Preview
Filed
Superior Court of Callfornia,
ge
acramentoa
QS/15/Z023
= LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
SHANE SINGH, SB# 202733 prasadh2
E-Mail: Shane.Singh@lewisbrisbois.com ; Gesu
NO
GRACE E. MEHTA, SB# 327676 By ___________, Deputy
FAB
E-Mail: Grace.Mehta@lewisbrisbois.com 34-2019-00262542-CU-DE-GDS
HD
2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700
Sacramento, California 95833
ye
Telephone: 916.564.5400
Facsimile: 916.564.5444
UAen
Attorneys for Defendant, ASOMEO
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
INDUSTRY, LLC
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
So
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
CS
-&
—_
JAY ROBINSON and HUGO PINEDA, CASE NO. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
[|=
Ne
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
[|=
OO
DEFENDANT ASOMEO
Plaintiffs, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
F®
>»
BY FAX
INDUSTRY, LLC’S ANSWER TO
vs. PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON AND HUGO
Aa
F®
PINEDA’S SECOND AMENDED
ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLAINT
NHeNRAnB
FF
RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC, a
California Corporation and PHILLIPS & Action Filed: August 16, 2019
F&
JORDAN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Trial Date: None Set
LLC, a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-10,
PB
F&
Defendants.
BO
F&
Co
NY
Defendant ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC
=
NK
(“Defendant”), acting by its respective counsel of record, hereby answers the Second Amended
NY
NY
Complaint of Plaintiffs JAY ROBINSON and HUGO PINEDA (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), as
KY
}
follows:
sk»
KY
GENERAL DENIAL
an
NY
1. Under the provisions of Section 431.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure,
ABA
NY
Defendant denies each, every, and all of the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint, and
AI
NY
the whole thereof, and deny that the Plaintiffs have sustained damages in the sums alleged, or in
Sa
LEWIS
rn
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4847-9660-0276.1 1 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
= any other sum, or at all.
2. Further answering Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, and the whole thereof,
KO
Defendant denies that Plaintiff has sustained any injury, damage, or loss, if any, by reasons of any
WO
act or omission or negligence on the part of the answering Defendant or its agents or employees.
>
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
ana
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
NDB
(Failure to State a Cause of Action)
Neither the Second Amended Complaint nor any purported cause of action alleged therein
Se
state claims upon which relief can be granted.
So
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
CS
eet
(Failure to Plead with Certainty and Particularity)
—-&
Se
There is a defect pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 subdivision (f) in that
NRO
the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint and each and every purported cause of action
OO
SF
therein, are not pleaded with sufficient particularity and are uncertain, vague, ambiguous, and
>»
RF
FO
unintelligible.
Aa
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
FTF
A
(Insufficient Service)
FF
BNA
FO
Plaintiffs failed to serve the summons and Second Amended Complaint in this action upon
Defendant in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements.
CO
FSF
UNO
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
CF
(Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies)
-=|-&
UNE
The Second Amended Complaint and each and every purported cause of action alleged
UNE
NY
therein, is barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiffs failed to timely and completely exhaust
OO
OUNEOUNEOUNE
their requisite administrative and/or contractual remedies available to them under law or contract
ss}.
prior to commencing this action.
a
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
NMS
A
(Statute of Limitations)
NRO
SoA
Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part to the extent the events complained of took
Nv
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4847-9660-0276.1 2 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
= place more than one (1) year, three (3) years, or four (4) years prior to the filing of Plaintiffs’
Complaint and Second Amended Complaint, and thus Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by Code of
NYO
Civil Procedure sections 338, 339(1), 340, Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.,
WO
and Labor Code section 2698.
>
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
nA
(Rest Period Law)
NBD
Pursuant to the applicable Wage Order, Defendant “authorized and permitted” Plaintiffs
and its employees to take rest periods.
fF
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Co
(Meal Period Law)
CSC
SF llUrc S| lhc lFlhlhlUh
Pursuant to the applicable Wage Order, Defendant “provided” Plaintiffs and its employees
—-
with the ability to take meal periods.
KYO
EIGHT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
OO
FlhUr Flr
(Labor Code Section 226)
FF
Plaintiffs did not suffer an actual injury and therefore cannot recover damages or statutory
A
Uw FC lUr FhlUr Fh
penalties under Labor Code section 226.
BAB
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
PBNH
(Plaintiff Did Not Sustain Any Damages)
Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiffs’ claim for
STF
6
CU
prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code section 3288 is barred because Plaintiffs sustained no
CS
OUD
damages.
—§&
OUND
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
OUND
NY
(Good Faith Dispute)
oo
ONlUDNEOCUNE
Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiffs’ Second Amended
Fs}.
Complaint, and each and every cause of action set forth therein alleged against Defendant, is
ua
Aa
barred, in whole or in part, because actions taken with respect to Plaintiffs’ employment, if any,
NY
were based on an honest, reasonable, and good faith belief in the facts as known and understood at
NO
SHIA
the time.
LEWIS
nv
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4847-9660-0276.1 3 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
— ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(After-Acquired Evidence)
NO
Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint is limited or subject to an absolute bar as to
OO
recoverable damages based on after-acquired evidence Defendant has presently and/or may
>
acquire during the course of this litigation.
ana
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
ADB
(Consent)
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs, at all relevant times, gave their consent, express or
fF
implied, to the alleged acts, omissions, and conduct of Defendant.
Se
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
et
CS
(Penalties)
—-&
The Second Amended Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to establish a claim for
Ne
penalties.
OO
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
FF»,
rs
(Avoidable Consequences)
Aa
Plaintiffs are precluded from asserting their Second Amended Complaint and each
Bo
purported cause of action therein, because they failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid the
DBNH
injuries they purportedly suffered in that, among other things, Plaintiffs unreasonably failed to
utilize Defendant’s internal complaint procedures.
CO
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
CFO
—R
No
(De Minimis Time Doctrine)
=&§&
Defendant alleges that if, in fact, it has failed to pay Plaintiffs for all time worked, the time
NY
N
is de minimis and therefore not compensable.
NY
|
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
F&F
NY
(No Waiting Time Penalties)
NY
a
Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims for “waiting
BABA
NY
time penalties” under Labor Code section 203 for untimely payment of wages are barred because
XI
NY
Defendant did not intentionally or willfully withhold payment of wages.
LEWIS
So
Nw
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4847-9660-0276.1 4 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
& SMITHLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
— SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Release)
NHRYO
Plaintiffs have released the claims they attempt to raise in their Second Amended
OO
Complaint, and therefore are barred from bringing this action.
FF
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
aA
(No Liquidated Damages for Failure to Pay Minimum Wage)
BAB
Defendant denies that it failed to pay Plaintiffs the minimum wage as alleged in Plaintiffs’
A
Second Amended Complaint. Defendant further alleges that if it is found to have failed to pay
fF
Plaintiffs the minimum wage, Plaintiffs’ claims for liquidated damages is barred because
So
Defendant’s acts or omissions giving rise to the failure to do so was in good faith.
et
CSC
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
me
=
(Estoppel)
KHRO
Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiffs are estopped by their
oO
own conduct from asserting any and all claims they may have had or have against Defendant
F&F
8
arising from the transactions and occurrences set forth in the Second Amended Complaint.
ABA
FR
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Laches)
DBNH
FFF
Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims as set forth
in the Second Amended Complaint are barred by the equitable doctrine of laches.
BO
TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
CF
NY
(Unclean Hands)
=—-&
NY
Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiffs are barred from
NY
NY
maintaining the Second Amended Complaint and each purported cause of action therein as a result
OO
KY
of their unclean hands with respects to the events upon which the Second Amended Complaint and
FF
KY
purported causes of action allegedly are based.
a
NY
TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
KY
A
(Attorneys’ Fees)
NY
SA
LEWIS The Second Amended Complaint and each cause of action fail to state a claim for
Nn
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4847-9660-0276.1 5 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
= attorneys’ fees.
TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
NO
(Unmanageable PAGA Claims)
WO
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ PAGA claims, and those of the representative members,
>
are barred in whole or in part, because Plaintiffs cannot establish a manageable PAGA trial.
ana
TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
BDn
(Lack of Standing)
NI
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs lack standing to assert some or all of the claims alleged in
Ce
the Second Amended Complaint either individually, as a class action, or as a PAGA action.
SoS
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
CSC
(Not Aggrieved Employees)
—-&
—_
Plaintiffs lack standing to bring a representative action under the Private Attorneys General
—=—-
KRY
Act because they are not “aggrieved employees.”
=F
SH
TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
&»—
F=—F®
(Inadequate Representative)
uno
=
Plaintiffs’ representative claims is barred in whole or in part because Plaintiffs are
FF
BNHRB
inadequate representatives to the claims asserted.
F&
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
FF
(Actions Adverse to Representative Members)
CO
F&F
Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred
FS
NY
and/or reduced by virtue of Plaintiffs and their attorneys having taken actions adverse and inimical
=—=
NK
to the interests of the purported representative members, and for their own benefit, and by
KY
N
purporting to act when the Plaintiffs have and had an irreconcilable conflict of interest with the
OO
NY
purported representative members, rendering any judgment, award or settlement void or voidable.
F&F
NY
TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
NY
On
(Not Proper Defendant)
HD
NY
Defendant is not a proper defendant herein, because it did not employ Plaintiffs.
rye
I
///
So
LEWIS
ry
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4847-9660-0276.1 6 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
= TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Uncertifiable Putative Class)
NO
Defendant is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are
oO
barred because Defendant has not engaged in actions of the kind alleged that are generally
>
applicable to the proposed class of Plaintiffs, and as such, this action is not properly maintainable
a
and/or does not qualify for certification under the requirements for a class action.
DB
THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
ANI
(No Common Questions of Law and Fact)
fe
Defendant alleges on information and belief that questions of law and fact common to the
Se
Plaintiffs do not predominate over the questions affecting individual members of the proposed
et
CSC
class. Therefore, this action is not appropriate for certification as a class action.
—&
THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
KYO
me
(No Typicality)
HO
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims, and those of the purported class, are barred, in
F&F
whole or in part, because Plaintiff cannot establish that their claims are typical of those of the class
un
and therefore the Second Amended Complaint cannot proceed as a class action.
DBNHRDB
THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Numerosity)
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims, and those of the purported class, are barred, in
ODO
Rm
whole or in part, because Plaintiffs cannot establish that members of the class are so numerous that
CFS
NO
joinder is impracticable.
=—=&=
THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
NY
N
(No Community of Interest)
OO
NY
The class allegations in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint are improper as a matter of
Fe
NY
law because there is no community of interest in the claims asserted by Plaintiffs and those of the
no
NY
purported putative class.
Hn
NY
///
NY
I
///
So
LEWIS
rn
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4847-9660-0276.1 7 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
= THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Speculative Damages)
NO
Plaintiffs are precluded from recovering the damages alleged in the Second Amended
FA OO
Complaint because those damages are too vague, uncertain, and speculative to permit recovery.
>
THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Bn a
(Labor Code § 203 — No Willful or Intentional Violation)
Defendant alleges that, it has not willfully or intentionally failed to pay any such additional
compensation to Plaintiffs and/or the allegedly aggrieved employees or putative class, within the
meaning and scope of California Labor Code section 203.
SCS
THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SC
hm
(Waiver Based on Failure to Exhaust Grievance and/or Arbitration process)
-&
Plaintiffs and/or allegedly aggrieved employees or putative class members were subject to
NRO
a Collective Bargaining Agreement. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole
Oe
FeO =
or in part, because the Collective Bargaining Agreement requires employees to submit their claims
F&F»
through a union grievance procedure and arbitration. These procedures were not followed barring
a
FF
Plaintiffs’ claims.
AHeA
THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
F
(Reimbursement)
FB
FF
Plaintiffs’ claims for Labor Code section 2802 reimbursement damages are barred because
F-&
CBO
Defendant timely reimbursed Plaintiffs for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by
CF
NKR
Plaintiffs as required by law.
-|-&
KRY
THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
NKR
KR
(Labor Code Section 226 — Accurate Wage Statements)
&}»
KY
Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiffs' claim for inaccurate
sks.
KY
wage statements under Labor Code section 226 is barred because Defendant at all times provided
KY
a
and continues to provide accurate wage statements and therefore Plaintiffs cannot recover
rxniIioana
KY
damages or statutory penalties under Labor Code section 226.
NY
//1
LEWIS
nv
eS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4847-9660-0276.1 8 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
— THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Wages Owed)
NO
Plaintiffs’ claims for unpaid minimum or overtime wages are barred because Defendant
HO
timely paid all wages owed to pursuant California law and/or pursuant to the applicable collective
>
bargaining agreement.
aA
FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
BABA
(Accord and Satisfaction)
AHI
Defendant is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that Plaintiff Pineda engaged in
fF
conduct and actions to constitute an accord and satisfaction concerning the obligations, conduct,
So
allegations, and/or acts at issue in the Second Amended Complaint, barring recovery from
SC
—_——hlh
Defendant.
—-&
FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
F|—=-_
NY
(Unknown Defenses)
Fe
|]
Defendant is informed and believe and thereon alleges that it may have other separate
FF
FX
and/or additional defenses of which it is not aware, and hereby reserves the right to assert them by
Ano
F
amendment to this Answer as discovery continues.
NANHeRA
FF
F&
DATED: August 15, 2023 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
FB
FF
6O
CF
KY
|F§
NKR
By:
SHANE SINGH
NKLN
NY
Attorneys for Defendant, ASOMEO
OO
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
KY
INDUSTRY, LLC
FF
KY
aA
NY
BAB
NY
vNY
I
SoS
LEWIS
nv
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4847-9660-0276.1 9 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
CALIFORNIA STATE COURT PROOF OF SERVICE
Jay Robinson, et al. v. Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC
34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My
business address is 2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700, Sacramento, CA 95833.
On August 15, 2023, I served true copies of the following document(s):
DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY,
ND
LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON AND HUGO PINEDA’S
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Oo
I served the documents on the following persons at the following addresses (including fax
numbers and e-mail addresses, if applicable):
Co
10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Jay Robinson and Attorneys for Defendant, Phillips & Jordan,
Hugo Pineda Inc.
11
Patricia A. Savage Morgan P. Forsey
Savage, Lamb & Lunde, PC Victoria L. Tallman
12
1550 Humboldt Road, Suite 4 Amanda E. Beckwith
Chico, CA 95928 Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
13
Phone: 530.592.3861 Four Embarcadero Center, 17" Floor
Fax: 530.592.3865 San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
14
Email: psavesq@gmail.com Phone: 415.434.9100
15 ee: mlennig@slrhlaw.com Fax: 415.434.3947
Email: mforsey@sheppardmullin.com
16 abeckwith@sheppardmullin.com
17
The documents were served by the following means:
18
[x] (BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) Based on a court order or an
agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the
19
documents to be sent from e-mail address anne.french@lewisbrisbois.com to the persons at
the e-mail addresses listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the
20
transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
21 unsuccessful.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
22
foregoing is true and correct.
Za
Executed on August 15, 2023, at Sacramento, California.
24
Ciru Mis enoh
2D
26
ve
Anne M. French
28
128152284.1 1
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
Filed Superior Court of Callfornia, ge acramentoa QS/15/Z023 = LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP SHANE SINGH, SB# 202733 prasadh2 E-Mail: Shane.Singh@lewisbrisbois.com ; Gesu NO GRACE E. MEHTA, SB# 327676 By ___________, Deputy FAB E-Mail: Grace.Mehta@lewisbrisbois.com 34-2019-00262542-CU-DE-GDS HD 2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700 Sacramento, California 95833 ye Telephone: 916.564.5400 Facsimile: 916.564.5444 UAen Attorneys for Defendant, ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA So COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CS -& —_ JAY ROBINSON and HUGO PINEDA, CASE NO. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS [|= Ne individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, [|= OO DEFENDANT ASOMEO Plaintiffs, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION F® >» BY FAX INDUSTRY, LLC’S ANSWER TO vs. PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON AND HUGO Aa F® PINEDA’S SECOND AMENDED ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLAINT NHeNRAnB FF RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC, a California Corporation and PHILLIPS & Action Filed: August 16, 2019 F& JORDAN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Trial Date: None Set LLC, a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-10, PB F& Defendants. BO F& Co NY Defendant ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC = NK (“Defendant”), acting by its respective counsel of record, hereby answers the Second Amended NY NY Complaint of Plaintiffs JAY ROBINSON and HUGO PINEDA (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), as KY } follows: sk» KY GENERAL DENIAL an NY 1. Under the provisions of Section 431.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, ABA NY Defendant denies each, every, and all of the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint, and AI NY the whole thereof, and deny that the Plaintiffs have sustained damages in the sums alleged, or in Sa LEWIS rn BRISBOIS BISGAARD 4847-9660-0276.1 1 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT = any other sum, or at all. 2. Further answering Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, and the whole thereof, KO Defendant denies that Plaintiff has sustained any injury, damage, or loss, if any, by reasons of any WO act or omission or negligence on the part of the answering Defendant or its agents or employees. > AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ana FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NDB (Failure to State a Cause of Action) Neither the Second Amended Complaint nor any purported cause of action alleged therein Se state claims upon which relief can be granted. So SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CS eet (Failure to Plead with Certainty and Particularity) —-& Se There is a defect pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 subdivision (f) in that NRO the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint and each and every purported cause of action OO SF therein, are not pleaded with sufficient particularity and are uncertain, vague, ambiguous, and >» RF FO unintelligible. Aa THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FTF A (Insufficient Service) FF BNA FO Plaintiffs failed to serve the summons and Second Amended Complaint in this action upon Defendant in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. CO FSF UNO FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CF (Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies) -=|-& UNE The Second Amended Complaint and each and every purported cause of action alleged UNE NY therein, is barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiffs failed to timely and completely exhaust OO OUNEOUNEOUNE their requisite administrative and/or contractual remedies available to them under law or contract ss}. prior to commencing this action. a FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NMS A (Statute of Limitations) NRO SoA Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part to the extent the events complained of took Nv LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD 4847-9660-0276.1 2 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT = place more than one (1) year, three (3) years, or four (4) years prior to the filing of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Second Amended Complaint, and thus Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by Code of NYO Civil Procedure sections 338, 339(1), 340, Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq., WO and Labor Code section 2698. > SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE nA (Rest Period Law) NBD Pursuant to the applicable Wage Order, Defendant “authorized and permitted” Plaintiffs and its employees to take rest periods. fF SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Co (Meal Period Law) CSC SF llUrc S| lhc lFlhlhlUh Pursuant to the applicable Wage Order, Defendant “provided” Plaintiffs and its employees —- with the ability to take meal periods. KYO EIGHT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OO FlhUr Flr (Labor Code Section 226) FF Plaintiffs did not suffer an actual injury and therefore cannot recover damages or statutory A Uw FC lUr FhlUr Fh penalties under Labor Code section 226. BAB NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE PBNH (Plaintiff Did Not Sustain Any Damages) Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiffs’ claim for STF 6 CU prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code section 3288 is barred because Plaintiffs sustained no CS OUD damages. —§& OUND TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OUND NY (Good Faith Dispute) oo ONlUDNEOCUNE Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Fs}. Complaint, and each and every cause of action set forth therein alleged against Defendant, is ua Aa barred, in whole or in part, because actions taken with respect to Plaintiffs’ employment, if any, NY were based on an honest, reasonable, and good faith belief in the facts as known and understood at NO SHIA the time. LEWIS nv BRISBOIS BISGAARD 4847-9660-0276.1 3 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT — ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (After-Acquired Evidence) NO Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint is limited or subject to an absolute bar as to OO recoverable damages based on after-acquired evidence Defendant has presently and/or may > acquire during the course of this litigation. ana TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ADB (Consent) Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs, at all relevant times, gave their consent, express or fF implied, to the alleged acts, omissions, and conduct of Defendant. Se THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE et CS (Penalties) —-& The Second Amended Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to establish a claim for Ne penalties. OO FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FF», rs (Avoidable Consequences) Aa Plaintiffs are precluded from asserting their Second Amended Complaint and each Bo purported cause of action therein, because they failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid the DBNH injuries they purportedly suffered in that, among other things, Plaintiffs unreasonably failed to utilize Defendant’s internal complaint procedures. CO FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CFO —R No (De Minimis Time Doctrine) =&§& Defendant alleges that if, in fact, it has failed to pay Plaintiffs for all time worked, the time NY N is de minimis and therefore not compensable. NY | SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE F&F NY (No Waiting Time Penalties) NY a Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims for “waiting BABA NY time penalties” under Labor Code section 203 for untimely payment of wages are barred because XI NY Defendant did not intentionally or willfully withhold payment of wages. LEWIS So Nw BRISBOIS BISGAARD 4847-9660-0276.1 4 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS & SMITHLLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT — SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Release) NHRYO Plaintiffs have released the claims they attempt to raise in their Second Amended OO Complaint, and therefore are barred from bringing this action. FF EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE aA (No Liquidated Damages for Failure to Pay Minimum Wage) BAB Defendant denies that it failed to pay Plaintiffs the minimum wage as alleged in Plaintiffs’ A Second Amended Complaint. Defendant further alleges that if it is found to have failed to pay fF Plaintiffs the minimum wage, Plaintiffs’ claims for liquidated damages is barred because So Defendant’s acts or omissions giving rise to the failure to do so was in good faith. et CSC NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE me = (Estoppel) KHRO Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiffs are estopped by their oO own conduct from asserting any and all claims they may have had or have against Defendant F&F 8 arising from the transactions and occurrences set forth in the Second Amended Complaint. ABA FR TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Laches) DBNH FFF Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint are barred by the equitable doctrine of laches. BO TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CF NY (Unclean Hands) =—-& NY Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiffs are barred from NY NY maintaining the Second Amended Complaint and each purported cause of action therein as a result OO KY of their unclean hands with respects to the events upon which the Second Amended Complaint and FF KY purported causes of action allegedly are based. a NY TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE KY A (Attorneys’ Fees) NY SA LEWIS The Second Amended Complaint and each cause of action fail to state a claim for Nn BRISBOIS BISGAARD 4847-9660-0276.1 5 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT = attorneys’ fees. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NO (Unmanageable PAGA Claims) WO Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ PAGA claims, and those of the representative members, > are barred in whole or in part, because Plaintiffs cannot establish a manageable PAGA trial. ana TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE BDn (Lack of Standing) NI Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs lack standing to assert some or all of the claims alleged in Ce the Second Amended Complaint either individually, as a class action, or as a PAGA action. SoS TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CSC (Not Aggrieved Employees) —-& —_ Plaintiffs lack standing to bring a representative action under the Private Attorneys General —=—- KRY Act because they are not “aggrieved employees.” =F SH TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE &»— F=—F® (Inadequate Representative) uno = Plaintiffs’ representative claims is barred in whole or in part because Plaintiffs are FF BNHRB inadequate representatives to the claims asserted. F& TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FF (Actions Adverse to Representative Members) CO F&F Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred FS NY and/or reduced by virtue of Plaintiffs and their attorneys having taken actions adverse and inimical =—= NK to the interests of the purported representative members, and for their own benefit, and by KY N purporting to act when the Plaintiffs have and had an irreconcilable conflict of interest with the OO NY purported representative members, rendering any judgment, award or settlement void or voidable. F&F NY TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NY On (Not Proper Defendant) HD NY Defendant is not a proper defendant herein, because it did not employ Plaintiffs. rye I /// So LEWIS ry BRISBOIS BISGAARD 4847-9660-0276.1 6 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT = TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Uncertifiable Putative Class) NO Defendant is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are oO barred because Defendant has not engaged in actions of the kind alleged that are generally > applicable to the proposed class of Plaintiffs, and as such, this action is not properly maintainable a and/or does not qualify for certification under the requirements for a class action. DB THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ANI (No Common Questions of Law and Fact) fe Defendant alleges on information and belief that questions of law and fact common to the Se Plaintiffs do not predominate over the questions affecting individual members of the proposed et CSC class. Therefore, this action is not appropriate for certification as a class action. —& THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE KYO me (No Typicality) HO Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims, and those of the purported class, are barred, in F&F whole or in part, because Plaintiff cannot establish that their claims are typical of those of the class un and therefore the Second Amended Complaint cannot proceed as a class action. DBNHRDB THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Numerosity) Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims, and those of the purported class, are barred, in ODO Rm whole or in part, because Plaintiffs cannot establish that members of the class are so numerous that CFS NO joinder is impracticable. =—=&= THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NY N (No Community of Interest) OO NY The class allegations in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint are improper as a matter of Fe NY law because there is no community of interest in the claims asserted by Plaintiffs and those of the no NY purported putative class. Hn NY /// NY I /// So LEWIS rn BRISBOIS BISGAARD 4847-9660-0276.1 7 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT = THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Speculative Damages) NO Plaintiffs are precluded from recovering the damages alleged in the Second Amended FA OO Complaint because those damages are too vague, uncertain, and speculative to permit recovery. > THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Bn a (Labor Code § 203 — No Willful or Intentional Violation) Defendant alleges that, it has not willfully or intentionally failed to pay any such additional compensation to Plaintiffs and/or the allegedly aggrieved employees or putative class, within the meaning and scope of California Labor Code section 203. SCS THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SC hm (Waiver Based on Failure to Exhaust Grievance and/or Arbitration process) -& Plaintiffs and/or allegedly aggrieved employees or putative class members were subject to NRO a Collective Bargaining Agreement. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole Oe FeO = or in part, because the Collective Bargaining Agreement requires employees to submit their claims F&F» through a union grievance procedure and arbitration. These procedures were not followed barring a FF Plaintiffs’ claims. AHeA THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE F (Reimbursement) FB FF Plaintiffs’ claims for Labor Code section 2802 reimbursement damages are barred because F-& CBO Defendant timely reimbursed Plaintiffs for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by CF NKR Plaintiffs as required by law. -|-& KRY THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NKR KR (Labor Code Section 226 — Accurate Wage Statements) &}» KY Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiffs' claim for inaccurate sks. KY wage statements under Labor Code section 226 is barred because Defendant at all times provided KY a and continues to provide accurate wage statements and therefore Plaintiffs cannot recover rxniIioana KY damages or statutory penalties under Labor Code section 226. NY //1 LEWIS nv eS BRISBOIS BISGAARD 4847-9660-0276.1 8 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT — THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Wages Owed) NO Plaintiffs’ claims for unpaid minimum or overtime wages are barred because Defendant HO timely paid all wages owed to pursuant California law and/or pursuant to the applicable collective > bargaining agreement. aA FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE BABA (Accord and Satisfaction) AHI Defendant is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that Plaintiff Pineda engaged in fF conduct and actions to constitute an accord and satisfaction concerning the obligations, conduct, So allegations, and/or acts at issue in the Second Amended Complaint, barring recovery from SC —_——hlh Defendant. —-& FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE F|—=-_ NY (Unknown Defenses) Fe |] Defendant is informed and believe and thereon alleges that it may have other separate FF FX and/or additional defenses of which it is not aware, and hereby reserves the right to assert them by Ano F amendment to this Answer as discovery continues. NANHeRA FF F& DATED: August 15, 2023 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP FB FF 6O CF KY |F§ NKR By: SHANE SINGH NKLN NY Attorneys for Defendant, ASOMEO OO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION KY INDUSTRY, LLC FF KY aA NY BAB NY vNY I SoS LEWIS nv BRISBOIS BISGAARD 4847-9660-0276.1 9 Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CALIFORNIA STATE COURT PROOF OF SERVICE Jay Robinson, et al. v. Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business address is 2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700, Sacramento, CA 95833. On August 15, 2023, I served true copies of the following document(s): DEFENDANT ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INDUSTRY, ND LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF JAY ROBINSON AND HUGO PINEDA’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Oo I served the documents on the following persons at the following addresses (including fax numbers and e-mail addresses, if applicable): Co 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Jay Robinson and Attorneys for Defendant, Phillips & Jordan, Hugo Pineda Inc. 11 Patricia A. Savage Morgan P. Forsey Savage, Lamb & Lunde, PC Victoria L. Tallman 12 1550 Humboldt Road, Suite 4 Amanda E. Beckwith Chico, CA 95928 Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 13 Phone: 530.592.3861 Four Embarcadero Center, 17" Floor Fax: 530.592.3865 San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 14 Email: psavesq@gmail.com Phone: 415.434.9100 15 ee: mlennig@slrhlaw.com Fax: 415.434.3947 Email: mforsey@sheppardmullin.com 16 abeckwith@sheppardmullin.com 17 The documents were served by the following means: 18 [x] (BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the 19 documents to be sent from e-mail address anne.french@lewisbrisbois.com to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the 20 transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was 21 unsuccessful. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 22 foregoing is true and correct. Za Executed on August 15, 2023, at Sacramento, California. 24 Ciru Mis enoh 2D 26 ve Anne M. French 28 128152284.1 1 PROOF OF SERVICE