Preview
TAA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Feb-10-2012 1:54 pm
Case Number: CGC-11-516586
Filing Date: Feb-10-2012 1:54
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03491178
ANSWER
ANTHONY E HELD VS. TWO'S COMPANY, INC. et al
001003491178
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.0)
©)
DONGELL LAWRENCE FINNEY LLP
mgsilahen GALLAGHER ( {SBN 195592)
meallagher@diflawyers.com
Re lenoalie CAPLAN (SBN 265179)
ani l|awyers.com
COURTNEY R_ROSS-TAIT (SBN 270764)
cross@dlflawyers.com
707 Wilshire Boulevard, 45th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-3609
Telephone: (213) 943-6100
Facsimile: (213) 943-6101
Attomeys for Defendant
TWO’S COMPANY, INC.
oO Om UDA A FF WK
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
— om
nF S
ANTHONY E. HELD, PH.D., P.E., Case No.: CGC-11-516586
a WwW
Plaintiff, ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TWO’S
COMPANY, INC. TO COMPLAINT FO!
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
ee
~s an wn
<
TWO’S COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1-150,
inclusive,
—~
Oo
20 Defendants.
Defendant TWO’S COMPANY, INC. (hereafter “TWO’S”) answers the
unverified complaint of Plaintiff Anthony E. Held (“HELD”) as follows:
GENERAL DENIAL
lL. In accordance with Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 431.30, TWO’S generally and
specifically denies each and every allegation contained in the complaint of HELD and further
" 28 || denies that HELD or the general public have been damaged in any manner as a result of TWO’S”
1
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TWO’S COMPANY, INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIESeo em YW HW RR wWwN
Bb NY NY YN RK ND Be ew ew we ~~
od AAA BH = SF SFCeARABREBRT AS
7
Mw
ty
alleged acts and/or omissions. TWO’S further denies that HELD is entitled to any relief in the
form requested, or in any other form.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2. AS a first and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each cause
of action therein, TWO’S alleges, on information and belief, that the complaint and each
purported cause of action therein fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3. Asa second and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each
cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, on information and belief, that HELD’s claims are
barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, including, but not limited to, Cal. Health &
Safety Code § 25249.5 et seg., and Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 338(a), 340(1).
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4. As a third and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each cause
of action therein, TWO’S alleges that it has complied with Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25249.6.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5. Asa fourth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each cause
of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, HELD’s claims, and any relief
sought thereunder, are barred pursuant to the doctrine of laches as HELD has failed to bring this
action in a timely manner to TWO’S’s prejudice.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6. As a fifth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each cause
of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, that HELD’s causes of action are
barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7. As a sixth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each cause
of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, that HELD’s causes of action are
barred by the doctrine of waiver.
fit
2
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TWO’S COMPANY, INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIESoD IN A HW Bw Ne
RB NP Re NY NNN Ye Be ie ew ee ee
SN AM FS YN B= SBE eKX RADE ERTS
()
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8. As a seventh and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each
cause of action therein, TWO'S alleges, upon information and belief, that any notice that HELD
provided pursuant to Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25249.7(d)(1) was inadequate and failed to
satisfy the applicable requirements.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9. As an eighth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each
cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, that the alleged exposure to}
chemicals listed under Proposition 65 as alleged in the complaint poses “no significant risk”
within the meaning of Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25249.10(c) and, with respect to the alleged
reproductive or developmental toxins, and alleged exposure is below the statutory threshold for
waming.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10. Asaninth and separate affirmative defense to HELD's complaint and each cause
of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, that in the course of doing
business, TWO’S has neither knowingly, willfully, or intentionally exposed any individual to a
chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity in an amount
that would require warnings under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25240.6.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
1]. Asa tenth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each cause
of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, that TWO’S’s alleged conduct
has been conducted in a manner exempt from the application of Cal. Health & Safety Code
§ 25249.10,
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12. As an eleventh and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each
cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, that all conduct and
activity of TWO’S as alleged in the complaint conformed to or exceeded all statutes, regulations,
and industry standards at all times relevant to the complaint.
3
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TWO’'S COMPANY, INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIESOM
f
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13. Asa tweifth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each
cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, that TWO’S’s conduct was
fully justified and in good faith.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14. Asa thirteenth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each
cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, that HELD’s application o
Proposition 65 violates principles of federal and state constitutional due process in that it cannot
be determined what conduct is required or proscribed, seeks unconstitutionally excessive
penalties, and impermissibly intrudes upon the California Attorney General’s enforcement
authority.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
iS. _Asa fourteenth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each
cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, that Plaintiff's application
of Proposition 65 here places an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16. Asa fifteenth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each
cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, that the complaint, and
each alleged cause of action therein, is barred by the doctrine of relative balancing of hardships.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17. Asasixteenth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each
cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, that TWO’S’s actions
conformed to industry standards and practices, and were based upon the state of knowledge
existing at the time such actions took place.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18. Asa seventeenth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each
cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief that the complaint and each
cause of action therein is barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
4
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TWO’S COMPANY, INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIESCo mY DH BF WwW Ne
PN PP RY NRK ye ew e —_
S71 AHR HSH FSF SeOARRAE TSS
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19. Asan eighteenth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each
cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, that no threat of immediate
harm exists so as to support a grant of injunctive relief.
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20. As a nineteenth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each
cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, that if TWO’S is found in
some manner responsible to HELD for the matters alleged in the complaint, any such injuries,
damages, penalties, or other costs were proximately caused and contributed to by the negligence,
fault, acts, or omissions of other individuals or entities for whose conduct TWO’S is not
responsible. By reason of the foregoing, TWO’S requests a court declaration of its rights to be
indemnified and held harmless by such persons and/or entities.
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21. Asa twentieth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each
cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges that any recovery by HELD should be offset and
diminished by the value to the consumers of the use of TWO’S’s products.
TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22. Asa twenty-first and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each
cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges that HELD is barred from any recovery of attorneys’ fe:
because, in bringing this action, no significant benefit has been conferred upon the general publi
or a large class of persons as required by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1021.5.
TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23. TWO’S reserves the right to allege such other additional affirmative defenses that
discovery and investigation may reveal to be applicable.
fh
fff
Mit
fff
5
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TWO’S COMPANY, INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIES0)
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, TWO’S prays as follows:
1. That HELD’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that HELD be awarded
no damages or other relief;
2. That judgment be entered against HELD and in favor of TWO’S;
3. That TWO’S shall recover its costs;
4. That TWO’S shall be granted such other relief as the Court deems just and proper,
DATED: February 10, 2012 DONGELL LAWRENCE FINNEY LLP
By:
fenjamin L. Caplan
Attorneys for Defendant
TWO’S COMPANY, INC.
6
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TWO’S COMPANY, INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIESPROOF OF SERVICE - CCP §§ 1013a, 2015.5
Tam employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of Califomia. I am over the
age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 707 Wilshire Boulevard,
45th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017-3609.
On the date set forth below, I served the foregoing document described as
follows: ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TWO’S COMPANY, C. TO COMPLAINT FOR.
INJONCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIES, on the interested parties in this action by
lacing __.. the original/ _X _a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as
follows:
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
[X] BY MAIL I deposited such envelopes in the mail at Los Angeles, Califomia. 1 am
readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing of correspondence
for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on
that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California, in the
ordinary course of business.
[ ] BY PERSONAL SERVICE I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the
offices of the addressee(s).
[ ] BY FEDEX I caused such envelopes to be served via FedEx. I am readily familiar with
the firm's practice of collection and processing of correspondence for FedEx. Under that
tice it would be deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by FedEx
for next day delivery.
{ ] BY FACSIMILE MACHINE: The foregoing document was transmitted to the attached
named person(s) by facsimile transmission from (213) 943-6101 on said date and the
transmission was reported as complete and without error.
{ ] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: The foregoing document was transmitted via
electronic mail to the addressee(s), at the e-mail address ‘es) indicated on the attached
service list,
[X] (STATE) I dectare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
[ ] (FEDERAL) | declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this
court at whose direction the service was made.
. I declare under penalty of perjury firder the laws of the State of California that the]
foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on February 10, 2012, at Los
Angeles, California. .
7
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TWO’S COMPANY, INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIESCm IN AH Rh wD mw
S
i
}
r
4A
SERVICE LIST
Josh Voorhees, Esq.
Rachel S. Doughty, Esq.
THE CHANLER GROUP
2560 Ninth Street
Parker Plaza
Suite 214
Berkeley, CA 94710
Tel: (510) 848-8880
Fax: (510) 848-8118
Attorney for Plaintiff
Anthony E. Held, Ph.D.
8
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TWO’S COMPANY, INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIES
Preview
TAA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Feb-10-2012 1:54 pm Case Number: CGC-11-516586 Filing Date: Feb-10-2012 1:54 Juke Box: 001 Image: 03491178 ANSWER ANTHONY E HELD VS. TWO'S COMPANY, INC. et al 001003491178 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.0) ©) DONGELL LAWRENCE FINNEY LLP mgsilahen GALLAGHER ( {SBN 195592) meallagher@diflawyers.com Re lenoalie CAPLAN (SBN 265179) ani l|awyers.com COURTNEY R_ROSS-TAIT (SBN 270764) cross@dlflawyers.com 707 Wilshire Boulevard, 45th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-3609 Telephone: (213) 943-6100 Facsimile: (213) 943-6101 Attomeys for Defendant TWO’S COMPANY, INC. oO Om UDA A FF WK SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — om nF S ANTHONY E. HELD, PH.D., P.E., Case No.: CGC-11-516586 a WwW Plaintiff, ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TWO’S COMPANY, INC. TO COMPLAINT FO! INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIES ee ~s an wn < TWO’S COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1-150, inclusive, —~ Oo 20 Defendants. Defendant TWO’S COMPANY, INC. (hereafter “TWO’S”) answers the unverified complaint of Plaintiff Anthony E. Held (“HELD”) as follows: GENERAL DENIAL lL. In accordance with Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 431.30, TWO’S generally and specifically denies each and every allegation contained in the complaint of HELD and further " 28 || denies that HELD or the general public have been damaged in any manner as a result of TWO’S” 1 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TWO’S COMPANY, INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIESeo em YW HW RR wWwN Bb NY NY YN RK ND Be ew ew we ~~ od AAA BH = SF SFCeARABREBRT AS 7 Mw ty alleged acts and/or omissions. TWO’S further denies that HELD is entitled to any relief in the form requested, or in any other form. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2. AS a first and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, on information and belief, that the complaint and each purported cause of action therein fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3. Asa second and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, on information and belief, that HELD’s claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, including, but not limited to, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25249.5 et seg., and Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 338(a), 340(1). THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4. As a third and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges that it has complied with Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25249.6. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5. Asa fourth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, HELD’s claims, and any relief sought thereunder, are barred pursuant to the doctrine of laches as HELD has failed to bring this action in a timely manner to TWO’S’s prejudice. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6. As a fifth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, that HELD’s causes of action are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7. As a sixth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, that HELD’s causes of action are barred by the doctrine of waiver. fit 2 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TWO’S COMPANY, INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIESoD IN A HW Bw Ne RB NP Re NY NNN Ye Be ie ew ee ee SN AM FS YN B= SBE eKX RADE ERTS () SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8. As a seventh and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each cause of action therein, TWO'S alleges, upon information and belief, that any notice that HELD provided pursuant to Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25249.7(d)(1) was inadequate and failed to satisfy the applicable requirements. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9. As an eighth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, that the alleged exposure to} chemicals listed under Proposition 65 as alleged in the complaint poses “no significant risk” within the meaning of Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25249.10(c) and, with respect to the alleged reproductive or developmental toxins, and alleged exposure is below the statutory threshold for waming. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10. Asaninth and separate affirmative defense to HELD's complaint and each cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, that in the course of doing business, TWO’S has neither knowingly, willfully, or intentionally exposed any individual to a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity in an amount that would require warnings under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25240.6. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 1]. Asa tenth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, that TWO’S’s alleged conduct has been conducted in a manner exempt from the application of Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25249.10, ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12. As an eleventh and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, that all conduct and activity of TWO’S as alleged in the complaint conformed to or exceeded all statutes, regulations, and industry standards at all times relevant to the complaint. 3 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TWO’'S COMPANY, INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIESOM f TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13. Asa tweifth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, that TWO’S’s conduct was fully justified and in good faith. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14. Asa thirteenth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, that HELD’s application o Proposition 65 violates principles of federal and state constitutional due process in that it cannot be determined what conduct is required or proscribed, seeks unconstitutionally excessive penalties, and impermissibly intrudes upon the California Attorney General’s enforcement authority. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE iS. _Asa fourteenth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, that Plaintiff's application of Proposition 65 here places an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16. Asa fifteenth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, that the complaint, and each alleged cause of action therein, is barred by the doctrine of relative balancing of hardships. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17. Asasixteenth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, that TWO’S’s actions conformed to industry standards and practices, and were based upon the state of knowledge existing at the time such actions took place. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18. Asa seventeenth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief that the complaint and each cause of action therein is barred by the doctrine of estoppel. 4 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TWO’S COMPANY, INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIESCo mY DH BF WwW Ne PN PP RY NRK ye ew e —_ S71 AHR HSH FSF SeOARRAE TSS EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19. Asan eighteenth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, that no threat of immediate harm exists so as to support a grant of injunctive relief. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20. As a nineteenth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges, upon information and belief, that if TWO’S is found in some manner responsible to HELD for the matters alleged in the complaint, any such injuries, damages, penalties, or other costs were proximately caused and contributed to by the negligence, fault, acts, or omissions of other individuals or entities for whose conduct TWO’S is not responsible. By reason of the foregoing, TWO’S requests a court declaration of its rights to be indemnified and held harmless by such persons and/or entities. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21. Asa twentieth and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges that any recovery by HELD should be offset and diminished by the value to the consumers of the use of TWO’S’s products. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22. Asa twenty-first and separate affirmative defense to HELD’s complaint and each cause of action therein, TWO’S alleges that HELD is barred from any recovery of attorneys’ fe: because, in bringing this action, no significant benefit has been conferred upon the general publi or a large class of persons as required by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1021.5. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23. TWO’S reserves the right to allege such other additional affirmative defenses that discovery and investigation may reveal to be applicable. fh fff Mit fff 5 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TWO’S COMPANY, INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIES0) PRAYER WHEREFORE, TWO’S prays as follows: 1. That HELD’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that HELD be awarded no damages or other relief; 2. That judgment be entered against HELD and in favor of TWO’S; 3. That TWO’S shall recover its costs; 4. That TWO’S shall be granted such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, DATED: February 10, 2012 DONGELL LAWRENCE FINNEY LLP By: fenjamin L. Caplan Attorneys for Defendant TWO’S COMPANY, INC. 6 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TWO’S COMPANY, INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIESPROOF OF SERVICE - CCP §§ 1013a, 2015.5 Tam employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of Califomia. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 707 Wilshire Boulevard, 45th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017-3609. On the date set forth below, I served the foregoing document described as follows: ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TWO’S COMPANY, C. TO COMPLAINT FOR. INJONCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIES, on the interested parties in this action by lacing __.. the original/ _X _a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST [X] BY MAIL I deposited such envelopes in the mail at Los Angeles, Califomia. 1 am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California, in the ordinary course of business. [ ] BY PERSONAL SERVICE I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices of the addressee(s). [ ] BY FEDEX I caused such envelopes to be served via FedEx. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing of correspondence for FedEx. Under that tice it would be deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by FedEx for next day delivery. { ] BY FACSIMILE MACHINE: The foregoing document was transmitted to the attached named person(s) by facsimile transmission from (213) 943-6101 on said date and the transmission was reported as complete and without error. { ] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: The foregoing document was transmitted via electronic mail to the addressee(s), at the e-mail address ‘es) indicated on the attached service list, [X] (STATE) I dectare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. [ ] (FEDERAL) | declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. . I declare under penalty of perjury firder the laws of the State of California that the] foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on February 10, 2012, at Los Angeles, California. . 7 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TWO’S COMPANY, INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIESCm IN AH Rh wD mw S i } r 4A SERVICE LIST Josh Voorhees, Esq. Rachel S. Doughty, Esq. THE CHANLER GROUP 2560 Ninth Street Parker Plaza Suite 214 Berkeley, CA 94710 Tel: (510) 848-8880 Fax: (510) 848-8118 Attorney for Plaintiff Anthony E. Held, Ph.D. 8 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TWO’S COMPANY, INC. TO COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIES