non-retaliatory reasons.
6 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 (Free Speech)
8 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege any alleged
9 statements concerning Plaintiff’s allegations, if made by Defendants, constitute protected
10 free speech.
11 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 (Same Decision)
13 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that any
14 adverse action allegedly suffered by Plaintiff would have nonetheless occurred regardless
15 of whether Plaintiff engaged in a protected activity.
16 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (Common Interest)
18 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that
19 Defendants’ alleged statements to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s alleged statements to
20 Defendants, if made, are protected by the common interest privilege.
21 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 (No Personal Liability)
23 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that Defendant
24 Kaiser Ng may not be individually liable for some or all of Plaintiff’s claims.
25 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 (Statute of Limitation)
27 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Plaintiff’s
28 claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations.
–3–
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FAC
1 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity)
3 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Plaintiff’s
4 claims are preempted by the exclusivity of the California workers’ compensations laws.
5 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 (Business Necessity)
7 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Defendants’
8 actions were supported by business necessity.
9 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 (Avoidable Consequences)
11 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Plaintiff failed
12 to take advantage of preventative or corrective opportunities.
13 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (Waiver)
15 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Defendants
16 are not liable for Plaintiff’s contract claims under the principle of waiver.
17 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 (Accord and Satisfaction)
19 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Defendants
20 are not liable for Plaintiff’s contract claims under the principles of accord and satisfaction.
21 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 (Failure of Consideration)
23 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Defendants
24 are not liable for Plaintiff’s contract claims due to failure of consideration.
25 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 (Fraud)
27 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Defendants
28 are not liable for Plaintiff’s contract claims due to fraud.
–4–
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FAC
1 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Frustration of Purpose)
3 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Defendants
4 are not liable for Plaintiff’s contract claims due to frustration of purpose.
5 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 (Illegality)
7 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Defendants
8 are not liable for Plaintiff’s contract claims due to illegality.
9 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 (Impossibility)
11 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Defendants
12 are not liable for Plaintiff’s contract claims due to the impossibility or impracticality of
13 complying with any alleged contract.
14 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 (Mistake of Law or Fact)
16 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Defendants
17 are not liable for Plaintiff’s contract claims due to a mistake of law or fact.
18 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 (Unjust Enrichment)
20 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that Plain-
21
tiff’s contract claims are barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment, and that Plaintiff
22
would be unjustly enriched by the requested relief.
23
24 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 (Statute of Frauds)
26 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Defendants
27 are not liable for Plaintiff’s contract claims due to the statute of frauds.
28
–5–
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FAC
1 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Anticipatory Breach)
3 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Plaintiff’s
4 claims are barred in whole, or in part, by his anticipatory breach of the alleged contracts.
5 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 (Complete Performance)
7 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Defendants
8 have appropriately, completely, and fully performed and discharged any and all obligations
9 and legal duties arising out of the matters alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
10 THIRTIETH AFFRIMATIVE DEFENSEN
11 (No Actual Controversy)
12 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Plaintiff’s
13 claims fail, in whole or in part, because there is no actual, justiciable controversy.
14 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 (Reservation of Right to Assert Additional Affirmative Defenses)
16 Defendants allege that they presently have insufficient knowledge or information
17 on which to form a belief as to whether they may have additional, as yet unstated,
18 affirmative defenses available for their benefit. Defendants thereby reserve herein their
19 right to assert additional affirmative defenses in the event discovery indicates that such
20 affirmative defenses would be appropriate. Defendants also reserve the right to amend or
21 supplement this Answer in the event discovery indicates such would be appropriate or in
22 response to any amendments or supplements to the First Amended Complaint made by
23 Plaintiff, and for any such amendments or supplements to this Answer to relate back to the
24 filing of the original Answer.
25 WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in
26 their favor on all of Plaintiff’s claims, dismissing them with prejudice, and awarding
27 Defendants their costs, disbursements, and attorneys’ fees incurred in the defense and
28
–6–
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FAC
1 prosecution of this action, and that the Court grant Defendants any such other and further
2 relief that it deems just and proper.
3
4 Dated: March 23, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
5 Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht
LLP
6
7
8 By:
Andrew E. Calderon
9 Attorneys for Defendants Payward,
Inc. d/b/a Kraken and Kaiser Ng
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–7–
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FAC
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF NEW YORK ANGELES
3 I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. I am employed in the county
4 where the service occurred; my business address is 277 Park Avenue, 45th Floor, New York,
5 NY 10171.
6 On March 23, 2020, I caused to be served the following documents described as:
7 DEFENDANTS PAYWARD, INC. d/b/a KRAKEN AND KAISER NG’S ANSWER
TO PLAINTIFF NATHAN PETER RUNYON’S FIRST AMENDED
8 COMPLAINT
9 on the interested parties in this action as stated below:
10 LAW OFFICE OF CLAIRE
COCHRAN, P.C.
11 Claire E. Cochran
Natalie A. Xifo
12 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
13 Tel: (415) 580-6019
Counsel for Plaintiff
14
15 [X] E-SERVICE: By electronic service through One Legal Online Services to counsel
contemporaneous with the electronic filing.
16
17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of New York that the
18 above is true and correct
19 Executed on March 23, 2020, at New York, New York.
20
_________________________
21 Raymond Torres
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Proof of Service
Preview
1 Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP Andrew E. Calderon (SBN 316673) 2 acalderon@piercebainbridge.com ELECTRONICALLY 355 South Grand Avenue, 44th Floor F I L E D 3 Los Angeles, California 90071 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco Tel: (213) 262-9333 4 Fax: (213) 279-2008 03/23/2020 Clerk of the Court BY: ANGELICA SUNGA 5 Deputy Clerk Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP 6 Christopher N. LaVigne (NY Bar No. 4811121) (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 7 clavigne@piercebainbridge.com 277 Park Avenue, 45th Floor 8 New York, NY 10172 Tel.: (646) 694-9666 9 Fax: (646) 968-412 10 Attorneys for Defendants Payward, Inc. d/b/a Kraken and Kaiser Ng 11 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 14 15 NATHAN PETER RUNYON, an Case No. CGC-19-581099 16 individual Assigned to the Hon. Garrett L. Wong 17 Plaintiff, Courtroom: Room 610 18 v. DEFENDANTS PAYWARD, INC. d/b/a KRAKEN AND KAISER NG’S 19 PAYWARD, INC., a California ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF NATHAN PETER RUNYON’S FIRST Corporation d/b/a/ KRAKEN; and AMENDED COMPLAINT 20 KAISER NG, an individual; and 21 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive Compl. filed: November 26, 2019 FAC filed: January 6, 2020 22 Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FAC 1 ANSWER 2 Defendants Payward, Inc. d/b/a Kraken (“Payward”) and Kaiser Ng (collectively 3 “Defendants”), pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30, hereby 4 answer Plaintiff Nathan Peter Runyon’s unverified First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) as 5 follows: 6 GENERAL DENIAL 7 Defendants hereby deny, both generally and specifically, each and every allegation 8 contained in the FAC, and the whole thereof, and each and every alleged cause of action 9 thereof and further deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever, suffered any 10 injury, or sustained any damages in any sum as alleged by reason of any alleged act, breach, 11 omission, or any conduct whatsoever on the part of Defendants. 12 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 13 The statement of any defense hereinafter does not assume the burden of proof for 14 any issue as to which applicable law places the burden upon Plaintiff. Defendants 15 expressly reserve the right to amend and/or supplement their defenses as may be necessary. 16 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (Failure to State a Claim) 18 The FAC, and each and every allegation therein, fails to state facts sufficient to 19 constitute a cause of action, or any cause of action, against Defendants for which relief can 20 be granted. 21 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 (After-Acquired Evidence) 23 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Plaintiff is not 24 entitled to any relief because of the after-acquired evidence doctrine. 25 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 (Failure to Mitigate) 27 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Plaintiff failed 28 to mitigate his alleged damages. –1– DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FAC 1 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Good Faith) 3 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s 4 claims fail, in whole or in part, because Defendants acted in good faith, with the absence 5 of malicious intent, and Defendants’ actions constituted lawful, proper, and justified means 6 to accomplish legitimate business objectives with respect to the conduct at issue. 7 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 (Unclean hands) 9 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that Plaintiff, 10 by his acts, conduct, inactions, and omissions, is barred from asserting his claims under the 11 equitable doctrine of unclean hands. 12 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 (In Pari Delicto) 14 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Plaintiff’s 15 claim is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of in pari delicto. 16 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (Undue Hardship) 18 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Plaintiff’s 19 allegedly requested accommodations would have constituted an undue hardship for 20 Defendants. 21 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 (Reasonable Business Decisions/Legitimate Business Purposes) 23 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Defendants’ 24 conduct and actions concerning Plaintiff’s allegations were based on reasonable business 25 decisions and were undertaken for legitimate business purposes. 26 27 28 –2– DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FAC 1 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Non-Discriminatory/Non-Retaliation) 3 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Defendants’ 4 conduct and actions concerning Plaintiff’s allegations were based on legitimate, non- 5 discriminatory, and non-retaliatory reasons. 6 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 (Free Speech) 8 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege any alleged 9 statements concerning Plaintiff’s allegations, if made by Defendants, constitute protected 10 free speech. 11 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 (Same Decision) 13 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that any 14 adverse action allegedly suffered by Plaintiff would have nonetheless occurred regardless 15 of whether Plaintiff engaged in a protected activity. 16 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (Common Interest) 18 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that 19 Defendants’ alleged statements to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s alleged statements to 20 Defendants, if made, are protected by the common interest privilege. 21 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 (No Personal Liability) 23 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that Defendant 24 Kaiser Ng may not be individually liable for some or all of Plaintiff’s claims. 25 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 (Statute of Limitation) 27 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Plaintiff’s 28 claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations. –3– DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FAC 1 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity) 3 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Plaintiff’s 4 claims are preempted by the exclusivity of the California workers’ compensations laws. 5 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (Business Necessity) 7 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Defendants’ 8 actions were supported by business necessity. 9 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 (Avoidable Consequences) 11 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Plaintiff failed 12 to take advantage of preventative or corrective opportunities. 13 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (Waiver) 15 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Defendants 16 are not liable for Plaintiff’s contract claims under the principle of waiver. 17 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (Accord and Satisfaction) 19 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Defendants 20 are not liable for Plaintiff’s contract claims under the principles of accord and satisfaction. 21 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 (Failure of Consideration) 23 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Defendants 24 are not liable for Plaintiff’s contract claims due to failure of consideration. 25 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 (Fraud) 27 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Defendants 28 are not liable for Plaintiff’s contract claims due to fraud. –4– DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FAC 1 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Frustration of Purpose) 3 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Defendants 4 are not liable for Plaintiff’s contract claims due to frustration of purpose. 5 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (Illegality) 7 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Defendants 8 are not liable for Plaintiff’s contract claims due to illegality. 9 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 (Impossibility) 11 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Defendants 12 are not liable for Plaintiff’s contract claims due to the impossibility or impracticality of 13 complying with any alleged contract. 14 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 (Mistake of Law or Fact) 16 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Defendants 17 are not liable for Plaintiff’s contract claims due to a mistake of law or fact. 18 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 (Unjust Enrichment) 20 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege that Plain- 21 tiff’s contract claims are barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment, and that Plaintiff 22 would be unjustly enriched by the requested relief. 23 24 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (Statute of Frauds) 26 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Defendants 27 are not liable for Plaintiff’s contract claims due to the statute of frauds. 28 –5– DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FAC 1 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Anticipatory Breach) 3 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Plaintiff’s 4 claims are barred in whole, or in part, by his anticipatory breach of the alleged contracts. 5 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (Complete Performance) 7 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Defendants 8 have appropriately, completely, and fully performed and discharged any and all obligations 9 and legal duties arising out of the matters alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint. 10 THIRTIETH AFFRIMATIVE DEFENSEN 11 (No Actual Controversy) 12 As a separate and affirmative defense to the FAC, Defendants allege Plaintiff’s 13 claims fail, in whole or in part, because there is no actual, justiciable controversy. 14 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 (Reservation of Right to Assert Additional Affirmative Defenses) 16 Defendants allege that they presently have insufficient knowledge or information 17 on which to form a belief as to whether they may have additional, as yet unstated, 18 affirmative defenses available for their benefit. Defendants thereby reserve herein their 19 right to assert additional affirmative defenses in the event discovery indicates that such 20 affirmative defenses would be appropriate. Defendants also reserve the right to amend or 21 supplement this Answer in the event discovery indicates such would be appropriate or in 22 response to any amendments or supplements to the First Amended Complaint made by 23 Plaintiff, and for any such amendments or supplements to this Answer to relate back to the 24 filing of the original Answer. 25 WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in 26 their favor on all of Plaintiff’s claims, dismissing them with prejudice, and awarding 27 Defendants their costs, disbursements, and attorneys’ fees incurred in the defense and 28 –6– DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FAC 1 prosecution of this action, and that the Court grant Defendants any such other and further 2 relief that it deems just and proper. 3 4 Dated: March 23, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 5 Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP 6 7 8 By: Andrew E. Calderon 9 Attorneys for Defendants Payward, Inc. d/b/a Kraken and Kaiser Ng 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 –7– DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FAC 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF NEW YORK ANGELES 3 I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. I am employed in the county 4 where the service occurred; my business address is 277 Park Avenue, 45th Floor, New York, 5 NY 10171. 6 On March 23, 2020, I caused to be served the following documents described as: 7 DEFENDANTS PAYWARD, INC. d/b/a KRAKEN AND KAISER NG’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF NATHAN PETER RUNYON’S FIRST AMENDED 8 COMPLAINT 9 on the interested parties in this action as stated below: 10 LAW OFFICE OF CLAIRE COCHRAN, P.C. 11 Claire E. Cochran Natalie A. Xifo 12 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 13 Tel: (415) 580-6019 Counsel for Plaintiff 14 15 [X] E-SERVICE: By electronic service through One Legal Online Services to counsel contemporaneous with the electronic filing. 16 17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of New York that the 18 above is true and correct 19 Executed on March 23, 2020, at New York, New York. 20 _________________________ 21 Raymond Torres 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Proof of Service