Preview
1 Philip J. Azzara (SBN 239126)
E-Mail: pazzara@fisherphillips.com
2 Lyle M. Chan (SBN 299037)
E-Mail: lchan@fisherphillips.com
3 FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
2050 Main Street, Suite 1000
4 Irvine, California 92614
Telephone: (949) 851-2424
5 Facsimile: (949) 851-0152
6 Attorneys for Defendants
CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.; COREMARK
7 DISTRIBUTORS, INC.; CORE-MARK INTERRELATED
COMPANIES, INC.; CORE-MARK MIDCONTINENT,
8 INC.; KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.;
PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP COMPANY;
9 PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC.; and
PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN
12
13
KAMARI RIDGLE, as an aggrieved CASE NO.: BCV-23-103814
14 employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys [Unlimited Jurisdiction]
General Act ("PAGA"), on behalf of the
15 State of California and other non-party Assigned for all purposes to the
Aggrieved Employees, Honorable T. Mark Smith, Dept. T-2
16
Plaintiff, KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.’S
17 ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
v. TO PLAINTIFF KAMARI RIDGLE’S
18 PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT
CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., COMPLAINT
19 a Delaware corporation; COREMARK
DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a Georgia
20 corporation; CORE-MARK Complaint Filed: November 13, 2023
INTERRELATED COMPANIES, INC., a Trial Date: None Set
21 California corporation; CORE-MARK
MIDCONTINENT, INC., an Arkansas
22 corporation; KENNETH O. LESTER
COMPANY, INC., a Tennessee
23 corporation; PERFORMANCE FOOD
GROUP COMPANY, a Delaware
24 corporation; PERFORMANCE FOOD
GROUP, INC., a Colorado corporation;
25 PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability
26 company; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive,
27
Defendants.
28
1
KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KAMARI RIDGLE’S COMPLAINT
FP 49314653.1
1 Defendant, Kenneth O. Lester Company, Inc. (“Defendant”), responds to the unverified
2 Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) complaint (the “Complaint”) filed by Plaintiff Kamari
3 Ridgle (“Plaintiff”) as follows:
4 ANSWER
5 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, subdivision (d),
6 Defendant generally denies each and every allegation and cause of action in Plaintiff’s
7 Complaint. In addition, Defendant denies that Plaintiff, and any other aggrieved employees, the
8 existence of which Defendant denies, has sustained, or will sustain, any loss or damage in the
9 manner or amount alleged, or otherwise, by reason of any act or omission, or any other conduct
10 or absence thereof, on the part of Defendant.
11 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
12 Defendant further asserts the following separate and additional defenses. In asserting
13 these defenses, Defendant does not assume the burden of proof as to matters that, pursuant to
14 law, are Plaintiff’s burden to prove.
15 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each and every cause of action therein, fails to state
17 facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action against Defendant.
18 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 2. Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each and every cause of action therein, is barred by the
20 applicable statute of limitations, including but not limited to: California Code of Civil Procedure
21 sections 338, 339, 340(a), 343, and California Labor Code section 2699.3.
22 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 3. Plaintiff and/or other allegedly aggrieved employees are estopped by their
24 conduct from asserting any cause of action against Defendant or from recovering any relief
25 sought in the Complaint.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
2
KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KAMARI RIDGLE’S COMPLAINT
FP 49314653.1
1 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 4. By their conduct, Plaintiff and/or other allegedly aggrieved employees have
3 waived any right to recover any relief sought in the Complaint, or in any purported cause of
4 action alleged therein.
5 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 5. Plaintiff is guilty of undue delay in filing and prosecuting this suit, and
7 accordingly, this action is barred by laches.
8 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 6. Plaintiff’s claims for civil penalties based on alleged meal and rest period
10 violations are barred to the extent that Plaintiff and/or other allegedly aggrieved employees
11 affirmatively chose not to take or waived meal periods, which were provided, and rest breaks,
12 which were authorized and permitted.
13 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 7. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction because
15 Plaintiff and/or other allegedly aggrieved employees were properly and fully compensated for all
16 work performed for Defendant, and acceptance of these payments constituted an accord and
17 satisfaction for all debts, if any, allegedly owed by Defendant.
18 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 8. Plaintiff and/or other allegedly aggrieved employees are not entitled to any
20 penalty award under the California Labor Code to the extent that the penalty provisions of the
21 applicable Labor Code sections invoked establish penalties that are unjust, arbitrary, oppressive,
22 confiscatory and are disproportionate to any damage or loss incurred as a result of Defendant’s
23 conduct, and are unconstitutional under Article I, Section VII, of the California Constitution.
24 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 9. Defendant is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief
26 alleges, that Plaintiff’s allegations are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent Plaintiff and/or
27 other allegedly aggrieved employees failed to comply with their employee obligations and
28 pertinent duties pursuant to California Labor Code section 2857 and 2859.
3
KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KAMARI RIDGLE’S COMPLAINT
FP 49314653.1
1 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 10. Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each and every cause of action therein, is barred
3 because Defendant’s actions with respect to the subject matter in each of the alleged causes of
4 action were undertaken in good faith and for good cause, with the absence of malicious intent to
5 injure Plaintiff and/or other allegedly aggrieved employees, did not amount to any unfair business
6 practices, and constituted lawful, proper and justified means to further Defendant’s purpose to
7 engage in and continue its business activities.
8 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 11. Plaintiff’s claim that he and other allegedly aggrieved employees were unlawfully
10 denied their right to rest periods is barred to the extent they voluntarily relinquished or waived
11 their right to such rest periods.
12 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 12. At all times Defendant was acting in good faith and had reasonable grounds for
14 believing that its method of compensating Plaintiff was lawful.
15 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 13. The alleged losses of Plaintiff and/or other allegedly aggrieved employees, if any,
17 are speculative and uncertain or both, and therefore not compensable.
18 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 14. The acts of the other named Defendants and/or Doe Defendants of which Plaintiff
20 complains were all undertaken outside the scope of their agency and/or employment with this
21 answering Defendant, if any, and without the knowledge or consent of this answering Defendant,
22 and this answering Defendant may not be held liable therefor.
23 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 15. The Complaint and Plaintiff’s PAGA claim(s) are barred, in whole or in part, by
25 the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel to the extent his and the alleged aggrieved
26 employees’ respective claims have been adjudicated and/or released in other proceedings.
27 ///
28 ///
4
KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KAMARI RIDGLE’S COMPLAINT
FP 49314653.1
1 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 16. Plaintiff’s claim for penalties pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 226 and/or
3 226.3 is barred because Defendant did not knowingly and intentionally fail to comply with Labor
4 Code §§ 226 and/or 226.3, or any statute or regulation of similar effect. To the contrary,
5 Defendant acted at all times with the good faith belief that Plaintiff was issued compliant wage
6 statements by his employer as required by law.
7 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 17. Plaintiff’s claims are bared in whole or in part under the rule of abatement under
9 California Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(c).
10 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 18. Plaintiff lacks standing and/or is not a proper or adequate representative with
12 respect to some or all of the claims and relief sought under the PAGA against Defendant.
13 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 19. Plaintiff and/or other allegedly aggrieved employees failed to exhaust their
15 internal and administrative remedies, including but not limited to such exhaustion of remedies
16 which is required as a condition precedent to maintenance of this action under Labor Code section
17 2699.3, which failure bars their recovery, if any, against Defendant.
18 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 20. Permitting this action to proceed as a representative action, as applied to the facts
20 and circumstances of this case, would constitute a denial of Defendant’s due process rights, both
21 substantive and procedural, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
22 Constitution and under the Constitution and laws of the State of California.
23 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 21. Plaintiff’s demand for penalties pursuant to PAGA fails to the extent that Plaintiff
25 has not satisfied the statutory prerequisites for relief pursuant to that statute(s), including the
26 requirement to give written notice by online filing with the Labor and Workforce Development
27 Agency and by certified mail to the employer of the specific provisions of the codes alleged to
28 have been violated, including the facts and theories to support the alleged violation.
5
KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KAMARI RIDGLE’S COMPLAINT
FP 49314653.1
1 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 22. Any penalties available to Plaintiff (and/or any person on whose behalf relief is
3 sought) under PAGA are subject to equitable reduction pursuant to California Labor Code
4 §2699(e)(2), on the grounds that awarding the maximum available penalty against Defendant
5 would be unjust, arbitrary, oppressive, and/or confiscatory.
6 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 23. Plaintiff’s representative action under the PAGA is not manageable, including
8 because it presents individualized issues of fact and law as to whether the purportedly aggrieved
9 employees were, in fact, aggrieved in the manner Plaintiff alleges, and in that it would require
10 the testimony of individual persons on whose behalf civil penalties and other relief is sought in
11 order for there to be recovery of penalties and other relief on any such persons’ behalf.
12 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 24. This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because all disputes arising out of or
14 related to Plaintiff’s employment and/or disputes arising out of the employment of some or all of
15 the putative aggrieved employees are subject to arbitration pursuant to the California Arbitration
16 Act and/or the Federal Arbitration Act, and any contrary state law(s) operating to defeat such
17 arbitration are preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. sections 1 et seq.
18 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 25. The acts of the other named Defendants and/or Doe Defendants of which Plaintiff
20 complains were all undertaken outside the scope of their agency and/or employment with this
21 answering Defendant, if any, and without the knowledge or consent of this answering Defendant,
22 and this answering Defendant may not be held liable therefor.
23 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 26. Plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent that Defendant was not Plaintiff’s
25 employer, or joint employer, and therefore is not responsible for the claims pled herein.
26 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27 27. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because Plaintiff is not an “aggrieved employee” as
28 defined by California Labor Code section 2699.
6
KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KAMARI RIDGLE’S COMPLAINT
FP 49314653.1
1 WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays as follows:
2 1. That Plaintiff takes nothing by his Complaint for damages;
3 2. That Plaintiff’s Complaint herein be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice;
4 3. That the Court deny any representative action;
5 4. That Defendant be awarded its costs of suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees
6 incurred in defense of this action pursuant to Labor Code section 218.5, as permitted by law,
7 and/or other applicable statutes; and
8 5. That the court award such other and further relief as it deems appropriate.
9
10 DATE: January 19, 2024 FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
11
12 By:
Philip J. Azzara
13 Lyle M. Chan
Attorneys for Defendants
14 CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
COREMARK DISTRIBUTORS, INC.; CORE-
15 MARK INTERRELATED COMPANIES, INC.;
CORE-MARK MIDCONTINENT, INC.; KENNETH
16 O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.; PERFORMANCE
FOOD GROUP COMPANY; PERFORMANCE
17 FOOD GROUP, INC.; PERFORMANCE
TRANSPORTATION, LLC
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KAMARI RIDGLE’S COMPLAINT
FP 49314653.1
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
(CCP §§1013(a) and 2015.5)
2
I, the undersigned, am at least 18 years old and not a party to this action. I am employed
3 in the County of Orange with the law offices of Fisher & Phillips LLP and its business address
is 2050 Main Street, Suite 1000, Irvine, California 92614.
4
On January 19, 2024, I served the following document(s) KENNETH O. LESTER
5 COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF
KAMARI RIDGLE’S PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT COMPLAINT on the
6 person(s) listed below by placing the original a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed
envelope(s) addressed as follows:
7
Bevin Allen Pike Attorneys for PLAINTIFF
8 Daniel S. Jonathan KAMARI RIDGLE
Trisha K Monesi
9 CAPSTONE LAW APC Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com
10 Los Angeles, California 90067 Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com
T: 310.556.4811 / F: 310.943.0396
11 [by MAIL] - I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to
the person(s) whose address(es) are listed above and placed the envelope for collection
12 and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this
business’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the
13 same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the
ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service in Irvine California, in
14 a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
[by OVERNIGHT DELIVERY] - I enclosed the document(s) in an envelope or package
15 provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) at the address(es)
listed above. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an
16 office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight carrier.
[by ELECTRONIC SERVICE] - Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties
17 to accept service by electronic transmission, I electronically served the document(s) to
the person(s) at the electronic service address(es) listed above.
18 [by PERSONAL SERVICE] - I delivered the document(s) to the person(s) at the
address(es) listed above by (1) (a) personal delivery, or (b) by leaving the documents in
19 an envelope/package with an individual in charge of the office, or (c) by leaving them in
a conspicuous place in the office between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., or (2) by
20 messenger – a copy of the Messenger Declaration is attached.
21 I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the
foregoing is true and correct.
22
23 Executed January 19, 2024, at Irvine, California.
24 Brianna Huschke By:
Print Name Signature
25
26
27
28
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
FP 49314653.1
Preview
1 Philip J. Azzara (SBN 239126) E-Mail: pazzara@fisherphillips.com 2 Lyle M. Chan (SBN 299037) E-Mail: lchan@fisherphillips.com 3 FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 2050 Main Street, Suite 1000 4 Irvine, California 92614 Telephone: (949) 851-2424 5 Facsimile: (949) 851-0152 6 Attorneys for Defendants CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.; COREMARK 7 DISTRIBUTORS, INC.; CORE-MARK INTERRELATED COMPANIES, INC.; CORE-MARK MIDCONTINENT, 8 INC.; KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.; PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP COMPANY; 9 PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC.; and PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN 12 13 KAMARI RIDGLE, as an aggrieved CASE NO.: BCV-23-103814 14 employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys [Unlimited Jurisdiction] General Act ("PAGA"), on behalf of the 15 State of California and other non-party Assigned for all purposes to the Aggrieved Employees, Honorable T. Mark Smith, Dept. T-2 16 Plaintiff, KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.’S 17 ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES v. TO PLAINTIFF KAMARI RIDGLE’S 18 PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., COMPLAINT 19 a Delaware corporation; COREMARK DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a Georgia 20 corporation; CORE-MARK Complaint Filed: November 13, 2023 INTERRELATED COMPANIES, INC., a Trial Date: None Set 21 California corporation; CORE-MARK MIDCONTINENT, INC., an Arkansas 22 corporation; KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC., a Tennessee 23 corporation; PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP COMPANY, a Delaware 24 corporation; PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC., a Colorado corporation; 25 PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC, a Delaware limited liability 26 company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 27 Defendants. 28 1 KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KAMARI RIDGLE’S COMPLAINT FP 49314653.1 1 Defendant, Kenneth O. Lester Company, Inc. (“Defendant”), responds to the unverified 2 Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) complaint (the “Complaint”) filed by Plaintiff Kamari 3 Ridgle (“Plaintiff”) as follows: 4 ANSWER 5 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, subdivision (d), 6 Defendant generally denies each and every allegation and cause of action in Plaintiff’s 7 Complaint. In addition, Defendant denies that Plaintiff, and any other aggrieved employees, the 8 existence of which Defendant denies, has sustained, or will sustain, any loss or damage in the 9 manner or amount alleged, or otherwise, by reason of any act or omission, or any other conduct 10 or absence thereof, on the part of Defendant. 11 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 12 Defendant further asserts the following separate and additional defenses. In asserting 13 these defenses, Defendant does not assume the burden of proof as to matters that, pursuant to 14 law, are Plaintiff’s burden to prove. 15 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each and every cause of action therein, fails to state 17 facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action against Defendant. 18 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 2. Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each and every cause of action therein, is barred by the 20 applicable statute of limitations, including but not limited to: California Code of Civil Procedure 21 sections 338, 339, 340(a), 343, and California Labor Code section 2699.3. 22 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 3. Plaintiff and/or other allegedly aggrieved employees are estopped by their 24 conduct from asserting any cause of action against Defendant or from recovering any relief 25 sought in the Complaint. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KAMARI RIDGLE’S COMPLAINT FP 49314653.1 1 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 4. By their conduct, Plaintiff and/or other allegedly aggrieved employees have 3 waived any right to recover any relief sought in the Complaint, or in any purported cause of 4 action alleged therein. 5 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 5. Plaintiff is guilty of undue delay in filing and prosecuting this suit, and 7 accordingly, this action is barred by laches. 8 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 6. Plaintiff’s claims for civil penalties based on alleged meal and rest period 10 violations are barred to the extent that Plaintiff and/or other allegedly aggrieved employees 11 affirmatively chose not to take or waived meal periods, which were provided, and rest breaks, 12 which were authorized and permitted. 13 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 7. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction because 15 Plaintiff and/or other allegedly aggrieved employees were properly and fully compensated for all 16 work performed for Defendant, and acceptance of these payments constituted an accord and 17 satisfaction for all debts, if any, allegedly owed by Defendant. 18 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 8. Plaintiff and/or other allegedly aggrieved employees are not entitled to any 20 penalty award under the California Labor Code to the extent that the penalty provisions of the 21 applicable Labor Code sections invoked establish penalties that are unjust, arbitrary, oppressive, 22 confiscatory and are disproportionate to any damage or loss incurred as a result of Defendant’s 23 conduct, and are unconstitutional under Article I, Section VII, of the California Constitution. 24 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 9. Defendant is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief 26 alleges, that Plaintiff’s allegations are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent Plaintiff and/or 27 other allegedly aggrieved employees failed to comply with their employee obligations and 28 pertinent duties pursuant to California Labor Code section 2857 and 2859. 3 KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KAMARI RIDGLE’S COMPLAINT FP 49314653.1 1 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 10. Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each and every cause of action therein, is barred 3 because Defendant’s actions with respect to the subject matter in each of the alleged causes of 4 action were undertaken in good faith and for good cause, with the absence of malicious intent to 5 injure Plaintiff and/or other allegedly aggrieved employees, did not amount to any unfair business 6 practices, and constituted lawful, proper and justified means to further Defendant’s purpose to 7 engage in and continue its business activities. 8 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 11. Plaintiff’s claim that he and other allegedly aggrieved employees were unlawfully 10 denied their right to rest periods is barred to the extent they voluntarily relinquished or waived 11 their right to such rest periods. 12 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 12. At all times Defendant was acting in good faith and had reasonable grounds for 14 believing that its method of compensating Plaintiff was lawful. 15 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 13. The alleged losses of Plaintiff and/or other allegedly aggrieved employees, if any, 17 are speculative and uncertain or both, and therefore not compensable. 18 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 14. The acts of the other named Defendants and/or Doe Defendants of which Plaintiff 20 complains were all undertaken outside the scope of their agency and/or employment with this 21 answering Defendant, if any, and without the knowledge or consent of this answering Defendant, 22 and this answering Defendant may not be held liable therefor. 23 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 15. The Complaint and Plaintiff’s PAGA claim(s) are barred, in whole or in part, by 25 the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel to the extent his and the alleged aggrieved 26 employees’ respective claims have been adjudicated and/or released in other proceedings. 27 /// 28 /// 4 KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KAMARI RIDGLE’S COMPLAINT FP 49314653.1 1 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 16. Plaintiff’s claim for penalties pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 226 and/or 3 226.3 is barred because Defendant did not knowingly and intentionally fail to comply with Labor 4 Code §§ 226 and/or 226.3, or any statute or regulation of similar effect. To the contrary, 5 Defendant acted at all times with the good faith belief that Plaintiff was issued compliant wage 6 statements by his employer as required by law. 7 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 17. Plaintiff’s claims are bared in whole or in part under the rule of abatement under 9 California Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(c). 10 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 18. Plaintiff lacks standing and/or is not a proper or adequate representative with 12 respect to some or all of the claims and relief sought under the PAGA against Defendant. 13 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 19. Plaintiff and/or other allegedly aggrieved employees failed to exhaust their 15 internal and administrative remedies, including but not limited to such exhaustion of remedies 16 which is required as a condition precedent to maintenance of this action under Labor Code section 17 2699.3, which failure bars their recovery, if any, against Defendant. 18 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 20. Permitting this action to proceed as a representative action, as applied to the facts 20 and circumstances of this case, would constitute a denial of Defendant’s due process rights, both 21 substantive and procedural, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States 22 Constitution and under the Constitution and laws of the State of California. 23 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 21. Plaintiff’s demand for penalties pursuant to PAGA fails to the extent that Plaintiff 25 has not satisfied the statutory prerequisites for relief pursuant to that statute(s), including the 26 requirement to give written notice by online filing with the Labor and Workforce Development 27 Agency and by certified mail to the employer of the specific provisions of the codes alleged to 28 have been violated, including the facts and theories to support the alleged violation. 5 KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KAMARI RIDGLE’S COMPLAINT FP 49314653.1 1 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 22. Any penalties available to Plaintiff (and/or any person on whose behalf relief is 3 sought) under PAGA are subject to equitable reduction pursuant to California Labor Code 4 §2699(e)(2), on the grounds that awarding the maximum available penalty against Defendant 5 would be unjust, arbitrary, oppressive, and/or confiscatory. 6 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 23. Plaintiff’s representative action under the PAGA is not manageable, including 8 because it presents individualized issues of fact and law as to whether the purportedly aggrieved 9 employees were, in fact, aggrieved in the manner Plaintiff alleges, and in that it would require 10 the testimony of individual persons on whose behalf civil penalties and other relief is sought in 11 order for there to be recovery of penalties and other relief on any such persons’ behalf. 12 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 24. This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because all disputes arising out of or 14 related to Plaintiff’s employment and/or disputes arising out of the employment of some or all of 15 the putative aggrieved employees are subject to arbitration pursuant to the California Arbitration 16 Act and/or the Federal Arbitration Act, and any contrary state law(s) operating to defeat such 17 arbitration are preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. sections 1 et seq. 18 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 25. The acts of the other named Defendants and/or Doe Defendants of which Plaintiff 20 complains were all undertaken outside the scope of their agency and/or employment with this 21 answering Defendant, if any, and without the knowledge or consent of this answering Defendant, 22 and this answering Defendant may not be held liable therefor. 23 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 26. Plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent that Defendant was not Plaintiff’s 25 employer, or joint employer, and therefore is not responsible for the claims pled herein. 26 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27 27. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because Plaintiff is not an “aggrieved employee” as 28 defined by California Labor Code section 2699. 6 KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KAMARI RIDGLE’S COMPLAINT FP 49314653.1 1 WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays as follows: 2 1. That Plaintiff takes nothing by his Complaint for damages; 3 2. That Plaintiff’s Complaint herein be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice; 4 3. That the Court deny any representative action; 5 4. That Defendant be awarded its costs of suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees 6 incurred in defense of this action pursuant to Labor Code section 218.5, as permitted by law, 7 and/or other applicable statutes; and 8 5. That the court award such other and further relief as it deems appropriate. 9 10 DATE: January 19, 2024 FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 11 12 By: Philip J. Azzara 13 Lyle M. Chan Attorneys for Defendants 14 CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.; COREMARK DISTRIBUTORS, INC.; CORE- 15 MARK INTERRELATED COMPANIES, INC.; CORE-MARK MIDCONTINENT, INC.; KENNETH 16 O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.; PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP COMPANY; PERFORMANCE 17 FOOD GROUP, INC.; PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KAMARI RIDGLE’S COMPLAINT FP 49314653.1 1 PROOF OF SERVICE (CCP §§1013(a) and 2015.5) 2 I, the undersigned, am at least 18 years old and not a party to this action. I am employed 3 in the County of Orange with the law offices of Fisher & Phillips LLP and its business address is 2050 Main Street, Suite 1000, Irvine, California 92614. 4 On January 19, 2024, I served the following document(s) KENNETH O. LESTER 5 COMPANY, INC.’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF KAMARI RIDGLE’S PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT COMPLAINT on the 6 person(s) listed below by placing the original a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: 7 Bevin Allen Pike Attorneys for PLAINTIFF 8 Daniel S. Jonathan KAMARI RIDGLE Trisha K Monesi 9 CAPSTONE LAW APC Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com 10 Los Angeles, California 90067 Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com T: 310.556.4811 / F: 310.943.0396 11 [by MAIL] - I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the person(s) whose address(es) are listed above and placed the envelope for collection 12 and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the 13 same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service in Irvine California, in 14 a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. [by OVERNIGHT DELIVERY] - I enclosed the document(s) in an envelope or package 15 provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) listed above. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an 16 office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight carrier. [by ELECTRONIC SERVICE] - Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties 17 to accept service by electronic transmission, I electronically served the document(s) to the person(s) at the electronic service address(es) listed above. 18 [by PERSONAL SERVICE] - I delivered the document(s) to the person(s) at the address(es) listed above by (1) (a) personal delivery, or (b) by leaving the documents in 19 an envelope/package with an individual in charge of the office, or (c) by leaving them in a conspicuous place in the office between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., or (2) by 20 messenger – a copy of the Messenger Declaration is attached. 21 I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. 22 23 Executed January 19, 2024, at Irvine, California. 24 Brianna Huschke By: Print Name Signature 25 26 27 28 1 PROOF OF SERVICE FP 49314653.1