Preview
1 Kathleen M. Hartman (Bar No. 219934)
khartman@ctsclaw.com
2 CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN
& CAUDILL, LLP
3 2601 Main Street, Suite 800
Irvine, California 92614
4 Tel: (949) 261-2872
Fax: (949) 261-6060
5
Attorneys for Defendant,
6 NATURE BLOOM HARVEST, LLC
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY
10
CAIJAHAN T HOMPSON SHERMAN &CAUDLLL LLP
11 JOSE GONZALEZ and FABIOLA Case No.: 24CV000467
CISC law
BRIBIESCA, Individually, and on behalf of
12 other members of the general public JUDGE: Hon. Vanessa W. Vallarta
similarly situated, DEPARTMENT: 13A
13 COMPLAINT DATE: February 5, 2024
Plaintiffs,
14 NATURE BLOOM HARVEST, LLC’S
vs. ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED
15 COMPLAINT
NATURE BLOOM HARVEST, LLC, a
16 California Limited Liability Company, and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DOES 1-10, inclusive,
17 DISCOVERY CUT OFF: NONE
Defendants. MOTION CUT OFF: NONE
18 FSC DATE: NONE
TRIAL DATE: NONE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 Nature Bloom Harvest, LLC (“Defendant”) hereby answers the First Amended Complaint
2 (“FAC”).
3 GENERAL DENIAL
4 1. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), Defendant
5 generally denies each and every allegation in the FAC and each purported cause of action alleged
6 therein and further denies that Plaintiff has been damaged in any manner or sum whatsoever.
7 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 (FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION)
9 2. The FAC and each and every purported cause of action asserted therein, fails to state
10 facts sufficient to constitute any causes of action against Defendant.
CAIJAHAN T HOMPSON SHERMAN &CAUDLLL LLP
11 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
CISC law
12 (NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ACTS OF DOES)
13 3. Defendant is not legally responsible for the alleged acts/omissions of those
14 defendants named in Plaintiffs’ FAC as DOES 1 – 10.
15 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 (STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS)
17 4. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the provisions of California Code
18 of Civil Procedure sections 337, 337a, 338, 339, 340, 343, Business & Professions Code section
19 17200 et seq., Labor Code sections 203 and 2699.3, and/or 29 U.S.C. § 255 and/or other applicable
20 statutes of limitations.
21 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 (DAMAGES AND PENALTIES NOT RECOVERABLE)
23 5. Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq. does not provide for recovery of
24 damages or penalties. Therefore, Plaintiffs and any alleged person participating in this action are
25 not entitled to recovery of any alleged damages or penalties.
26 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27 (FAILURE TO MITIGATE)
28 6. Any recovery on the FAC, or any purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred
-2-
ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 in whole or in part by Plaintiffs and any purported persons’ failure to mitigate their damages.
2 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3 (UNCLEAN HANDS)
4 7. By virtue of Plaintiffs and any purported class members unlawful, immoral, careless,
5 negligent, and other wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and any purported person participating in this
6 action should be barred from recovering against Defendant by the equitable doctrine of unclean
7 hands.
8 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 (FAILURE TO USE ORDINARY CARE AND DILIGENCE
10 IN PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES)
CAIJAHAN T HOMPSON SHERMAN &CAUDLLL LLP
11 8. Any recovery on the FAC, or on each purported cause of action alleged therein, is
CISC law
12 barred by California Labor Code sections 2854 and 2856 in that Plaintiffs and any other person
13 participating in this action failed to use ordinary care and diligence in the performance of their duties
14 and failed to comply with the reasonable expectations of their employer as required by California
15 law. Also, Plaintiffs and any other purported class member were not under the custody or control
16 of Defendant.
17 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 (EMPLOYER’S SUBJECTIVE GOOD FAITH AND OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE
19 GROUNDS TO BELIEVE ALL WAGES AND BUSINESS EXPENSES WERE PAID)
20 9. Defendant acted with objectively reasonable grounds and subjective good faith when
21 it paid Plaintiffs and all other persons their wages. As such, Plaintiffs and all other persons are
22 precluded from recovery under 29 U.S.C. §§ 255 and 260, California Labor Code section 203, and
23 other state and federal laws. Any expenses that were allegedly incurred by Plaintiffs and any
24 purported person, were not necessary business expenses, they were not compensable business
25 expenses, they were not authorized, nor was Defendant aware that the expenses were incurred. Also,
26 Plaintiffs and any other purported class member were not under the custody or control of Defendant
27 or Defendant’s employees.
28 ///
-3-
ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (EMPLOYER DID NOT KNOW OR HAVE REASON TO KNOW OF ANY ALLEGED
3 OVERTIME, UNPAID HOURS, OR MISSED MEAL OR REST BREAKS)
4 10. If Plaintiffs and/or any purported class member did not properly record their time or
5 follow instructions, there was no reason for Defendant to know of these false actions.
6 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 (EXEMPTION)
8 11. To the extent any purported class member was classified as exempt from overtime
9 under the professional, administrative, executive, computer, sales exemption, and/or highly
10 compensated employee exemption, such classification was correct.
CAIJAHAN T HOMPSON SHERMAN &CAUDLLL LLP
11 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
CISC law
12 (FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES)
13 12. The FAC, and each cause of action alleged therein, is barred by Plaintiffs’ failure to
14 exhaust administrative remedies with the Labor Board, Labor Commissioner, Labor and Workforce
15 Development Agency, and any other applicable governmental agency.
16 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (NO ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES)
18 13. Plaintiffs and any other purported class members are not entitled to recovery of
19 attorneys’ fees. In particular, Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq. does not provide
20 for recovery of attorneys’ fees under the facts of this case.
21 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 (EXPENSES NOT NECESSARY)
23 14. Any expenses that were allegedly incurred by Plaintiffs and any purported class
24 member, were not necessary business expenses, they are not reimbursable business expenses, they
25 were not authorized, nor was Defendant aware that the expenses were incurred.
26 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27 (NO NUMEROSITY)
28 15. There are not enough purported class members to make class treatment the superior
-4-
ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 form of adjudication.
2 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3 (NO TYPICALITY)
4 16. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are not typical of the claims of the purported class.
5 For example, purported class members held different positions, had different managers, worked at
6 different locations, and were subjected to different working conditions.
7 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 (NO SUPERIORITY)
9 17. Class treatment is not the superior form of adjudication. For example, purported class
10 members held different positions, had different managers, worked at different locations, and were
CAIJAHAN T HOMPSON SHERMAN &CAUDLLL LLP
11 subjected to different working conditions.
CISC law
12 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 (NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION)
14 18. The FAC includes claims for which there is no private right of action.
15 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 (NO COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW OR FACT)
17 19. The FAC does not include common questions of law or fact such that it is suitable
18 for class treatment.
19 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 (ESTOPPEL)
21 20. Plaintiffs and any purported class member engaged in conduct with respect to the
22 activities that are the subject of the FAC, and by reason of said activities and conduct, is estopped
23 from asserting any claim for damages or seeking any other relief against Defendant.
24 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 (PLAINTIFF IS NOT AN AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE)
26 21. Plaintiff is not an aggrieved employee such that Plaintiff can bring a representative
27 action.
28 ///
-5-
ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (UNMANAGEABLE PAGA AND CLASS CLAIMS)
3 22. The PAGA and Class claims of Plaintiffs and those of the alleged aggrieved and other
4 employees are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff cannot establish a manageable PAGA or
5 Class Action trial.
6 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 (DE MINIMUS)
8 23. Any alleged expenses and any alleged unpaid time are de minimus.
9 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 (NO WILLFUL CONDUCT)
CAIJAHAN T HOMPSON SHERMAN &CAUDLLL LLP
11 24. Defendant denies that it engaged in any willful conduct to violate any laws as alleged
CISC law
12 in the FAC.
13 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (LACK OF STANDING)
15 25. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs lack standing to assert some or all the claims alleged
16 in the FAC either individually or as a class action.
17 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 (CONSENT)
19 26. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs, and any purported class member, at all relevant
20 times, gave consent, express or implied, to the alleged acts, omissions and conduct of Defendant.
21 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 (LACHES)
23 27. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claims as set forth in the FAC are barred by the
24 equitable doctrine of laches.
25 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 (AVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCES)
27 28. Plaintiffs and any alleged putative class failed to use reasonable care to avoid the
28 alleged injuries, such as making reports to management, accurately recording their time, taking
-6-
ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 meal and rest breaks as required under company policy, and other similar acts. As such, Plaintiffs
2 and any alleged punitive class cannot recover under the claims alleged.
3 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 (AVAILABILITY OF ADDITIONAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES)
5 29. Defendant presently has insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form
6 a belief as to the availability of additional, as yet unstated affirmative defenses. Therefore,
7 Defendant reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses in the event discovery reveals
8 that they would be appropriate.
9 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
10 WHEREFORE, the answering Defendant prays as follows:
CAIJAHAN T HOMPSON SHERMAN &CAUDLLL LLP
11 1. That Plaintiffs and any purported class or participant take nothing from the FAC;
CISC law
12 2. Plaintiffs’ FAC be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice and judgment be entered
13 in favor of Defendant;
14 3. Defendant recovers costs of suit;
15 4. Defendant recovers reasonable attorney fees;
16 5. Such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.
17
18 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ON CLAIMS SUBJECT TO A JURY TRIAL
19
20
DATED: April 22, 2024 CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN &
21 CAUDILL, LLP
22
23
By:
24 Kathleen M. Hartman
Attorneys for Defendant,
25 NATURE BLOOM HARVEST, LLC
26
27
28
-7-
ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
3 COUNTY OF ORANGE )
4 I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California, I am over the age of 18 years and not a
party to the within action; my business address is 2601 Main Street, Suite 800, Irvine, California
5 92614.
6 On this date, April 22, 2024, I served the foregoing document described as:
7 NATURE BLOOM HARVEST, LLC’S ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
8
☒ (By electronic service) ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION by emailing the
9 document(s) to the persons at the email address(es) listed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
§ 1010.6(e)(1) and (2), and § 1013(g) from nmercado@ctsclaw.com
10
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and
CAIJAHAN T HOMPSON SHERMAN &CAUDLLL LLP
11 correct. I further declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at
CISC law
whose direction the service was made.
12
Executed on April 22, 2024, at Irvine, California.
13
14 /s/ Nancy Mercado
NANCY MERCADO
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-8-
ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 SERVICE LIST
2 Case Name : Gonzalez, et al. v. Nature Bloom Harvest, LLC
Court : Monterey County Superior Court
3 Case Number : 24CV000467
4 Eric K Yaeckel, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs JOSE GONZALEZ
Ryan T. Kuhn, Esq. and FABIOLA BRIBIESCA
5 Karoline D. Kitlowski, Esq.
SULLIVAN & YAECKEL LAW GROUP,
6 APC
2330 Third Avenue
7 San Diego, CA 92101
8 T: (619) 702-6760
F: (619) 702-6761
9 Email: yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
ryan@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
10 karoline@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
Bevin A. Pike, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs JOSE GONZALEZ
CAIJAHAN T HOMPSON SHERMAN &CAUDLLL LLP
11 Daniel S. Jonathan, Esq. and FABIOLA BRIBIESCA
CISC law
Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
12 CAPSTONE LAW, APC
1872 Century Park East, Suite 1000
13 Los Angeles, CA 90067
14 T: (310) 556-4811
F: (310) 943-0396
15 Email: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com
Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com
16 Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-9-
ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Preview
1 Kathleen M. Hartman (Bar No. 219934) khartman@ctsclaw.com 2 CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN & CAUDILL, LLP 3 2601 Main Street, Suite 800 Irvine, California 92614 4 Tel: (949) 261-2872 Fax: (949) 261-6060 5 Attorneys for Defendant, 6 NATURE BLOOM HARVEST, LLC 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY 10 CAIJAHAN T HOMPSON SHERMAN &CAUDLLL LLP 11 JOSE GONZALEZ and FABIOLA Case No.: 24CV000467 CISC law BRIBIESCA, Individually, and on behalf of 12 other members of the general public JUDGE: Hon. Vanessa W. Vallarta similarly situated, DEPARTMENT: 13A 13 COMPLAINT DATE: February 5, 2024 Plaintiffs, 14 NATURE BLOOM HARVEST, LLC’S vs. ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED 15 COMPLAINT NATURE BLOOM HARVEST, LLC, a 16 California Limited Liability Company, and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DOES 1-10, inclusive, 17 DISCOVERY CUT OFF: NONE Defendants. MOTION CUT OFF: NONE 18 FSC DATE: NONE TRIAL DATE: NONE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Nature Bloom Harvest, LLC (“Defendant”) hereby answers the First Amended Complaint 2 (“FAC”). 3 GENERAL DENIAL 4 1. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), Defendant 5 generally denies each and every allegation in the FAC and each purported cause of action alleged 6 therein and further denies that Plaintiff has been damaged in any manner or sum whatsoever. 7 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 (FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION) 9 2. The FAC and each and every purported cause of action asserted therein, fails to state 10 facts sufficient to constitute any causes of action against Defendant. CAIJAHAN T HOMPSON SHERMAN &CAUDLLL LLP 11 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CISC law 12 (NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ACTS OF DOES) 13 3. Defendant is not legally responsible for the alleged acts/omissions of those 14 defendants named in Plaintiffs’ FAC as DOES 1 – 10. 15 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 (STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS) 17 4. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the provisions of California Code 18 of Civil Procedure sections 337, 337a, 338, 339, 340, 343, Business & Professions Code section 19 17200 et seq., Labor Code sections 203 and 2699.3, and/or 29 U.S.C. § 255 and/or other applicable 20 statutes of limitations. 21 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 (DAMAGES AND PENALTIES NOT RECOVERABLE) 23 5. Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq. does not provide for recovery of 24 damages or penalties. Therefore, Plaintiffs and any alleged person participating in this action are 25 not entitled to recovery of any alleged damages or penalties. 26 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27 (FAILURE TO MITIGATE) 28 6. Any recovery on the FAC, or any purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred -2- ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 in whole or in part by Plaintiffs and any purported persons’ failure to mitigate their damages. 2 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3 (UNCLEAN HANDS) 4 7. By virtue of Plaintiffs and any purported class members unlawful, immoral, careless, 5 negligent, and other wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and any purported person participating in this 6 action should be barred from recovering against Defendant by the equitable doctrine of unclean 7 hands. 8 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 (FAILURE TO USE ORDINARY CARE AND DILIGENCE 10 IN PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES) CAIJAHAN T HOMPSON SHERMAN &CAUDLLL LLP 11 8. Any recovery on the FAC, or on each purported cause of action alleged therein, is CISC law 12 barred by California Labor Code sections 2854 and 2856 in that Plaintiffs and any other person 13 participating in this action failed to use ordinary care and diligence in the performance of their duties 14 and failed to comply with the reasonable expectations of their employer as required by California 15 law. Also, Plaintiffs and any other purported class member were not under the custody or control 16 of Defendant. 17 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (EMPLOYER’S SUBJECTIVE GOOD FAITH AND OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE 19 GROUNDS TO BELIEVE ALL WAGES AND BUSINESS EXPENSES WERE PAID) 20 9. Defendant acted with objectively reasonable grounds and subjective good faith when 21 it paid Plaintiffs and all other persons their wages. As such, Plaintiffs and all other persons are 22 precluded from recovery under 29 U.S.C. §§ 255 and 260, California Labor Code section 203, and 23 other state and federal laws. Any expenses that were allegedly incurred by Plaintiffs and any 24 purported person, were not necessary business expenses, they were not compensable business 25 expenses, they were not authorized, nor was Defendant aware that the expenses were incurred. Also, 26 Plaintiffs and any other purported class member were not under the custody or control of Defendant 27 or Defendant’s employees. 28 /// -3- ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (EMPLOYER DID NOT KNOW OR HAVE REASON TO KNOW OF ANY ALLEGED 3 OVERTIME, UNPAID HOURS, OR MISSED MEAL OR REST BREAKS) 4 10. If Plaintiffs and/or any purported class member did not properly record their time or 5 follow instructions, there was no reason for Defendant to know of these false actions. 6 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 (EXEMPTION) 8 11. To the extent any purported class member was classified as exempt from overtime 9 under the professional, administrative, executive, computer, sales exemption, and/or highly 10 compensated employee exemption, such classification was correct. CAIJAHAN T HOMPSON SHERMAN &CAUDLLL LLP 11 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CISC law 12 (FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES) 13 12. The FAC, and each cause of action alleged therein, is barred by Plaintiffs’ failure to 14 exhaust administrative remedies with the Labor Board, Labor Commissioner, Labor and Workforce 15 Development Agency, and any other applicable governmental agency. 16 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (NO ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES) 18 13. Plaintiffs and any other purported class members are not entitled to recovery of 19 attorneys’ fees. In particular, Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq. does not provide 20 for recovery of attorneys’ fees under the facts of this case. 21 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 (EXPENSES NOT NECESSARY) 23 14. Any expenses that were allegedly incurred by Plaintiffs and any purported class 24 member, were not necessary business expenses, they are not reimbursable business expenses, they 25 were not authorized, nor was Defendant aware that the expenses were incurred. 26 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27 (NO NUMEROSITY) 28 15. There are not enough purported class members to make class treatment the superior -4- ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 form of adjudication. 2 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3 (NO TYPICALITY) 4 16. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are not typical of the claims of the purported class. 5 For example, purported class members held different positions, had different managers, worked at 6 different locations, and were subjected to different working conditions. 7 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 (NO SUPERIORITY) 9 17. Class treatment is not the superior form of adjudication. For example, purported class 10 members held different positions, had different managers, worked at different locations, and were CAIJAHAN T HOMPSON SHERMAN &CAUDLLL LLP 11 subjected to different working conditions. CISC law 12 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 (NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION) 14 18. The FAC includes claims for which there is no private right of action. 15 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 (NO COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW OR FACT) 17 19. The FAC does not include common questions of law or fact such that it is suitable 18 for class treatment. 19 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 (ESTOPPEL) 21 20. Plaintiffs and any purported class member engaged in conduct with respect to the 22 activities that are the subject of the FAC, and by reason of said activities and conduct, is estopped 23 from asserting any claim for damages or seeking any other relief against Defendant. 24 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (PLAINTIFF IS NOT AN AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE) 26 21. Plaintiff is not an aggrieved employee such that Plaintiff can bring a representative 27 action. 28 /// -5- ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (UNMANAGEABLE PAGA AND CLASS CLAIMS) 3 22. The PAGA and Class claims of Plaintiffs and those of the alleged aggrieved and other 4 employees are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff cannot establish a manageable PAGA or 5 Class Action trial. 6 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 (DE MINIMUS) 8 23. Any alleged expenses and any alleged unpaid time are de minimus. 9 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 (NO WILLFUL CONDUCT) CAIJAHAN T HOMPSON SHERMAN &CAUDLLL LLP 11 24. Defendant denies that it engaged in any willful conduct to violate any laws as alleged CISC law 12 in the FAC. 13 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (LACK OF STANDING) 15 25. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs lack standing to assert some or all the claims alleged 16 in the FAC either individually or as a class action. 17 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (CONSENT) 19 26. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs, and any purported class member, at all relevant 20 times, gave consent, express or implied, to the alleged acts, omissions and conduct of Defendant. 21 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 (LACHES) 23 27. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claims as set forth in the FAC are barred by the 24 equitable doctrine of laches. 25 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 (AVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCES) 27 28. Plaintiffs and any alleged putative class failed to use reasonable care to avoid the 28 alleged injuries, such as making reports to management, accurately recording their time, taking -6- ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 meal and rest breaks as required under company policy, and other similar acts. As such, Plaintiffs 2 and any alleged punitive class cannot recover under the claims alleged. 3 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 (AVAILABILITY OF ADDITIONAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES) 5 29. Defendant presently has insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form 6 a belief as to the availability of additional, as yet unstated affirmative defenses. Therefore, 7 Defendant reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses in the event discovery reveals 8 that they would be appropriate. 9 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 10 WHEREFORE, the answering Defendant prays as follows: CAIJAHAN T HOMPSON SHERMAN &CAUDLLL LLP 11 1. That Plaintiffs and any purported class or participant take nothing from the FAC; CISC law 12 2. Plaintiffs’ FAC be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice and judgment be entered 13 in favor of Defendant; 14 3. Defendant recovers costs of suit; 15 4. Defendant recovers reasonable attorney fees; 16 5. Such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. 17 18 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ON CLAIMS SUBJECT TO A JURY TRIAL 19 20 DATED: April 22, 2024 CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN & 21 CAUDILL, LLP 22 23 By: 24 Kathleen M. Hartman Attorneys for Defendant, 25 NATURE BLOOM HARVEST, LLC 26 27 28 -7- ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) 3 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 4 I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California, I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 2601 Main Street, Suite 800, Irvine, California 5 92614. 6 On this date, April 22, 2024, I served the foregoing document described as: 7 NATURE BLOOM HARVEST, LLC’S ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 8 ☒ (By electronic service) ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION by emailing the 9 document(s) to the persons at the email address(es) listed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6(e)(1) and (2), and § 1013(g) from nmercado@ctsclaw.com 10 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and CAIJAHAN T HOMPSON SHERMAN &CAUDLLL LLP 11 correct. I further declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at CISC law whose direction the service was made. 12 Executed on April 22, 2024, at Irvine, California. 13 14 /s/ Nancy Mercado NANCY MERCADO 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -8- ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 SERVICE LIST 2 Case Name : Gonzalez, et al. v. Nature Bloom Harvest, LLC Court : Monterey County Superior Court 3 Case Number : 24CV000467 4 Eric K Yaeckel, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs JOSE GONZALEZ Ryan T. Kuhn, Esq. and FABIOLA BRIBIESCA 5 Karoline D. Kitlowski, Esq. SULLIVAN & YAECKEL LAW GROUP, 6 APC 2330 Third Avenue 7 San Diego, CA 92101 8 T: (619) 702-6760 F: (619) 702-6761 9 Email: yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com ryan@sullivanlawgroupapc.com 10 karoline@sullivanlawgroupapc.com Bevin A. Pike, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs JOSE GONZALEZ CAIJAHAN T HOMPSON SHERMAN &CAUDLLL LLP 11 Daniel S. Jonathan, Esq. and FABIOLA BRIBIESCA CISC law Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. 12 CAPSTONE LAW, APC 1872 Century Park East, Suite 1000 13 Los Angeles, CA 90067 14 T: (310) 556-4811 F: (310) 943-0396 15 Email: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com 16 Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -9- ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT