Preview
William A. Munoz (SBN 191649)
bill. aw.com
Sofia Silva (SBN 352415)
Sofia.sih aw.com
FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP
1013 Galleria Boulevard
Roseville, Califomia 95678-1365
Telephone: 916.472.3300
Facsimile: 833.297.6235
Atto for Defendants
GO MAPS, INC., and KEVIN POMPLUN
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
INAND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10
11 SAAD MIR, an individual, on behalf of himself, Case No.: 23-CIV-05072
12 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FIRST
Plaintiff, AMENDED COMPLAINT
13
Vv. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
14
GO MAPS, INC. d/b/aGO INC. & GO CAR Original Complaint Filed:
15 INSURANCE INC., a Delaware corporation, First Amended Complaint Filed: 1/17/24.
KEVIN POMPLUN, an individual, and DOES 1
16 through 100, inclusive,
17 Defendants.
18
19 Defendants GO MAPS, INC., incorrectly sued herein as GO MAPS, INC. d/b/a GO INC
20 & GO INSURANCE INC. a Delaware corporation, and KEVIN POMPLUN (“Defendants”), by
21 and through its counsel, hereby answers the Complaint of Plaintiff SAAD MIR (“Plaintiff”) as
follows:
GENERAL DENIALS
24 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 431.30(d) of the Califomia Code of Civil
25 Procedure, Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
26 the Plaintiffs’ unverified Complaint, and each and every cause of action set forth therein.
27
Freeman Mathis
Gary, LIP
Atorneys at Law
1
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER
TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT:
Further, Defendants deny that Plaintiff
has sustained, or will sustain, any damage or loss
by reason of any act or omission on the part of these answering Defendants, or any damageor
loss
at all.
Finally, answering Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought against
answering Defendant orto any relief whatsoever from Defendant.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Cause of Action)
The First Amended Complaint, and each purported
cause of action thereof, fails to state
facts sufficientto constitute a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
10 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 (Statute of Limitations)
12 The First Amended Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, is barred
by the
13 applicable statute of limitations, including, but not limited to, those more fully set forth in §§
14 337, 337.1, 337.15, 338, 339, 340 and 343 of the Califomia Code of Civil Procedure.
15 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 (Estoppel)
17 Because of the actions and inactions of Plaintiff and reliance thereon by Defendants,
18 Plaintiff is estopped from asserting the alleged claims set forth in The Complaint against
19 Defendant.
20 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 (Res J udicata/Collateral Estoppel)
Defendants allege that all claims of Plaintiff are barred by res judicata, claim preclusion,
issue preclusion, and/or collateral estoppel.
24 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 (Undean Hands)
26 These answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that, the First
27 Amended Complaint
and each cause of action alleged therein are barredby Plaintiff's unclean
‘&Gary, LLP *
-ttomeys at Lay 28 || hands.
2
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER
TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT:
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Waiver)
Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that Plaintiff has waived all the}
alleged causes of action against Defendants as set forth in the First Amended Complaint.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Laches)
Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that the First Amended]
Complaint is barred by the equitable doctrine of laches.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Justification)
10
11 Without admitting that Defendants engaged in the conduct alleged therein, the
12 Complaint, and each cause of action therein, are barred, in whole or in part, because the
13 Defendant’s conduct was, at all times, justified and privileged, and the acts and statements
14 complained
of in the Complaint, if made
at all, were undertaken and/or made by the Defendant
15 in good faith, honestly, and not maliciously.
16 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (Compliance
with the Law)
18 Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that that the First Amended]
19 Complaint, and each cause of action set forth therein, is barred in whole or in part, because
of
20 Defendants’ compliance with relevant underlying law(s). Further, because Defendants’ actions
21 comply with the relevant underlying law, it did not engage in any unlawful conduct
with respect
to the Plaintiff.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 (Failure
to Mitigate)
25 Defendantis informed
and believes and thereon alleges that the damages, if any, alleged]
26 in the First Amended Complaint are the result, in whole or in part, of Plaintiff’s failure to
27 exercise reasonable care to reduce or mitigate his damages.
Freeman Mathis
Gary, LIP
Atorneys at Law
3
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER
TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT:
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENS
Cegally Excused)
Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that, without admitting to the
existence of any duties or obligations alleged in the First Amended Complaint, that any duties or
obligations, contractual or otherwise, which Plaintiff claims are owedby Defendants to Plaintiff
have been fully excused.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Damages/No
Unjust Enrichment)
Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege, without admitting any liability
10 or obligation, if any, without impairing
the general denials herein, that Plaintiff has not suffered
11 any losses and Defendants have not been unjustly enriched as a result of any action or inaction
12 by Defendants or their agents. Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to any disgoryement or|
13 restitution.
14 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 (Good Faith)
16 Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege, without admitting any liability
17 orobligation, if any, without impairing the general denials herein, that the First Amended
18 Complaint and each cause of action set forth therein cannot be maintained because, without
19 admitting that the violation took place, Defendants allege that any violation of the Califomia
20 Labor Code was an act or omission made in good faith, and that in any participation
in such
21 acts, Defendants had reasonable grounds for believing that the act or omission was not a
violation of the Califomia Labor Code.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 (Legitimate Business Reason)
25 Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants’ actions
26 involving Plaintiff were privileged or otherwise justified, as such actions were proper, fair and
27 taken based solely on legitimate, good faith, non-retaliatory, non-harassing business reasons and,
Freeman Mathis
Gary, LIP managerial decisions.
Atorneys at Law
4
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER
TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT:
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure
to Exhaust Available Remedies)
Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege, without admitting any liability
orobligation, if any, without impairing the general denials herein, that the First Amended
Complaint and each cause of action set forth therein are barred because Plaintiff failed to timely
and completely exhaust the requisite administrative, statutory, and/or contractual remedies
available to him priorto commencing this action.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Lack
of Standing)
10 Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege, without admitting any liability
11 orobligation, if any, without impairing the general denials herein, that Plaintiff lacks standingto
12 bring his claims as to all ora portion of the claims alleged in the First Amended Complaint.
13 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (No Standing Under Private Attormey General Act)
15 Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that Plaintiff has no standing}
16 and is without authority to bring the claims and causes of action in the Complaint as they related
17 to the Private Attomey General Act (“PAGA”) to the extent that that Plaintiff
was not affected
18 by any Labor Code violations in that he was not non-exempt employees but instead had an
19 altemative status, including but not limited to apprentice, independent contractor, or exempt
20 employee.
21 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(ailure
to Conply with PAGA Requirements)
Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that the claims brought by
24 Plaintiff are barred to the extent the Califomia Labor and Workforce Development Agency
25 investigates Plaintiff’ s claims for relief under the Private Attomey General Act.
26
27
Freeman Mathis
Gary, LIP
-ttomeys at Lay
5
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER
TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT:
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Not Competent Plaintiffs)
Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege, without admitting any liability
or obligation, if any, without impairing the general denials herein that the First Amended
Complaint and this action were not brought by a competent plaintiff for the benefit of the
allegedly injured aggrieved employees.
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Conduct
Not “Unlawful,” “Fraudulent” or “Unfair”)
Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege, without admitting any liability
10 or obligation, if any, without impairing the general denials herein that the Plaintiff's cause of
11 action under Califomia Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. is barred because
12 Defendants’ actions were neither unlawful, fraudulent, unfair, nor likely to mislead. Defendants’
13 conduct and dealings were lawful, as authorized by applicable state and federal statutes, rules,
14 and regulations. Defendants’ actions, conduct, and dealings were carried out in good faith and
15 for legitimate business purposes.
16 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 Gimpennissible Remedies)
18 Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege, without admitting any liability
19 or obligation, if any, without impairing the general denials herein, that the causes of action
20 under Califomia Business & Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. are barred to the extent
21 Plaintiff seeks improper remedies, including, but not limited to, compensatory damages.
TTWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(amages Speculative)
24 Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege, without admitting any liability
25 or obligation, if any, without impairing the general denials herein that based on Plaintiff’ s First
26 Amended Complaint, the damages alleged are speculative and are therefore barred.
27
Freeman Mathis
Gary, LIP
-ttomeys at Lay
6
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER
TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT:
TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Due Process Requirements)
Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege, without admitting any liability
orobligation, if any, without impairing
the general denials herein, thatto the extent that Plaintiff
claim penalties, such claims must comport with the due process requirements of State Farmv.
Campbell (2003) 538 U.S. 408 and subsequent case law regarding the same issue.
TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Alleged Violations
Have Discontinued, Ceased and Not Likely to Recur)
Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege, without admitting any liability
10 or obligation, if any, without impairing the general denials herein, that the request for
11 restitution, declaratory relief, and/or injunctive relief is barred with respect to any and all
12 alleged violations of Califomia Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. that have
13 discontinued,
ceased, and are not likely to recur.
14 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 (No Willful Intent)
16 Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege, that even assuming arguendo
17 Plaintiff is entitled to any additional compensation, Defendants have not willfully or
18 intentionally failed to pay any such additional compensation to Plaintiff within the meaning and)
19 scope of Califomia Labor Code section 203.
20 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 (No Ratification)
Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that each cause of action cannot}
be maintained against Defendants because if Defendants’ employees (including Plaintiff) took
24 the actions alleged, such actions were committed outside the course and scope of such
25 employees’ employment, were not authorized, adopted or ratified by Defendants and/or
26 Defendants did not know of nor should have known of such conduct.
27
Freeman Mathis
Gary, LIP
-ttomeys at Lay
7
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER
TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT:
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Bona
Fide Dispute)
In answering Plaintiff's Complaint, and
as to each
and every causeof action alleged]
therein, Defendant alleges there is a bona fide dispute
as to whether any further compensation is
actually due to Plaintiff and/or the putative class members and, if so, the amount thereof.
TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Additional Affirmative Defenses)
Defendants alleges that they may have other, separate
and additional defenses
of which|
it is not presently aware and reserves the right to assert them by amendment to this Answer
10 when discovery is completed.
11 WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment as follows:
12 1 That Plaintiff take nothing by virtue of his First Amended Complaint;
13 2. That Defendants be dismissed with its costs of suit incurred herein;
14 3. For reasonable attomey’ s fees incurred herein; and
15 4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
16 Dated: March 29, 2024: FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP
17
18
Mdtin Ud ery
WilliamA. Munoz
19 Sofia Silva
Atto for Defendants
20 GO MAPS, INC. and KEVIN POMPLUN
21
24
25
26
27
Freeman Mathis
Gary, LIP
Atorneys at Law
8
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER
TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT:
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF PLACER
I am employed in the County of Placer, State of Califomia I am over the of 18 and
not a party to the within action; business address is 1013 Galleria Boulevi Suite 250,
Roseville, Califomia 95678-1365 and my _ dectonic Service address 1s
Holly.mills@fmglaw.com.
On March 29, 2024, I served the foregoing document(s) entitled:
DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT:
on interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed
envelope addressed as follows:
Stephen Noel Ilg (SBN 275599)
S Wilberton (SBN 345803)
10 as Jupillat (SBN 335559)
ILGL Office, P.C
11 156 South Spruce, Unit 206A
South San Francisco, CA. 94080
12 Telephone: (415) 580-2574
Facsimile: (415) 735-3454.
13 Email: silg@ilglegal.com
swilberton@ilglegal.com
14 niupillat@ilglegal.com
15
(BY MAIL) I deposited such envelope(s) in the mail at Roseville, Califomia. The}
16 envelope was mailed with thereon fully prepaid and addressed as set forth
17
above. I am “readily familiar’ with the firm's practice of collection and
correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with USposi
service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Roseville, Califomia in|
18 the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, serviceis
invalid if cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day
19 after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
20 (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) | placed said documents in envelope(s) for collection}
foll ordi business ces, at the business offices of FREEMAN MATHIS &
21 GARY, LLP and addressed as set forth above, for collection and delivery FEDEXto
receive said documents, with delivery fees provided for. I am readily f iliar with the
finm’s practices of collection and of documents for ovemight delivery, and
said envelope{s) will be deposited for receipt by FEDEX on said date in the ordinary
course of business.
24 (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered
by hand to the
offices of the addressee(s) set forth above.
25
(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE): Based on a court order or an of the parties
26 to accept electronic service, transmitti a true and comect copy of the foregoing
document(s) to be sentto the personsat the electronic service addresses
set forth above.
27
Freeman Mathis (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) (COURTESY CO! ): By Transmittii true and correct
Gary, LIP
Atorneys at Law copy of the foregoing document(s) to the e-mail es) set forth
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER
TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT:
@y FACSIMILE): By transmitting a tue
document(s) via facsimile transmission from this Finn's
each interested.
and
sending{a
conect of the foregoing
acsimile machine, to
at the facsimile machine telephone Sse set forth above. Said]
transmission(s) were completed on the aforesaid date at the time stated on the
transmission record issued by this Firm's sending facsimile machine. Each such|
transmission was reported as complete and without eror and a transmission report was
properly issued by this Finm's sending facsimile machine for each interested
served. A true copy of each transmission report is attached to the office copy of this
proof of serviceand will be provided upon request.
(State) I declareunder penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia|
the above is true and correct.
Executed on March 29, 2024, at Roseville, Califomia.
10 “Hany Mila?
11
Holly Mills
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
26
27
Freeman Mathis
Gary, LIP
Atorneys at Law
10
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER
TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT:
Preview
William A. Munoz (SBN 191649) bill. aw.com Sofia Silva (SBN 352415) Sofia.sih aw.com FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP 1013 Galleria Boulevard Roseville, Califomia 95678-1365 Telephone: 916.472.3300 Facsimile: 833.297.6235 Atto for Defendants GO MAPS, INC., and KEVIN POMPLUN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA INAND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 11 SAAD MIR, an individual, on behalf of himself, Case No.: 23-CIV-05072 12 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FIRST Plaintiff, AMENDED COMPLAINT 13 Vv. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 14 GO MAPS, INC. d/b/aGO INC. & GO CAR Original Complaint Filed: 15 INSURANCE INC., a Delaware corporation, First Amended Complaint Filed: 1/17/24. KEVIN POMPLUN, an individual, and DOES 1 16 through 100, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Defendants GO MAPS, INC., incorrectly sued herein as GO MAPS, INC. d/b/a GO INC 20 & GO INSURANCE INC. a Delaware corporation, and KEVIN POMPLUN (“Defendants”), by 21 and through its counsel, hereby answers the Complaint of Plaintiff SAAD MIR (“Plaintiff”) as follows: GENERAL DENIALS 24 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 431.30(d) of the Califomia Code of Civil 25 Procedure, Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in 26 the Plaintiffs’ unverified Complaint, and each and every cause of action set forth therein. 27 Freeman Mathis Gary, LIP Atorneys at Law 1 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT: Further, Defendants deny that Plaintiff has sustained, or will sustain, any damage or loss by reason of any act or omission on the part of these answering Defendants, or any damageor loss at all. Finally, answering Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought against answering Defendant orto any relief whatsoever from Defendant. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Cause of Action) The First Amended Complaint, and each purported cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficientto constitute a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 10 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 (Statute of Limitations) 12 The First Amended Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, is barred by the 13 applicable statute of limitations, including, but not limited to, those more fully set forth in §§ 14 337, 337.1, 337.15, 338, 339, 340 and 343 of the Califomia Code of Civil Procedure. 15 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 (Estoppel) 17 Because of the actions and inactions of Plaintiff and reliance thereon by Defendants, 18 Plaintiff is estopped from asserting the alleged claims set forth in The Complaint against 19 Defendant. 20 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 (Res J udicata/Collateral Estoppel) Defendants allege that all claims of Plaintiff are barred by res judicata, claim preclusion, issue preclusion, and/or collateral estoppel. 24 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (Undean Hands) 26 These answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that, the First 27 Amended Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein are barredby Plaintiff's unclean ‘&Gary, LLP * -ttomeys at Lay 28 || hands. 2 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT: SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver) Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that Plaintiff has waived all the} alleged causes of action against Defendants as set forth in the First Amended Complaint. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Laches) Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that the First Amended] Complaint is barred by the equitable doctrine of laches. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Justification) 10 11 Without admitting that Defendants engaged in the conduct alleged therein, the 12 Complaint, and each cause of action therein, are barred, in whole or in part, because the 13 Defendant’s conduct was, at all times, justified and privileged, and the acts and statements 14 complained of in the Complaint, if made at all, were undertaken and/or made by the Defendant 15 in good faith, honestly, and not maliciously. 16 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (Compliance with the Law) 18 Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that that the First Amended] 19 Complaint, and each cause of action set forth therein, is barred in whole or in part, because of 20 Defendants’ compliance with relevant underlying law(s). Further, because Defendants’ actions 21 comply with the relevant underlying law, it did not engage in any unlawful conduct with respect to the Plaintiff. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 (Failure to Mitigate) 25 Defendantis informed and believes and thereon alleges that the damages, if any, alleged] 26 in the First Amended Complaint are the result, in whole or in part, of Plaintiff’s failure to 27 exercise reasonable care to reduce or mitigate his damages. Freeman Mathis Gary, LIP Atorneys at Law 3 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT: ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENS Cegally Excused) Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that, without admitting to the existence of any duties or obligations alleged in the First Amended Complaint, that any duties or obligations, contractual or otherwise, which Plaintiff claims are owedby Defendants to Plaintiff have been fully excused. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Damages/No Unjust Enrichment) Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege, without admitting any liability 10 or obligation, if any, without impairing the general denials herein, that Plaintiff has not suffered 11 any losses and Defendants have not been unjustly enriched as a result of any action or inaction 12 by Defendants or their agents. Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to any disgoryement or| 13 restitution. 14 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 (Good Faith) 16 Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege, without admitting any liability 17 orobligation, if any, without impairing the general denials herein, that the First Amended 18 Complaint and each cause of action set forth therein cannot be maintained because, without 19 admitting that the violation took place, Defendants allege that any violation of the Califomia 20 Labor Code was an act or omission made in good faith, and that in any participation in such 21 acts, Defendants had reasonable grounds for believing that the act or omission was not a violation of the Califomia Labor Code. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 (Legitimate Business Reason) 25 Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants’ actions 26 involving Plaintiff were privileged or otherwise justified, as such actions were proper, fair and 27 taken based solely on legitimate, good faith, non-retaliatory, non-harassing business reasons and, Freeman Mathis Gary, LIP managerial decisions. Atorneys at Law 4 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT: FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Exhaust Available Remedies) Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege, without admitting any liability orobligation, if any, without impairing the general denials herein, that the First Amended Complaint and each cause of action set forth therein are barred because Plaintiff failed to timely and completely exhaust the requisite administrative, statutory, and/or contractual remedies available to him priorto commencing this action. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Standing) 10 Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege, without admitting any liability 11 orobligation, if any, without impairing the general denials herein, that Plaintiff lacks standingto 12 bring his claims as to all ora portion of the claims alleged in the First Amended Complaint. 13 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (No Standing Under Private Attormey General Act) 15 Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that Plaintiff has no standing} 16 and is without authority to bring the claims and causes of action in the Complaint as they related 17 to the Private Attomey General Act (“PAGA”) to the extent that that Plaintiff was not affected 18 by any Labor Code violations in that he was not non-exempt employees but instead had an 19 altemative status, including but not limited to apprentice, independent contractor, or exempt 20 employee. 21 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (ailure to Conply with PAGA Requirements) Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that the claims brought by 24 Plaintiff are barred to the extent the Califomia Labor and Workforce Development Agency 25 investigates Plaintiff’ s claims for relief under the Private Attomey General Act. 26 27 Freeman Mathis Gary, LIP -ttomeys at Lay 5 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT: NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Not Competent Plaintiffs) Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege, without admitting any liability or obligation, if any, without impairing the general denials herein that the First Amended Complaint and this action were not brought by a competent plaintiff for the benefit of the allegedly injured aggrieved employees. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Conduct Not “Unlawful,” “Fraudulent” or “Unfair”) Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege, without admitting any liability 10 or obligation, if any, without impairing the general denials herein that the Plaintiff's cause of 11 action under Califomia Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. is barred because 12 Defendants’ actions were neither unlawful, fraudulent, unfair, nor likely to mislead. Defendants’ 13 conduct and dealings were lawful, as authorized by applicable state and federal statutes, rules, 14 and regulations. Defendants’ actions, conduct, and dealings were carried out in good faith and 15 for legitimate business purposes. 16 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 Gimpennissible Remedies) 18 Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege, without admitting any liability 19 or obligation, if any, without impairing the general denials herein, that the causes of action 20 under Califomia Business & Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. are barred to the extent 21 Plaintiff seeks improper remedies, including, but not limited to, compensatory damages. TTWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (amages Speculative) 24 Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege, without admitting any liability 25 or obligation, if any, without impairing the general denials herein that based on Plaintiff’ s First 26 Amended Complaint, the damages alleged are speculative and are therefore barred. 27 Freeman Mathis Gary, LIP -ttomeys at Lay 6 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT: TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Due Process Requirements) Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege, without admitting any liability orobligation, if any, without impairing the general denials herein, thatto the extent that Plaintiff claim penalties, such claims must comport with the due process requirements of State Farmv. Campbell (2003) 538 U.S. 408 and subsequent case law regarding the same issue. TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Alleged Violations Have Discontinued, Ceased and Not Likely to Recur) Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege, without admitting any liability 10 or obligation, if any, without impairing the general denials herein, that the request for 11 restitution, declaratory relief, and/or injunctive relief is barred with respect to any and all 12 alleged violations of Califomia Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. that have 13 discontinued, ceased, and are not likely to recur. 14 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 (No Willful Intent) 16 Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege, that even assuming arguendo 17 Plaintiff is entitled to any additional compensation, Defendants have not willfully or 18 intentionally failed to pay any such additional compensation to Plaintiff within the meaning and) 19 scope of Califomia Labor Code section 203. 20 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 (No Ratification) Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that each cause of action cannot} be maintained against Defendants because if Defendants’ employees (including Plaintiff) took 24 the actions alleged, such actions were committed outside the course and scope of such 25 employees’ employment, were not authorized, adopted or ratified by Defendants and/or 26 Defendants did not know of nor should have known of such conduct. 27 Freeman Mathis Gary, LIP -ttomeys at Lay 7 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT: TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Bona Fide Dispute) In answering Plaintiff's Complaint, and as to each and every causeof action alleged] therein, Defendant alleges there is a bona fide dispute as to whether any further compensation is actually due to Plaintiff and/or the putative class members and, if so, the amount thereof. TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Additional Affirmative Defenses) Defendants alleges that they may have other, separate and additional defenses of which| it is not presently aware and reserves the right to assert them by amendment to this Answer 10 when discovery is completed. 11 WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment as follows: 12 1 That Plaintiff take nothing by virtue of his First Amended Complaint; 13 2. That Defendants be dismissed with its costs of suit incurred herein; 14 3. For reasonable attomey’ s fees incurred herein; and 15 4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 16 Dated: March 29, 2024: FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP 17 18 Mdtin Ud ery WilliamA. Munoz 19 Sofia Silva Atto for Defendants 20 GO MAPS, INC. and KEVIN POMPLUN 21 24 25 26 27 Freeman Mathis Gary, LIP Atorneys at Law 8 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT: PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF PLACER I am employed in the County of Placer, State of Califomia I am over the of 18 and not a party to the within action; business address is 1013 Galleria Boulevi Suite 250, Roseville, Califomia 95678-1365 and my _ dectonic Service address 1s Holly.mills@fmglaw.com. On March 29, 2024, I served the foregoing document(s) entitled: DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT: on interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Stephen Noel Ilg (SBN 275599) S Wilberton (SBN 345803) 10 as Jupillat (SBN 335559) ILGL Office, P.C 11 156 South Spruce, Unit 206A South San Francisco, CA. 94080 12 Telephone: (415) 580-2574 Facsimile: (415) 735-3454. 13 Email: silg@ilglegal.com swilberton@ilglegal.com 14 niupillat@ilglegal.com 15 (BY MAIL) I deposited such envelope(s) in the mail at Roseville, Califomia. The} 16 envelope was mailed with thereon fully prepaid and addressed as set forth 17 above. I am “readily familiar’ with the firm's practice of collection and correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with USposi service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Roseville, Califomia in| 18 the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, serviceis invalid if cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day 19 after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 20 (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) | placed said documents in envelope(s) for collection} foll ordi business ces, at the business offices of FREEMAN MATHIS & 21 GARY, LLP and addressed as set forth above, for collection and delivery FEDEXto receive said documents, with delivery fees provided for. I am readily f iliar with the finm’s practices of collection and of documents for ovemight delivery, and said envelope{s) will be deposited for receipt by FEDEX on said date in the ordinary course of business. 24 (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the offices of the addressee(s) set forth above. 25 (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE): Based on a court order or an of the parties 26 to accept electronic service, transmitti a true and comect copy of the foregoing document(s) to be sentto the personsat the electronic service addresses set forth above. 27 Freeman Mathis (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) (COURTESY CO! ): By Transmittii true and correct Gary, LIP Atorneys at Law copy of the foregoing document(s) to the e-mail es) set forth DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT: @y FACSIMILE): By transmitting a tue document(s) via facsimile transmission from this Finn's each interested. and sending{a conect of the foregoing acsimile machine, to at the facsimile machine telephone Sse set forth above. Said] transmission(s) were completed on the aforesaid date at the time stated on the transmission record issued by this Firm's sending facsimile machine. Each such| transmission was reported as complete and without eror and a transmission report was properly issued by this Finm's sending facsimile machine for each interested served. A true copy of each transmission report is attached to the office copy of this proof of serviceand will be provided upon request. (State) I declareunder penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia| the above is true and correct. Executed on March 29, 2024, at Roseville, Califomia. 10 “Hany Mila? 11 Holly Mills 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 26 27 Freeman Mathis Gary, LIP Atorneys at Law 10 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT: