Preview
Electronically Filed
MARGOT M. PARKER (SBN 263205)
O’HAGAN MEYER by Superior Court of CA,
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 1050 County of Santa Clara,
Woodland Hills, CA, 91367 on 2/24/2023 12:25 PM
Telephone: (213) 306-1610 Reviewed By: P. Lai
Facsimile: (213) 306-1615 Case #22CV407258
Envelope: 11277288
Attorneys for Defendant,
Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center, Malissa Jones, and Celia Benavides
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
10
11 CHILONE PAYTON, Case No. 22CV407258
[Hon. Judge Amber Rosen, Dept. 16]
12 Plaintiff,
13 ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS
vs. PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION
14 CENTER, MALISSA JONES, AND CELIA
PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S
15 CENTER, a California nonprofit corporation; UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
TRACY TRYBA ROGERS, an individual;
16 MALISSA JONES, an individual; and CELIA
17 BENAVIDES, an individual; and DOES 1 Complaint Filed: 11/14/2022
through 20, inclusive; Trial Date: None set
18
Defendants.
19
20 Defendants PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES, and
21 CELIA BENAVIDES (“Defendants”) hereby answer the unverified Complaint (“Complaint”) filed
22 by Plaintiff CHILONE PAYTON (“Plaintiff”) on file herein, and admit, deny, and allege as follows:
23 GENERAL DENIAL
24 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30, Defendants deny generally each and every
25 allegation of Plaintiff's Complaint, and further deny that any damage, in any sum or sums
26 whatsoever, or at all, has been or will be caused by reason of any act or omission on the part of the
27 answering Defendants or their agents, servants, or employees.
28
1
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES,
AND CELIA BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
Defendant further asserts the following affirmative defenses, based on information and belief,
to preserve issues for trial and not to constitute admissions or to shift any burdens of proof or
producing evidence:
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
First Affirmative Defense
(Failure to State a Cause of Action)
1 The Complaint, including each purported cause of action therein, fails to state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action upon which relief can be granted against Defendants.
Second Affirmative Defense
10 (Good Faith and Good Cause)
11 2, Defendants acted reasonably, permissibly and in good faith, and for good cause, at all
12 material times based on relevant facts and circumstances known to them at the time, or in conformity
13 with and in reliance upon applicable regulations, orders, codes, practices, policies or procedures.
14 Third Affirmative Defense
15 (Estoppel, Laches, Waiver, Unclean Hands)
16 3 The Complaint, including each purported cause of action therein, is barred, in whole
17 or part, by the doctrines of estoppel, laches, waiver, unclean hands, and after-acquired evidence of
18 on-the-job and employment-related wrongful conduct.
19 Fourth Affirmative Defense
20 (Workers’ Compensation Preemption)
21 4 The Complaint, including each purported cause of action therein, is barred, in whole
22 or part, by the workers’ compensation preemption and exclusivity provisions as set forth in Labor
23 Code§§3600(a), et seg., and under the Worker’s Compensation Act.
24 Fifth Affirmative Defense
25 (Lack of Standing)
26 5 Plaintiff lacks standing to bring the Complaint and each purported cause of action
27 therein.
28 Mf
2.
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES,
AND CELIA BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
Sixth Affirmative Defense
(Failure to Mitigate)
6 To each and every cause of action of the Complaint, the answering Defendants allege
that Plaintiff failed to reasonably mitigate damages, if any, and therefore, Plaintiff is barred from
recovering the damages which Plaintiff failed to mitigate.
Seventh Affirmative Defense
(Consent, Ratification, Affirmation)
7 The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred
because Plaintiff consented to, or ratified and affirmed, the alleged conduct of Defendants.
10 Eighth Affirmative Defens
11 (Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel)
12 8 The Complaint, including each purported cause of action therein, is barred under the
13 principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
14 Ninth Affirmative Defense
15 (Release, Acquiescence, Accord and Satisfaction)
16 9. The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred,
17 in whole or in part, by Plaintiff's release, acquiescence, accord and satisfaction.
18 Tenth Affirmative Defense
19 (Assumption of Risk)
20 10. If Plaintiff suffered or sustained any loss, damages or injury at or about the times and
21 places alleged, although such is not admitted hereby or herein, the same or the direct and proximate
22 result of the risk, if any there was, was knowingly assumed by Plaintiff.
23 Eleventh Affirmative Defense
24 (Failure to Exhaust/Condition Precedent)
25 11. Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the statutory prerequisites to sue or has failed to exhaust
26 her administrative, contractual and/or statutory remedies and/or otherwise comply with the
27 provisions of the applicable codes and regulations, including the Fair Employment and Housing Act,
28 §§12900, et seq., of the California Government Code.
3
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES,
AND CELIA BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
Twelfth Affirmative Defense
(Privilege/Justification)
12. Any recovery on Plaintiff's Complaint, or any purported cause of action therein, is
barred because the disputed conduct of the Defendants was privileged and/or justified. Any and all
conduct of which Plaintiff complains and which is attributed to Defendants — although liability is
denied — was a proper exercise of management’s discretion on the part of Defendants and was
undertaken for a fair and reasonable business necessity and bona fide occupational qualification.
Thirteenth Affirmative Defense
(Punitive Damages Violate Constitutional Rights and Due Process)
10 138 Plaintiff's Complaint, to the extent that it seeks punitive damages, violates
11 Defendants’ right to protection from “excessive fines” as provided in the Eighth Amendment to the
12 United States Constitution and Article 1, §17 of the California Constitution, and violates Defendant’s
13 right to substantive or procedural due process or due course as provided in the Fifth and Fourteenth
14 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the California Constitution. To the extent that
15 Plaintiff's Complaint seeks punitive damages authorized under California law, no punitive damages
16 may constitutionally be awarded because any statute allowing such an award is unconstitutional
17 under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the California Constitution, because
18 no law of California establishes the maximum punitive damage award which may be imposed in this
19 case. Further, Plaintiff's Complaint does not state a valid request for punitive damages pursuant to
20 Civil Code§3294. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages in this action.
21 Fourteenth Affirmative Defense
22 (Equitable Indemnity/Comparative Contribution)
23 14. To each and every cause of action of the Complaint, the answering Defendants allege
24 that in the event the answering Defendants are held liable to Plaintiff, which liability is expressly
25 denied, and any other parties are likewise held liable, the answering Defendants are entitled to a
26 percentage contribution of the total liability from said other parties in accordance with the principles
27 of equitable indemnity and comparative contribution.
28 Mf
4
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES,
AND CELIA BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
Fifteenth Affirmative Defense
(Statute of Limitations)
15. The Complaint, including each alleged cause of action, is barred by the applicable
statute of limitations, including, but not limited to, the provisions in part II, Title 2, Chapter 3, of the
California Code of Civil Procedure, beginning with§335 and continuing through§349.4, and
California Government Code §§ 12960 and 12965.
Sixteenth Affirmative Defense
(Privilege and Managerial Immunity)
16. Any recovery on Plaintiff's Complaint, or any purported cause of action alleged
10 therein, is barred by the doctrines of Privilege and of Managerial Immunity and Defendants’ good
11 faith belief in the legality of its actions and that Defendants had reasonable grounds for believing
12 that the alleged act or omission, if any, did not violate any law.
13 Seventeenth Affirmative Defense
14 (Offset)
15 17. The alleged claims, damages and purported causes of action in Plaintiff's Complaint
16 are satisfied by offset and by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure §431.70.
17 Eighteenth Affirmative Defens:
18 (No Proximate Cause)
19 18. Any losses, injuries or damages to Plaintiff were proximately caused or contributed
20 to by the criminal, negligent, willful acts or other tortious acts, omissions, conduct or products of
21 persons, entities or parties other than Defendants, and that each, any, and all damages recoverable
22 by Plaintiff must be diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to said other persons,
23 entities or parties, and there must be apportioned among all such persons, entities and parties the
24 amount of damages attributed to them as an offset against damages, if any, awarded against
25 Defendants.
26 Nineteenth Affirmative Defense
27 (Superseding/Intervening Causes)
28 19. Any loss, injury, or damage, if any, incurred by Plaintiff was the result of superseding
o
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES,
AND CELIA BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
or intervening causes arising from the criminal, negligent or willful acts or omissions of other parties
including independent contractors which the answering Defendants neither controlled nor had the
right to control, and that said loss, injury or damage was not proximately or legally caused by any
act, omission, or other conduct of Defendants.
Twentieth Affirmative Defense
(Plaintiff/Third-Party Acts)
20. The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, was not
the result of any negligent or intentional misconduct on the part of Defendants, but is instead barred
by Plaintiff's or third parties’ own acts, omissions, negligence or misconduct.
10 Twenty-First Affirmative Defens:
11 (Defendants’ Conduct Not a Substantial Factor)
12 21. Any conduct of Defendants was not a substantial factor in bringing about the loss or
13 damage complained by Plaintiff, and, therefore, Defendants may not be held liable to Plaintiff as
14 alleged.
15 Twenty-Second Affirmative Defens:
16 (Employment Terminable At-Will)
17 22. The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred,
18 in whole or in part, in that, Plaintiff's employment was terminable at the will of either Plaintiff or
19 Defendants, at any time, with or without cause or prior notice under§2922 of the California Labor
20 Code.
21 Twenty-Third Affirmative Defense
22 (Plaintiff's Fraud/Misrepresentations)
23 23. The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred
24 by Plaintiff's fraud and/or misrepresentations to Defendants.
25 Twenty-Fourth Affirmative Defense
26 (No Causal Connection or Nexus)
27 24. The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred,
28 in whole or in part, in that, there is no causal connection or nexus between Plaintiff's alleged
6
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES,
AND CELIA BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
termination and any alleged discriminatory or retaliatory activity.
Twenty-Fifth Affirmative Defense
(Avoidable Consequences)
25. The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred,
in whole or in part, by the doctrine of avoidable consequences, in that Plaintiff failed to complain
and/or failed to complain promptly about any alleged retaliation or discrimination.
Twenty-Sixth Affirmative Defens
(Reasonable Care)
26. The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred,
10 in whole or in part, in that, Defendants exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct
11 any retaliatory or discriminatory behavior in the workplace.
12 Twenty-Seventh Affirmative Defens:
13 (Prompt Investigation and Remedy)
14 Dae The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred,
15 in whole or in part, in that, Defendants took immediate and appropriate efforts to quickly and
16 thoroughly investigate and remedy Plaintiff's complaints, if any.
17 Twenty-Eighth Affirmative Defens:
18 (Failure to Use Preventative or Corrective Opportunity)
19 28. The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred,
20 in whole or in part, in that, Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or
21 corrective opportunity provided by Defendants or to avoid harm otherwise.
22 Twenty-Ninth Affirmative Defense
23 (Failure to Use Defendants’ Policies and Procedures)
24 29. The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred,
25 in whole or in part, in that, Plaintiff failed to reasonably make use of Defendants’ anti-discrimination
26 and anti-retaliation policies and procedures, as well as the grievance options, mediation options,
27 arbitration options and other policies and procedures.
28 Mf
7
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES,
AND CELIA BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
Thirtieth Affirmative Defense
(Good Faith/Business Necessity)
30. The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred,
in whole or in part, because all of Defendants’ actions with respect to Plaintiff were done in good
faith and/or in a manner consistent with business necessity.
Thirty-First Affirmative Defense+
(Legitimate, Non-Discriminatory, Non-Retaliatory, Non-Pretextual Reasons)
Se The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred,
in whole or in part, because Defendants did not engage in the alleged discrimination or retaliation
10 set forth in the Complaint, but even assuming for the sake of argument that it did, Defendants would
11 have taken the same employment actions in any event for legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-
12 retaliatory, non-pretextual reasons.
13 Thirty-Second Affirmative Defens
14 (Legitimate, Business-Related Reasons)
15 32. The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred,
16 in whole or in part, because any decisions with respect to Plaintiff's employment were made by
17 Defendants solely for legitimate, business-related reasons and were reasonably based on the facts as
18 Defendants understood them. Defendants had reasonable grounds for believing their actions did not
19 violate any laws and any actions that were in violation of any applicable laws, which Defendants
20 expressly deny, were otherwise contrary to Defendants’ good-faith efforts to comply with all
21 applicable laws.
22 Thirty-Third Affirmative Defense
23 (No Authorization, Direction, Participation, or Ratification by Defendants)
24 33. The answering Defendants were unaware of, and did not authorize, direct, participate
25 in, or ratify any alleged wrongful conduct. Any recoveries on Plaintiffs Complaint, or any purported
26 cause of action alleged therein, is barred in whole or in part because Defendants did not authorize,
27 aid, abet, counsel or encourage any such alleged conduct.
28 Mf
8
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES,
AND CELIA BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
Thirty-Fourth Affirmative Defense
(Percentage of Fault)
34, Defendants are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief therein
allege, that if it is held liable to Plaintiff, which liability is expressly denied, the answering
Defendants shall be liable to Plaintiff only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to the
answering Defendants in direct proportion to their percentage of fault, if any, under California Civil
Code § 1431, et seq.
Thirty-Fifth Affirmative Defens
(Plaintiff’s Breach of Duties)
10 35: Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff's own breach of duties
11 owed to Defendants.
12 Thirty-Sixth Affirmative Defens:
13 (Unjust Enrichment)
14 36. Plaintiff may not recover damages in this action because, under the circumstances
15 presented, it would constitute unjust enrichment.
16 Thirty-Seventh Affirmative Defense
17 (No Damages)
18 Sis Plaintiff was not damaged in any sum alleged and is not entitled to any general
19 damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, compensatory damages, medical expenses,
20 interest or other damages/losses, as alleged, sought or referred to, or any other relief at all.
21 Thirty-Eighth Affirmative Defens:
22 (Reservation of Right to Assert Additional Defenses)
23 38. Defendants allege that they presently have insufficient knowledge or information on
24 which to form a belief as to whether they may have additional, yet unstated, defenses available and,
25 therefore, Defendants reserve the right to assert additional defenses in the event discovery indicates
26 that they would be appropriate.
27 //1
28 Mf
9
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES,
AND CELIA BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, answering Defendants request that the Court:
1 Dismiss the Complaint with prejudice;
2 Award answering Defendants their costs of suit herein; and,
3 Such other and further relief as may be appropriate.
DATED: January 30, 2023 O’HAGAN MEYER
By: Marg oe POA
MARGOT M. PARKER
Attorneys for Defendants, Peninsula Conflict
10 Resolution Center, Malissa Jones and Celia
Benavides
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES,
AND CELIA BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action. My business address is: 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 1050,
Woodland Hills, CA 91367.
On January 30, 2023, I served the foregoing document described as ANSWER OF
DEFENDANTS PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES,
AND CELIA BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT in this action by
placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows:
10 SEE SERVICE LIST
11 isa BY MAIL: I enclosed this document in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the
person(s) at the address(es) below and placed the envelope(s) for collection and mailing following
12 our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this firm's practice for collecting and
processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection
13 and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service
in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
14
15 XI BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept
service by electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic
16 notification listed herein on this date. I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission,
any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
17
18 oO BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I served the foregoing document by Federal Express, an
express service carrier which provides overnight delivery, as follows. I placed true copies of the
19 foregoing document in sealed envelopes or packages designated by the express service carrier,
addressed to each interested party as set forth above, with fees for overnight delivery paid or provided
20 for.
21
O BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused the above-listed documents to be delivered by
22 hand to the address indicated on the below Service List.
23 XI (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct.
24
Executed on January 30, 2023, at Woodland Hills, California.
25
26
27 Oe.
Lota Korn
28
u
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES,
AND CELIA BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
SERVICE LIST
Chilone Payton vs. Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center et al.
SCSC Case No. 22CV407258
Jonathan D. Kent Attorneys for Plaintiff
Kent Legal P.C. Chilone Payton
9595 Wilshire Blvd.,
Ste 900,
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
lel: 310-300-4032
Fax:
Email: jkent@kentlegalpc.com
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES,
AND CELIA BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
Preview
Electronically Filed MARGOT M. PARKER (SBN 263205) O’HAGAN MEYER by Superior Court of CA, 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 1050 County of Santa Clara, Woodland Hills, CA, 91367 on 2/24/2023 12:25 PM Telephone: (213) 306-1610 Reviewed By: P. Lai Facsimile: (213) 306-1615 Case #22CV407258 Envelope: 11277288 Attorneys for Defendant, Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center, Malissa Jones, and Celia Benavides SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 10 11 CHILONE PAYTON, Case No. 22CV407258 [Hon. Judge Amber Rosen, Dept. 16] 12 Plaintiff, 13 ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS vs. PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION 14 CENTER, MALISSA JONES, AND CELIA PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S 15 CENTER, a California nonprofit corporation; UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT TRACY TRYBA ROGERS, an individual; 16 MALISSA JONES, an individual; and CELIA 17 BENAVIDES, an individual; and DOES 1 Complaint Filed: 11/14/2022 through 20, inclusive; Trial Date: None set 18 Defendants. 19 20 Defendants PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES, and 21 CELIA BENAVIDES (“Defendants”) hereby answer the unverified Complaint (“Complaint”) filed 22 by Plaintiff CHILONE PAYTON (“Plaintiff”) on file herein, and admit, deny, and allege as follows: 23 GENERAL DENIAL 24 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30, Defendants deny generally each and every 25 allegation of Plaintiff's Complaint, and further deny that any damage, in any sum or sums 26 whatsoever, or at all, has been or will be caused by reason of any act or omission on the part of the 27 answering Defendants or their agents, servants, or employees. 28 1 ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES, AND CELIA BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT Defendant further asserts the following affirmative defenses, based on information and belief, to preserve issues for trial and not to constitute admissions or to shift any burdens of proof or producing evidence: AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES First Affirmative Defense (Failure to State a Cause of Action) 1 The Complaint, including each purported cause of action therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action upon which relief can be granted against Defendants. Second Affirmative Defense 10 (Good Faith and Good Cause) 11 2, Defendants acted reasonably, permissibly and in good faith, and for good cause, at all 12 material times based on relevant facts and circumstances known to them at the time, or in conformity 13 with and in reliance upon applicable regulations, orders, codes, practices, policies or procedures. 14 Third Affirmative Defense 15 (Estoppel, Laches, Waiver, Unclean Hands) 16 3 The Complaint, including each purported cause of action therein, is barred, in whole 17 or part, by the doctrines of estoppel, laches, waiver, unclean hands, and after-acquired evidence of 18 on-the-job and employment-related wrongful conduct. 19 Fourth Affirmative Defense 20 (Workers’ Compensation Preemption) 21 4 The Complaint, including each purported cause of action therein, is barred, in whole 22 or part, by the workers’ compensation preemption and exclusivity provisions as set forth in Labor 23 Code§§3600(a), et seg., and under the Worker’s Compensation Act. 24 Fifth Affirmative Defense 25 (Lack of Standing) 26 5 Plaintiff lacks standing to bring the Complaint and each purported cause of action 27 therein. 28 Mf 2. ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES, AND CELIA BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT Sixth Affirmative Defense (Failure to Mitigate) 6 To each and every cause of action of the Complaint, the answering Defendants allege that Plaintiff failed to reasonably mitigate damages, if any, and therefore, Plaintiff is barred from recovering the damages which Plaintiff failed to mitigate. Seventh Affirmative Defense (Consent, Ratification, Affirmation) 7 The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred because Plaintiff consented to, or ratified and affirmed, the alleged conduct of Defendants. 10 Eighth Affirmative Defens 11 (Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel) 12 8 The Complaint, including each purported cause of action therein, is barred under the 13 principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel. 14 Ninth Affirmative Defense 15 (Release, Acquiescence, Accord and Satisfaction) 16 9. The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred, 17 in whole or in part, by Plaintiff's release, acquiescence, accord and satisfaction. 18 Tenth Affirmative Defense 19 (Assumption of Risk) 20 10. If Plaintiff suffered or sustained any loss, damages or injury at or about the times and 21 places alleged, although such is not admitted hereby or herein, the same or the direct and proximate 22 result of the risk, if any there was, was knowingly assumed by Plaintiff. 23 Eleventh Affirmative Defense 24 (Failure to Exhaust/Condition Precedent) 25 11. Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the statutory prerequisites to sue or has failed to exhaust 26 her administrative, contractual and/or statutory remedies and/or otherwise comply with the 27 provisions of the applicable codes and regulations, including the Fair Employment and Housing Act, 28 §§12900, et seq., of the California Government Code. 3 ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES, AND CELIA BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT Twelfth Affirmative Defense (Privilege/Justification) 12. Any recovery on Plaintiff's Complaint, or any purported cause of action therein, is barred because the disputed conduct of the Defendants was privileged and/or justified. Any and all conduct of which Plaintiff complains and which is attributed to Defendants — although liability is denied — was a proper exercise of management’s discretion on the part of Defendants and was undertaken for a fair and reasonable business necessity and bona fide occupational qualification. Thirteenth Affirmative Defense (Punitive Damages Violate Constitutional Rights and Due Process) 10 138 Plaintiff's Complaint, to the extent that it seeks punitive damages, violates 11 Defendants’ right to protection from “excessive fines” as provided in the Eighth Amendment to the 12 United States Constitution and Article 1, §17 of the California Constitution, and violates Defendant’s 13 right to substantive or procedural due process or due course as provided in the Fifth and Fourteenth 14 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the California Constitution. To the extent that 15 Plaintiff's Complaint seeks punitive damages authorized under California law, no punitive damages 16 may constitutionally be awarded because any statute allowing such an award is unconstitutional 17 under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the California Constitution, because 18 no law of California establishes the maximum punitive damage award which may be imposed in this 19 case. Further, Plaintiff's Complaint does not state a valid request for punitive damages pursuant to 20 Civil Code§3294. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages in this action. 21 Fourteenth Affirmative Defense 22 (Equitable Indemnity/Comparative Contribution) 23 14. To each and every cause of action of the Complaint, the answering Defendants allege 24 that in the event the answering Defendants are held liable to Plaintiff, which liability is expressly 25 denied, and any other parties are likewise held liable, the answering Defendants are entitled to a 26 percentage contribution of the total liability from said other parties in accordance with the principles 27 of equitable indemnity and comparative contribution. 28 Mf 4 ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES, AND CELIA BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT Fifteenth Affirmative Defense (Statute of Limitations) 15. The Complaint, including each alleged cause of action, is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, including, but not limited to, the provisions in part II, Title 2, Chapter 3, of the California Code of Civil Procedure, beginning with§335 and continuing through§349.4, and California Government Code §§ 12960 and 12965. Sixteenth Affirmative Defense (Privilege and Managerial Immunity) 16. Any recovery on Plaintiff's Complaint, or any purported cause of action alleged 10 therein, is barred by the doctrines of Privilege and of Managerial Immunity and Defendants’ good 11 faith belief in the legality of its actions and that Defendants had reasonable grounds for believing 12 that the alleged act or omission, if any, did not violate any law. 13 Seventeenth Affirmative Defense 14 (Offset) 15 17. The alleged claims, damages and purported causes of action in Plaintiff's Complaint 16 are satisfied by offset and by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure §431.70. 17 Eighteenth Affirmative Defens: 18 (No Proximate Cause) 19 18. Any losses, injuries or damages to Plaintiff were proximately caused or contributed 20 to by the criminal, negligent, willful acts or other tortious acts, omissions, conduct or products of 21 persons, entities or parties other than Defendants, and that each, any, and all damages recoverable 22 by Plaintiff must be diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to said other persons, 23 entities or parties, and there must be apportioned among all such persons, entities and parties the 24 amount of damages attributed to them as an offset against damages, if any, awarded against 25 Defendants. 26 Nineteenth Affirmative Defense 27 (Superseding/Intervening Causes) 28 19. Any loss, injury, or damage, if any, incurred by Plaintiff was the result of superseding o ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES, AND CELIA BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT or intervening causes arising from the criminal, negligent or willful acts or omissions of other parties including independent contractors which the answering Defendants neither controlled nor had the right to control, and that said loss, injury or damage was not proximately or legally caused by any act, omission, or other conduct of Defendants. Twentieth Affirmative Defense (Plaintiff/Third-Party Acts) 20. The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, was not the result of any negligent or intentional misconduct on the part of Defendants, but is instead barred by Plaintiff's or third parties’ own acts, omissions, negligence or misconduct. 10 Twenty-First Affirmative Defens: 11 (Defendants’ Conduct Not a Substantial Factor) 12 21. Any conduct of Defendants was not a substantial factor in bringing about the loss or 13 damage complained by Plaintiff, and, therefore, Defendants may not be held liable to Plaintiff as 14 alleged. 15 Twenty-Second Affirmative Defens: 16 (Employment Terminable At-Will) 17 22. The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred, 18 in whole or in part, in that, Plaintiff's employment was terminable at the will of either Plaintiff or 19 Defendants, at any time, with or without cause or prior notice under§2922 of the California Labor 20 Code. 21 Twenty-Third Affirmative Defense 22 (Plaintiff's Fraud/Misrepresentations) 23 23. The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred 24 by Plaintiff's fraud and/or misrepresentations to Defendants. 25 Twenty-Fourth Affirmative Defense 26 (No Causal Connection or Nexus) 27 24. The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred, 28 in whole or in part, in that, there is no causal connection or nexus between Plaintiff's alleged 6 ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES, AND CELIA BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT termination and any alleged discriminatory or retaliatory activity. Twenty-Fifth Affirmative Defense (Avoidable Consequences) 25. The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of avoidable consequences, in that Plaintiff failed to complain and/or failed to complain promptly about any alleged retaliation or discrimination. Twenty-Sixth Affirmative Defens (Reasonable Care) 26. The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred, 10 in whole or in part, in that, Defendants exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct 11 any retaliatory or discriminatory behavior in the workplace. 12 Twenty-Seventh Affirmative Defens: 13 (Prompt Investigation and Remedy) 14 Dae The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred, 15 in whole or in part, in that, Defendants took immediate and appropriate efforts to quickly and 16 thoroughly investigate and remedy Plaintiff's complaints, if any. 17 Twenty-Eighth Affirmative Defens: 18 (Failure to Use Preventative or Corrective Opportunity) 19 28. The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred, 20 in whole or in part, in that, Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or 21 corrective opportunity provided by Defendants or to avoid harm otherwise. 22 Twenty-Ninth Affirmative Defense 23 (Failure to Use Defendants’ Policies and Procedures) 24 29. The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred, 25 in whole or in part, in that, Plaintiff failed to reasonably make use of Defendants’ anti-discrimination 26 and anti-retaliation policies and procedures, as well as the grievance options, mediation options, 27 arbitration options and other policies and procedures. 28 Mf 7 ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES, AND CELIA BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT Thirtieth Affirmative Defense (Good Faith/Business Necessity) 30. The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred, in whole or in part, because all of Defendants’ actions with respect to Plaintiff were done in good faith and/or in a manner consistent with business necessity. Thirty-First Affirmative Defense+ (Legitimate, Non-Discriminatory, Non-Retaliatory, Non-Pretextual Reasons) Se The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred, in whole or in part, because Defendants did not engage in the alleged discrimination or retaliation 10 set forth in the Complaint, but even assuming for the sake of argument that it did, Defendants would 11 have taken the same employment actions in any event for legitimate, non-discriminatory, non- 12 retaliatory, non-pretextual reasons. 13 Thirty-Second Affirmative Defens 14 (Legitimate, Business-Related Reasons) 15 32. The Complaint, including each purported cause of action contained therein, is barred, 16 in whole or in part, because any decisions with respect to Plaintiff's employment were made by 17 Defendants solely for legitimate, business-related reasons and were reasonably based on the facts as 18 Defendants understood them. Defendants had reasonable grounds for believing their actions did not 19 violate any laws and any actions that were in violation of any applicable laws, which Defendants 20 expressly deny, were otherwise contrary to Defendants’ good-faith efforts to comply with all 21 applicable laws. 22 Thirty-Third Affirmative Defense 23 (No Authorization, Direction, Participation, or Ratification by Defendants) 24 33. The answering Defendants were unaware of, and did not authorize, direct, participate 25 in, or ratify any alleged wrongful conduct. Any recoveries on Plaintiffs Complaint, or any purported 26 cause of action alleged therein, is barred in whole or in part because Defendants did not authorize, 27 aid, abet, counsel or encourage any such alleged conduct. 28 Mf 8 ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES, AND CELIA BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT Thirty-Fourth Affirmative Defense (Percentage of Fault) 34, Defendants are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief therein allege, that if it is held liable to Plaintiff, which liability is expressly denied, the answering Defendants shall be liable to Plaintiff only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to the answering Defendants in direct proportion to their percentage of fault, if any, under California Civil Code § 1431, et seq. Thirty-Fifth Affirmative Defens (Plaintiff’s Breach of Duties) 10 35: Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff's own breach of duties 11 owed to Defendants. 12 Thirty-Sixth Affirmative Defens: 13 (Unjust Enrichment) 14 36. Plaintiff may not recover damages in this action because, under the circumstances 15 presented, it would constitute unjust enrichment. 16 Thirty-Seventh Affirmative Defense 17 (No Damages) 18 Sis Plaintiff was not damaged in any sum alleged and is not entitled to any general 19 damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, compensatory damages, medical expenses, 20 interest or other damages/losses, as alleged, sought or referred to, or any other relief at all. 21 Thirty-Eighth Affirmative Defens: 22 (Reservation of Right to Assert Additional Defenses) 23 38. Defendants allege that they presently have insufficient knowledge or information on 24 which to form a belief as to whether they may have additional, yet unstated, defenses available and, 25 therefore, Defendants reserve the right to assert additional defenses in the event discovery indicates 26 that they would be appropriate. 27 //1 28 Mf 9 ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES, AND CELIA BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT PRAYER WHEREFORE, answering Defendants request that the Court: 1 Dismiss the Complaint with prejudice; 2 Award answering Defendants their costs of suit herein; and, 3 Such other and further relief as may be appropriate. DATED: January 30, 2023 O’HAGAN MEYER By: Marg oe POA MARGOT M. PARKER Attorneys for Defendants, Peninsula Conflict 10 Resolution Center, Malissa Jones and Celia Benavides 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES, AND CELIA BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is: 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 1050, Woodland Hills, CA 91367. On January 30, 2023, I served the foregoing document described as ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES, AND CELIA BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: 10 SEE SERVICE LIST 11 isa BY MAIL: I enclosed this document in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) below and placed the envelope(s) for collection and mailing following 12 our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this firm's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection 13 and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. 14 15 XI BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic 16 notification listed herein on this date. I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 17 18 oO BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I served the foregoing document by Federal Express, an express service carrier which provides overnight delivery, as follows. I placed true copies of the 19 foregoing document in sealed envelopes or packages designated by the express service carrier, addressed to each interested party as set forth above, with fees for overnight delivery paid or provided 20 for. 21 O BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused the above-listed documents to be delivered by 22 hand to the address indicated on the below Service List. 23 XI (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 24 Executed on January 30, 2023, at Woodland Hills, California. 25 26 27 Oe. Lota Korn 28 u ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES, AND CELIA BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT SERVICE LIST Chilone Payton vs. Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center et al. SCSC Case No. 22CV407258 Jonathan D. Kent Attorneys for Plaintiff Kent Legal P.C. Chilone Payton 9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 900, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 lel: 310-300-4032 Fax: Email: jkent@kentlegalpc.com 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12 ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MALISSA JONES, AND CELIA BENAVIDES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT