Preview
FRED M. PLEVIN (SBN 126185)
fred.plevin@quarles.com
MORGAN A. CHASE (SBN 333573)
morgan.chase@quarles.com
QUARLES & BRADY LLP F ' LED
RNIA
101 West Broadway, Ninth Floor sgpoefléo-rxa/ ggggaggaclckggNo
San Diego, California 92101-8285
Telephone: 619-237-5200
Facsimile: 6 1 9-6 1 5—0700
Attorneys for Waxie’s Enterprises,
Envoy Solutions, LLC
LLC and ”WI
BY;
JUN 29
Rina
2023
Phillips. Deputy
KOOON
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
10
11 ANA CONTRERAS, Case No. CIVSB2309505
12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT WAXIE’S ENTERPRISES,
LLC’S AMENDED ANSWER TO
13 v. PLAINTIFF ANA CONTRERAS
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
14 WAXIE’S ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; ENVOY Judge: Gilbert Ochoa
15 SOLUTIONS LLC, an Illinois Limited Dept: $24 - SBJC
Liability Corporation; ANTHONY NUCI, an Action Filed: May 4, 2023
16 individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive., Trial Date: Trial Date TBD
17 Defendants.
18 LN g
§- k
a
19 Defendant Waxie’s Enterprises, LLC (“Waxie”) hereby amends their answer the unverified
20 Complaint by Ana Contreras (“Plaintiff”) as follows:
21 GENERAL DENIAL
22 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 43 1 .30, Waxie denies each and
23 every material allegation of the Complaint, and each cause of action raised against them, and
24 further specifically denies that Plaintiff has been damaged in any manner or amount, or at all, as a
25 result of any act or omission by Waxie or any of their officers, agents, or employees.
26 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
27 For a further and separate answer to the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s unverified
28 complaint, Waxie submits the following affirmative defenses:
DEFENDANT WAXIE’S ENTERPRISES, LLC’S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF ANA CONTRERAS
U N VERIFIED COMPLAINT
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Cause of Action)
The Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute
a cause of action against Waxie.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statute of Limitations)
Each of Plaintiffs claims are barred because Plaintiff failed to exhaust all administrative
\DOONON
remedies, including, but not limited t0, Government Code sections 12960(b) and 12965(b).
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 (California Workers’ Compensation Act)
11 Each of Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or part, by the California Workers’
12 Compensation Act. (Lab. Code § § 3600, et seq.) Plaintiff is barred from seeking any damages
13 from the purported or emotional injuries she allegedly suffered as a result of her employment in
14 that the sole and exclusive remedy for such damages is governed by the California Workers’
15 Compensation Act. (Lab. Code § § 3600, et seq.)
16 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (Failure to Mitigate Damages)
18 Without admitting the allegations 0f the Complaint, Waxie alleges that if Plaintiff suffered
by Plaintiff's
19 any loss or damage, such loss or damage was proximately caused, at least in part,
20 own failure to mitigate against her alleged damages and that, therefore, all of Plaintiffs claims
21 musty be reduced, diminished 0r defeated by such amounts as should have been so mitigated. In
22 support of this defense, Waxie alleges that Plaintiff resigned from her employment under
23 circumstances that do not constitute a constructive discharge. Waxie does not have information
24 regarding her subsequent employment, and asserts this affirmative defense to preserve this issue in
25 the case Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages following her resignation.
26 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27 (Avoidable Consequence)
28 Plaintiff’s damages, if any, are limited by the doctrine of avoidable consequences. Waxie
2
DEFENDANT WAXIE’S ENTERPRISES, LLC’S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF ANA CONTRERAS
U N VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Preview
FRED M. PLEVIN (SBN 126185) fred.plevin@quarles.com MORGAN A. CHASE (SBN 333573) morgan.chase@quarles.com QUARLES & BRADY LLP F ' LED RNIA 101 West Broadway, Ninth Floor sgpoefléo-rxa/ ggggaggaclckggNo San Diego, California 92101-8285 Telephone: 619-237-5200 Facsimile: 6 1 9-6 1 5—0700 Attorneys for Waxie’s Enterprises, Envoy Solutions, LLC LLC and ”WI BY; JUN 29 Rina 2023 Phillips. Deputy KOOON SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT 10 11 ANA CONTRERAS, Case No. CIVSB2309505 12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT WAXIE’S ENTERPRISES, LLC’S AMENDED ANSWER TO 13 v. PLAINTIFF ANA CONTRERAS UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT 14 WAXIE’S ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; ENVOY Judge: Gilbert Ochoa 15 SOLUTIONS LLC, an Illinois Limited Dept: $24 - SBJC Liability Corporation; ANTHONY NUCI, an Action Filed: May 4, 2023 16 individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive., Trial Date: Trial Date TBD 17 Defendants. 18 LN g §- k a 19 Defendant Waxie’s Enterprises, LLC (“Waxie”) hereby amends their answer the unverified 20 Complaint by Ana Contreras (“Plaintiff”) as follows: 21 GENERAL DENIAL 22 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 43 1 .30, Waxie denies each and 23 every material allegation of the Complaint, and each cause of action raised against them, and 24 further specifically denies that Plaintiff has been damaged in any manner or amount, or at all, as a 25 result of any act or omission by Waxie or any of their officers, agents, or employees. 26 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 27 For a further and separate answer to the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s unverified 28 complaint, Waxie submits the following affirmative defenses: DEFENDANT WAXIE’S ENTERPRISES, LLC’S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF ANA CONTRERAS U N VERIFIED COMPLAINT FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Cause of Action) The Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Waxie. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) Each of Plaintiffs claims are barred because Plaintiff failed to exhaust all administrative \DOONON remedies, including, but not limited t0, Government Code sections 12960(b) and 12965(b). THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 (California Workers’ Compensation Act) 11 Each of Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or part, by the California Workers’ 12 Compensation Act. (Lab. Code § § 3600, et seq.) Plaintiff is barred from seeking any damages 13 from the purported or emotional injuries she allegedly suffered as a result of her employment in 14 that the sole and exclusive remedy for such damages is governed by the California Workers’ 15 Compensation Act. (Lab. Code § § 3600, et seq.) 16 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (Failure to Mitigate Damages) 18 Without admitting the allegations 0f the Complaint, Waxie alleges that if Plaintiff suffered by Plaintiff's 19 any loss or damage, such loss or damage was proximately caused, at least in part, 20 own failure to mitigate against her alleged damages and that, therefore, all of Plaintiffs claims 21 musty be reduced, diminished 0r defeated by such amounts as should have been so mitigated. In 22 support of this defense, Waxie alleges that Plaintiff resigned from her employment under 23 circumstances that do not constitute a constructive discharge. Waxie does not have information 24 regarding her subsequent employment, and asserts this affirmative defense to preserve this issue in 25 the case Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages following her resignation. 26 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27 (Avoidable Consequence) 28 Plaintiff’s damages, if any, are limited by the doctrine of avoidable consequences. Waxie 2 DEFENDANT WAXIE’S ENTERPRISES, LLC’S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF ANA CONTRERAS U N VERIFIED COMPLAINT