Preview
1 MICHAEL A. LAURENSON (SBN: 190023)
MELISSA FAIRBROTHER (SBN 149787)
2 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
ELECTRONICALLY
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
3 San Francisco, CA 94111 FILED
Superior Court of California,
Telephone: (415) 875-3182 County of San Francisco
4 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054
mlaurenson@grsm.com 06/09/2023
5 mfairbrother@grsm.com Clerk of the Court
BY: EDWARD SANTOS
Deputy Clerk
6 Attorneys for Defendants BLUE NOTE THERAPEUTICS, INC.
And GEOFF EICH
7
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
11
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
12 LAURA CHAVAREE, ) CASE NO. CGC-23-606048
San Francisco, CA 94111
)
13 Plaintiff, ) Assigned for all purposes to the Hon.
) Anne-Christine Massullo, Room 610
14 vs. )
) ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEOFF
15 BLUE NOTE THERAPEUTICS, INC, a ) EICH TO PLAINTIFF’S
corporation; BLUE NOTE TELEHEALTH, ) UNVERIFIFED COMPLAINT; JURY
16 INC., a corporation; TRINET GROUP, INC., ) DEMAND
a corporation; TRINET HR III, INC., a )
17 corporation; GEOFF EICH, an individual; )
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, )
18 ) Complaint filed: April 25, 2023
Defendants. ) Trial Date: None Set
19 )
)
20 )
21
22 Defendant GEOFF EICH, (“Defendant”) hereby answers the unverified Complaint filed
23 by Plaintiff Laura Chavaree (“Plaintiff”) as follows.
24 GENERAL DENIAL
25 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), Defendant generally
26 and specifically denies each and every allegation contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint and each and
27 every alleged cause of action therein, and further denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the
28 relief requested, that Defendant committed any wrongful conduct or omission, whether alleged
-1-
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEOFF EICH TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIFED COMPLAINT
1 or otherwise, and that conduct or omissions of Defendant caused any injury or damage to
2 Plaintiff in the sum or manner alleged, or in any other sum or manner, or at all affirmative
3 defenses.
4 Defendant further alleges the following separate and affirmative defenses to each and
5 every cause of action alleged in the Complaint. By alleging the defenses set forth below,
6 Defendant does not thereby agree or admit that it has the burden of proof, persuasion, or
7 production with respect to any elements of any defense, or that Plaintiff has properly asserted
8 any cause of action against Defendant.
9 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 Defendant alleges that each and every cause of action fails to state facts sufficient to
11 constitute any cause of action or claim for which relief may be granted against Defendant.
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
12 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
San Francisco, CA 94111
13 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s Complaint and each of the purported causes of action
14 set forth therein are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, including, but not limited to,
15 Code of Civil Procedure Sections 337, 338, 339, 340, 343, and California Government Code
16 Sections 12960 and 12965(b).
17 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each purported cause of action brought therein,
19 including any claims pursuant to California Government Code section 12900 et seq., the
20 California Fair Employment and Housing Act, are barred by Plaintiff’s failure to timely exhaust
21 her administrative remedies.
22 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff failed to minimize, mitigate and eliminate her damages, if
24 any, by failing to take such actions as are reasonably necessary to minimize any economic loss
25 which may have been, or in the future may be, sustained.
26 FIFTH ARFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is barred from maintaining this action under the doctrine
28 of unclean hands.
-2-
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEOFF EICH TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIFED COMPLAINT
1 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of
3 after acquired evidence.
4 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is estopped from obtaining the relief sought, or pursuing
6 any of the claims raised or causes of action alleged in her Complaint, by virtue of her acts,
7 failures to act, conduct, representations, admissions, and the like.
8 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 Defendant alleges that the Complaint is barred by the doctrine of waiver.
10 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 Defendant alleges that the damages alleged by Plaintiff are barred by the doctrine of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
12 avoidable consequences.
San Francisco, CA 94111
13 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 Defendant alleges that the Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein,
15 is barred in whole or in part because Defendant has exercised reasonable care to prevent and
16 promptly correct any alleged discriminatory or harassing behavior, if any was made known to
17 Defendant, and/or that Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventative or
18 remedial mechanisms for reporting and resolving claims, or to otherwise avoid harm.
19 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred because Defendant would have
21 made the same decision in the absence of any alleged discriminatory or retaliatory motive.
22 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 Defendant alleges that the Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein,
24 is barred in whole or in part because any alleged emotional, mental and/or physical injury
25 suffered by Plaintiff was proximately cause in whole or in part by the acts and/or omissions of
26 the persons and entities other than Defendant.
27 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
28 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff was herself careless and negligent in and about the
-3-
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEOFF EICH TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIFED COMPLAINT
1 matters referred to in the Complaint and such negligence and carelessness on the part of the
2 Plaintiff proximately cause and contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged damages, if any there were.
3 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s claims under the California Fair Employment and
5 Housing Act are barred to the extent they vary from the allegations of the administrative charge
6 filed with the appropriate agency.
7 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is not a qualified individual as defined by the California
9 Fair Employment and Housing act and other applicable state or federal regulations.
10 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief on any of her causes of action
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
12 because Defendant’s actions were reasonable in response to a legitimate business necessity, and
San Francisco, CA 94111
13 were taken for legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons. Defendant maintains its own
14 furlough practices necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the business. Defendant’s
15 employment policies are job-related and consistent with business necessity.
16 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff herself was careless and negligent in and about the
18 matters referred to in the Complaint and such negligence and carelessness on the part of the
19 Plaintiff proximately cause and contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged damages, if any there were.
20 ADDITIONAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
21 Defendant has insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a belief as to
22 whether it may have additional, but as yet unstated, affirmative defenses available to it.
23 Defendant, therefore, reserve the right to assert additional affirmative defenses in the event
24 discovery indicates such defenses are available.
25 PRAYER
26 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows:
27 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by her Complaint;
28 2. That this action be dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice;
-4-
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEOFF EICH TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIFED COMPLAINT
1 3. That judgment is entered in favor of Defendant;
2 4. That Defendant be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and
3 5. That the Court award Defendant such other and further relief as the Court may deem
4 just and proper.
5
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
6
Defendant hereby requests a jury trial.
7
8
Dated: June 9, 2023 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
9
10
11 By
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
Michael A. Laurenson
Melissa M. Fairbrother
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
12
Attorneys for Defendants
San Francisco, CA 94111
13 BLUE NOTE THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEOFF EICH TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIFED COMPLAINT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party
to the within action. My business address is: Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 275 Battery
3 Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94111. On the date indicated below, I served the within
document/s:
4
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEOFF EICH TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIFED
5 COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND
6
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon
fully prepaid, in United States mail in the State of California at San Francisco,
7 addressed as set forth below.
8 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE VIA FILE & SERVEXPRESS: I caused the
documents(s) to be served through the Court’s approved vendor, File & Serve Xpress,
at https://secure.fileandservexpress.com, on the recipients designated on the
9 Transaction Receipt located on the File & ServeXpress website.
10
BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: by e-mailing the document(s) listed above to
the e-mail address(es) set forth below. No electronic message or other indication that
11 the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
transmission.
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
12
San Francisco, CA 94111
13 Andrew H. Friedman, Esq. Christopher J. Boman, Esq.
Erin M. Kelly, Esq. Waseem H. Dulloo, Esq.
14 HELMER FRIEDMAN LLP FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
9301 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 609
Beverly Hills, CA 90210 2050 Main Street, Suite 1000
15
T: (310) 396-7714 Irvine, California 92614
16 F: (310) 396-9215 Telephone: (949) 851-2424
E-Mail: afriedman@helmerfriedman.com Facsimile: (949) 851-0152
17 ekelly@helmerfriedman.com
cc: Evelyn Zamora- E-Mail: cboman@fisherphillips.com
18 ezamora@helmerfriedman.com E-Mail: wdulloo@fisherphillips.com
19 Courtney Abrams, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants TRINET GROUP,
COURTNEY ABRAMS, PC INC. and TRINET HR III, INC.
20 2711 N. Sepulveda Blvd., No. 625
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
21 T: (310) 601-4448
E: courtney@courtneyabramslaw.com
22
Attorneys for Plaintiff LAURA
23 CHAVAREE
24
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
25 is true and correct.
26 Executed on June 9, 2023 at San Francisco, California.
27
28 Nancy A. Barrios
/73661001v.1
-6-
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEOFF EICH TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIFED COMPLAINT
Preview
1 MICHAEL A. LAURENSON (SBN: 190023) MELISSA FAIRBROTHER (SBN 149787) 2 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP ELECTRONICALLY 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 3 San Francisco, CA 94111 FILED Superior Court of California, Telephone: (415) 875-3182 County of San Francisco 4 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 mlaurenson@grsm.com 06/09/2023 5 mfairbrother@grsm.com Clerk of the Court BY: EDWARD SANTOS Deputy Clerk 6 Attorneys for Defendants BLUE NOTE THERAPEUTICS, INC. And GEOFF EICH 7 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 11 Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 12 LAURA CHAVAREE, ) CASE NO. CGC-23-606048 San Francisco, CA 94111 ) 13 Plaintiff, ) Assigned for all purposes to the Hon. ) Anne-Christine Massullo, Room 610 14 vs. ) ) ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEOFF 15 BLUE NOTE THERAPEUTICS, INC, a ) EICH TO PLAINTIFF’S corporation; BLUE NOTE TELEHEALTH, ) UNVERIFIFED COMPLAINT; JURY 16 INC., a corporation; TRINET GROUP, INC., ) DEMAND a corporation; TRINET HR III, INC., a ) 17 corporation; GEOFF EICH, an individual; ) and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, ) 18 ) Complaint filed: April 25, 2023 Defendants. ) Trial Date: None Set 19 ) ) 20 ) 21 22 Defendant GEOFF EICH, (“Defendant”) hereby answers the unverified Complaint filed 23 by Plaintiff Laura Chavaree (“Plaintiff”) as follows. 24 GENERAL DENIAL 25 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), Defendant generally 26 and specifically denies each and every allegation contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint and each and 27 every alleged cause of action therein, and further denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the 28 relief requested, that Defendant committed any wrongful conduct or omission, whether alleged -1- ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEOFF EICH TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIFED COMPLAINT 1 or otherwise, and that conduct or omissions of Defendant caused any injury or damage to 2 Plaintiff in the sum or manner alleged, or in any other sum or manner, or at all affirmative 3 defenses. 4 Defendant further alleges the following separate and affirmative defenses to each and 5 every cause of action alleged in the Complaint. By alleging the defenses set forth below, 6 Defendant does not thereby agree or admit that it has the burden of proof, persuasion, or 7 production with respect to any elements of any defense, or that Plaintiff has properly asserted 8 any cause of action against Defendant. 9 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 Defendant alleges that each and every cause of action fails to state facts sufficient to 11 constitute any cause of action or claim for which relief may be granted against Defendant. Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 12 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE San Francisco, CA 94111 13 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s Complaint and each of the purported causes of action 14 set forth therein are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, including, but not limited to, 15 Code of Civil Procedure Sections 337, 338, 339, 340, 343, and California Government Code 16 Sections 12960 and 12965(b). 17 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each purported cause of action brought therein, 19 including any claims pursuant to California Government Code section 12900 et seq., the 20 California Fair Employment and Housing Act, are barred by Plaintiff’s failure to timely exhaust 21 her administrative remedies. 22 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff failed to minimize, mitigate and eliminate her damages, if 24 any, by failing to take such actions as are reasonably necessary to minimize any economic loss 25 which may have been, or in the future may be, sustained. 26 FIFTH ARFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is barred from maintaining this action under the doctrine 28 of unclean hands. -2- ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEOFF EICH TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIFED COMPLAINT 1 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of 3 after acquired evidence. 4 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is estopped from obtaining the relief sought, or pursuing 6 any of the claims raised or causes of action alleged in her Complaint, by virtue of her acts, 7 failures to act, conduct, representations, admissions, and the like. 8 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 Defendant alleges that the Complaint is barred by the doctrine of waiver. 10 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 Defendant alleges that the damages alleged by Plaintiff are barred by the doctrine of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 12 avoidable consequences. San Francisco, CA 94111 13 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 Defendant alleges that the Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, 15 is barred in whole or in part because Defendant has exercised reasonable care to prevent and 16 promptly correct any alleged discriminatory or harassing behavior, if any was made known to 17 Defendant, and/or that Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventative or 18 remedial mechanisms for reporting and resolving claims, or to otherwise avoid harm. 19 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred because Defendant would have 21 made the same decision in the absence of any alleged discriminatory or retaliatory motive. 22 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 Defendant alleges that the Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, 24 is barred in whole or in part because any alleged emotional, mental and/or physical injury 25 suffered by Plaintiff was proximately cause in whole or in part by the acts and/or omissions of 26 the persons and entities other than Defendant. 27 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 28 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff was herself careless and negligent in and about the -3- ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEOFF EICH TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIFED COMPLAINT 1 matters referred to in the Complaint and such negligence and carelessness on the part of the 2 Plaintiff proximately cause and contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged damages, if any there were. 3 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s claims under the California Fair Employment and 5 Housing Act are barred to the extent they vary from the allegations of the administrative charge 6 filed with the appropriate agency. 7 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is not a qualified individual as defined by the California 9 Fair Employment and Housing act and other applicable state or federal regulations. 10 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief on any of her causes of action Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 12 because Defendant’s actions were reasonable in response to a legitimate business necessity, and San Francisco, CA 94111 13 were taken for legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons. Defendant maintains its own 14 furlough practices necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the business. Defendant’s 15 employment policies are job-related and consistent with business necessity. 16 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 Defendant alleges that Plaintiff herself was careless and negligent in and about the 18 matters referred to in the Complaint and such negligence and carelessness on the part of the 19 Plaintiff proximately cause and contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged damages, if any there were. 20 ADDITIONAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 21 Defendant has insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a belief as to 22 whether it may have additional, but as yet unstated, affirmative defenses available to it. 23 Defendant, therefore, reserve the right to assert additional affirmative defenses in the event 24 discovery indicates such defenses are available. 25 PRAYER 26 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows: 27 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by her Complaint; 28 2. That this action be dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice; -4- ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEOFF EICH TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIFED COMPLAINT 1 3. That judgment is entered in favor of Defendant; 2 4. That Defendant be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and 3 5. That the Court award Defendant such other and further relief as the Court may deem 4 just and proper. 5 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 6 Defendant hereby requests a jury trial. 7 8 Dated: June 9, 2023 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 9 10 11 By Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP Michael A. Laurenson Melissa M. Fairbrother 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 12 Attorneys for Defendants San Francisco, CA 94111 13 BLUE NOTE THERAPEUTICS, INC., 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5- ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEOFF EICH TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIFED COMPLAINT 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is: Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 275 Battery 3 Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94111. On the date indicated below, I served the within document/s: 4 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEOFF EICH TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIFED 5 COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND 6 by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in United States mail in the State of California at San Francisco, 7 addressed as set forth below. 8 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE VIA FILE & SERVEXPRESS: I caused the documents(s) to be served through the Court’s approved vendor, File & Serve Xpress, at https://secure.fileandservexpress.com, on the recipients designated on the 9 Transaction Receipt located on the File & ServeXpress website. 10 BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: by e-mailing the document(s) listed above to the e-mail address(es) set forth below. No electronic message or other indication that 11 the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP transmission. 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 12 San Francisco, CA 94111 13 Andrew H. Friedman, Esq. Christopher J. Boman, Esq. Erin M. Kelly, Esq. Waseem H. Dulloo, Esq. 14 HELMER FRIEDMAN LLP FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 9301 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 609 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 2050 Main Street, Suite 1000 15 T: (310) 396-7714 Irvine, California 92614 16 F: (310) 396-9215 Telephone: (949) 851-2424 E-Mail: afriedman@helmerfriedman.com Facsimile: (949) 851-0152 17 ekelly@helmerfriedman.com cc: Evelyn Zamora- E-Mail: cboman@fisherphillips.com 18 ezamora@helmerfriedman.com E-Mail: wdulloo@fisherphillips.com 19 Courtney Abrams, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants TRINET GROUP, COURTNEY ABRAMS, PC INC. and TRINET HR III, INC. 20 2711 N. Sepulveda Blvd., No. 625 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 21 T: (310) 601-4448 E: courtney@courtneyabramslaw.com 22 Attorneys for Plaintiff LAURA 23 CHAVAREE 24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above 25 is true and correct. 26 Executed on June 9, 2023 at San Francisco, California. 27 28 Nancy A. Barrios /73661001v.1 -6- ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEOFF EICH TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIFED COMPLAINT