Preview
Jennifer E. Douglas, SBN 172770
1 Melissa Culp Granillo, SBN 265159
2 DICKENSON PEATMAN & FOGARTY, P.C.
1500 First Street, Suite 200
3 Napa, CA 94559
Telephone: (707) 261-7000
4 Facsimile: (707) 340-7239
Email: jdouglas@dpf-law.com
5
mgranillo@dpf-law.com
6
Attorneys for Defendant, J. Lohr Vineyards, Inc.
7
8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF MONTEREY
10
ALBINO GUZMAN, BARBARINO Case No. 23CV002860
11 RAMIREZ, GUILLERMO RAMIREZ,
12 ARTURO CRUZ, RUBEN MARTINEZ, and DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS,
LEONEL MARTINEZ, individually and on INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST
13 behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals AMENDED COMPLAINT
and the State of California,
14
Plaintiffs,
15 v.
16 CENTRAL CALI FARM LABOR a California
Corporation; AGUILAR FARMING INC. a
17 California Corporation; J LOHR VINEYARDS,
INC., a California Corporation; CAGLIERO
18
RANCHES, INC., a California Corporation;
19 FILBERTO AGUILAR PEREZ, an individual;
JOSE ANTONIO AGUILAR, an individual; and
20 Does 1 TO 50,
21 Defendants.
22
23 Defendant J LOHR VINEYARDS, INC. (“Defendant” or “J. LOHR”) hereby answers
24 Plaintiffs ALBINO GUZMAN, BARBARINO RAMIREZ, GUILLERMO RAMIREZ, ARTURO
25 CRUZ, RUBEN MARTINEZ, and LEONEL MARTINEZ’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) unverified
26 First Amended Class Action and Non-Class Complaint (“FAC”) as follows:
27 //
28 //
1 Case No. 23CV002860
DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 GENERAL DENIAL
2 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, Defendant denies generally each and
3 every allegation contained in each and every paragraph of Plaintiffs’ unverified FAC. Defendant
4 further denies that Plaintiffs have, or any purported Plaintiff class member or aggrieved employee
5 has, been, is or will be damaged in any sum or manner, or is or will be entitled to any recovery or
6 remedy of any type whatsoever, by reason of Defendant’s acts, conduct or omissions.
7 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
8 Without waiving its general denial and without admitting any of Plaintiffs’ allegations,
9 Defendant affirmatively alleges the following defenses to Plaintiffs’ claims:
10 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 (Failure to State a Cause of Action)
12 Defendant alleges the FAC and each cause of action set forth therein fails to state sufficient
13 facts to constitute a cause of action against Defendant.
14 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 (Class Action - Certification Requirements)
16 Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the prerequisites for class certification and
17 therefore cannot represent the interests of others.
18 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 (Class Action - Standing)
20 Defendant alleges that the FAC and each cause of action set forth therein is barred because
21 the named Plaintiffs lack standing as representatives of the purported class and do not adequately
22 represent the putative class members.
23 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 (Class Action – Lack of Predominance)
25 Defendant alleges that the type of claims alleged by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and/or
26 the alleged putative group they purport to represent are matters in which individual questions
27 dominate and thus are not appropriate for class treatment.
28 //
2 Case No. 23CV002860
DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Class Action – Lack of Commonality)
3 Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs are not similarity situated to other potential members of the
4 alleged putative group they purport to represent and thus are inadequate representatives of the
5 alleged putative group.
6 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 (Class Action – Lack of Typicality)
8 Defendant alleges that certain of the interests of the alleged putative group are in conflict
9 with the interests of all or certain subgroups of the members of the putative group.
10 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 (Class Action – Lack of Superiority)
12 Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs have not shown and cannot show that class treatment of the
13 purported causes of action in their Class Action FAC is superior to the other methods of adjudicating
14 the controversy.
15 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 (Class Action – Lack of Numerosity)
17 Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs have not shown and cannot show sufficient numerosity in
18 order to establish an ascertainable class, as a significant number of Plaintiffs and/or members of the
19 putative class and/or aggrieved employees Plaintiffs purport to represent would have no right to
20 recovery.
21 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 (Class Action – Violation of Due Process)
23 Defendant alleges that certification of a class, as applied to the facts and circumstances of
24 this case, would constitute a denial of Defendant’s due process rights, both substantive and
25 procedural, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the
26 California Constitution. Defendant reserves the right to amend its answer upon further investigation
27 and discovery of facts supporting this defense.
28 //
3 Case No. 23CV002860
DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Manageability)
3 Defendant alleges that the FAC is barred in whole or in part because it is not manageable
4 because establishing violations of the Labor Code sections Plaintiffs allege in the FAC is not
5 possible with common proof and instead would require individualized analysis of each purported
6 aggrieved employees’ violations (or lack thereof).
7 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 (PAGA Action - Certification Requirements)
9 Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause of Action is barred in whole or in part because
10 Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the prerequisites for bringing an action under the Private Attorneys General
11 Act and, therefore, cannot represent the interests of others.
12 TWELTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 (PAGA - Standing)
14 Defendant alleges that the Fifth Cause of Action is barred in whole or in part because
15 Plaintiffs lack standing to bring such claims because Plaintiffs did not incur any recoverable injury
16 during the applicable statutory period under Labor Code section 2699, et seq.
17 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 (Received All Wages)
19 Defendant alleges that the FAC is barred in whole or in part because Plaintiffs and any
20 purported aggrieved employees that Plaintiffs represent have been paid and/or received all wages
21 due to them by virtue of their employment, including minimum and overtime wages, and that
22 Plaintiffs have not alleged and/or cannot prove a violation of the underlying laws on which
23 Plaintiffs’ FAC is based.
24 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 (PAGA Action - Statute of Limitations)
26 Any recovery on Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause of Action for civil penalties under PAGA is barred
27 insofar as Plaintiffs seek to redress Labor Code violations which are time barred by Labor Code
28 //
4 Case No. 23CV002860
DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 Section 2699, et seq., including without limitation 2699.3, and by Plaintiffs’ delay in filing the
2 PAGA notice and/or Plaintiff’s Complaint.
3 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 (Statute of Limitations)
5 Defendant alleges that each purported cause of action set forth in the FAC is barred in
6 whole or in part by the applicable statute(s) of limitations, including without limitation the three-
7 year limitations period contained in California Code of Civil Procedure sections 337-38; the
8 one-year limitation period governing recovery of statutory penalties contained in California
9 Code of Civil Procedure section 340; and California Labor Code section 203.
10 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 (All Business Expenses Reimbursed)
12 Defendant is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims under
13 Labor Code section 2800 and/or 2802 is barred in whole or in part because, at all relevant times,
14 Defendants reimbursed their employees for their reasonable costs or expenses incurred in the
15 discharge of their duties and/or did not otherwise require them to bear such costs.
16 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (Good Faith – Meal and Rest Breaks)
18 Defendant is informed and believes that further investigation and discovery will reveal, and
19 on that basis alleges, that any violation of the Labor Code or an Order of the Industrial Welfare
20 Commission with respect to meal and rest breaks was an act or omission made in good faith and
21 Defendant had reasonable grounds for believing that meal and rest break practices complied with
22 applicable laws and that any such act or omission was not a violation of the Labor Code or any
23 Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission such that Plaintiffs and/or purported aggrieved
24 employees are not entitled to any damages.
25 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 (Discretionary Reduction in Penalties)
27 Defendant alleges that imposition of statutory penalties, including but not limited to
28 replicating penalties, is subject to reduction pursuant to Labor Code §2699(e)(1)-(2) based upon
5 Case No. 23CV002860
DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 discretion of the Court, and because under the facts and circumstances of Plaintiffs’ FAC, to do
2 otherwise would result in an unjust, arbitrary and oppressive or confiscatory award.
3 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 (Imposition of Penalties Would Violate Due Process)
5 Defendant alleges that the imposition of replicating penalties, as applied to the alleged facts
6 and circumstances of this case, would violate Defendant’s due process rights under the Fourteenth
7 Amendment of the United States Constitution and under the Constitution and laws of the State of
8 California. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 707; Ratner v. Chemical Bank
9 New York Trust Co. (S.D.N.Y. 1972) 54 F.R.D. 412.
10 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 (Wage Order 13 Inapplicable)
12 Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs and/or members of the putative class or other purported
13 aggrieved employees Plaintiffs represent are not entitled to payment of wages and/or penalties
14 under Wage Order 13 as that Wage Order does not apply to Plaintiffs, the putative class
15 members or aggrieved employees Plaintiffs purport to represent.
16 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (Off-the-Clock Work Minute, Irregular, and De Minimis)
18 Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs and any members of the putative class or other purported
19 aggrieved employees Plaintiffs represent are not entitled to payment for any purported off-the-
20 clock time worked as any such time was minute, irregular and de minimis.
21 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 (Rounding Impact Neutral)
23 Defendant alleges that any impact rounding had on Plaintiffs, and any members of the
24 putative class or other purported aggrieved employees Plaintiffs represent, had a neutral or positive
25 effect, and accordingly no damages or penalties are due.
26 //
27 //
28 //
6 Case No. 23CV002860
DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
1
(Waiver)
2
Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the FAC and each cause of action
3
set forth therein are barred by the doctrine of waiver. Defendant is informed and believes, and on
4
that basis alleges, that Plaintiffs and/or the purported aggrieved employees voluntarily worked
5
through their meal and rest breaks, failed to inform their supervisor when a meal or rest period was
6
missed, failed to submit expense reimbursements and/or failed to request personnel, pay or time
7
records or follow the specified procedure to do so.
8
TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9
(Estoppel)
10
Defendant is informed and believes and on that basis alleges, the FAC and each cause of
11
action set forth therein are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. Defendant is informed and believes,
12
and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiffs and/or the purported aggrieved employees voluntarily
13
worked through their meal and rest breaks, failed to inform their supervisor when a meal or rest
14
period was missed, failed to submit expense reimbursements and/or failed to request personnel, pay
15
or time records or follow the specified procedure to do so.
16
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17
(Laches)
18
Defendant is informed and believes and on that basis alleges, the FAC and each cause of
19
action set forth therein are barred by the doctrine of laches to the extent that Plaintiffs and/or the
20
purported aggrieved employees delayed in raising the issues regarding Defendant’s conduct as
21
alleged in the FAC.
22
TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23
(Unclean Hands)
24
Defendant is informed and believes and on that basis alleges, the FAC and each cause of
25
action set forth therein are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. Defendant is informed and
26
believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiffs and/or some or all of the purported aggrieved
27
employees’ conduct was fraudulent, deceitful, unconscionable and/or in bad faith, including but not
28
7 Case No. 23CV002860
DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 limited to, purported unreimbursed business expenses that were not actually incurred, alleged
2 missed meal and rest breaks that were actually taken, claiming to not been paid for hours worked
3 that were not actually worked and claiming to have not received time, pay, or personnel records that
4 were never requested.
5 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 (No Subsequent Violation)
7 Defendant alleges that a subsequent violation, for purposes of assessing applicable penalties
8 under the Private Attorneys General Act, is only applicable if the Labor Commissioner and/or a tier
9 of fact finds a violation occurred, and since no such violation has been found, Plaintiffs and any and
10 all aggrieved employees Plaintiffs purport to represent, may only collect penalties applicable to initial
11 violations, to the extent any such violations are found.
12 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 (Wage Practices — Good Faith)
14 Defendant alleges that the FAC and each cause of action therein is barred in whole or
15 in part because any violation of the Labor Code was an act or omission made in good faith and
16 Defendant had reasonable grounds for believing that its wage payment practices complied with
17 applicable laws and that any such act or omission was not a violation of the Labor Code and
18 that Plaintiffs and any aggrieved employees and putative class members are not entitled to any
19 penalties or damages in excess of any wages which might be found to be due.
20 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 (Labor Code § 203 — Not Willful or Intentional)
22 Defendant alleges that, even assuming arguendo Plaintiffs, purported putative class
23 members, and aggrieved employees are entitled to any additional compensation, it has not willfully
24 or intentionally failed to pay any such additional compensation to Plaintiff and/or the aggrieved
25 employees, within the meaning and scope of California Labor Code section 203.
26 //
27 //
28 //
8 Case No. 23CV002860
DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Bona Fide Dispute)
3 Defendant alleges there exists a bona fide dispute as to whether any further compensation
4 is actually due to Plaintiffs and any purported putative class members and aggrieved employees
5 and, if so, the amount thereof.
6 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 (Labor Code 226 — Information Ascertainable)
8 Defendant alleges that the FAC is barred in whole or in part because the wage statements
9 provided to Plaintiffs and any other purported putative class members and aggrieved employees
10 provided information that allowed prompt and easy determination of all information as required by
11 Labor Code 226(e)(2).
12 THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 (Labor Code § 226 — No Injury Suffered)
14 Defendant alleges that the FAC is barred in whole or in part because if any inaccurate wage
15 statement was provided, no injury was suffered by Plaintiffs or any other purported putative class
16 member or aggrieved employee.
17 THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 (Labor Code § 226 — No Intent)
19 Defendant alleges that the FAC is barred in whole or in part because, even if Plaintiff and/or
20 any purported putative class member or aggrieved employees were provided inaccurate and/or
21 untimely wage statements. Defendant did not do so knowingly and/or intentionally.
22 THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 (Good Faith/Justification)
24 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action
25 therein, Defendant alleges that it acted in good faith and/or its conduct was justified in that it
26 conformed to all applicable statutes, governmental regulations and industry standards existing at the
27 time of such conduct.
28 //
9 Case No. 23CV002860
DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Unjust Enrichment)
3 Plaintiffs, and any purported putative class member or aggrieved employees, may not
4 recover damages in this action because, under the circumstances presented, it would constitute
5 unjust enrichment.
6 THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 (Due Process — Damages)
8 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action
9 therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims for damages are so disproportionate to any injury
10 allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs and any purported putative class members or aggrieved employees
11 as to violate the Due Process Clauses of the United States and California Constitutions.
12 THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 (Offset)
14 Defendant alleges that the FAC and each purported cause of action therein are barred in whole
15 or in part because any recovery by Plaintiffs and/or any putative class member or aggrieved
16 employees must be offset by and any benefits and/or other monies they have received.
17 THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 (Duplicative Recovery)
19 Defendants allege that Plaintiffs, and the aggrieved employees Plaintiffs purport to represent,
20 are not entitled to penalties under PAGA to the extent that such penalties are sought in addition to
21 penalties for the same claims and such duplicative recovery is barred and constitutes unjust
22 enrichment.
23 THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 (Acts of Omissions of Plaintiffs and Purported Aggrieved Employees)
25 The FAC and each cause of action asserted therein is barred, in whole or in part, to the extent
26 that any damages Plaintiffs and/or any aggrieved employees Plaintiffs purport to represent were
27 incurred by their own acts or omissions. Defendant is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges,
28 that Plaintiffs and/or the purported aggrieved employees voluntarily worked through their meal and
10 Case No. 23CV002860
DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 rest breaks, failed to inform their supervisor when a meal or rest period was missed, failed to
2 accurately report all worktime and/or failed to request personnel records or submit expense
3 reimbursements.
4 FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5 (Unpaid Wages Not Available in PAGA Action)
6 Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs, and the aggrieved employees Plaintiffs purport to represent,
7 are not entitled to collect any unpaid wages, either as penalties or as compensatory damages, as such
8 wages are not collectable as damages under the Private Attorneys General Act, which is the only
9 theory Plaintiffs bases the allegations of their FAC on.
10 FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 (Regular Rate Properly Calculated)
12 Defendant is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the regular rate of pay
13 was at all times properly calculated and incorporated into the overtime pay due Plaintiffs and any
14 and all aggrieved employees Plaintiffs purport to represent.
15 FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 (Uncertainty)
17 Defendant alleges the FAC does not describe the claims or facts being alleged with sufficient
18 particularity to permit Defendant to ascertain what other defenses may exist. Defendant will rely on
19 any and all further defenses that become available or appear during discovery in this action and
20 specifically reserves the right to amend this Answer for purposes of asserting such additional
21 affirmative defenses.
22 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
23 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows:
24 1. That Plaintiffs take nothing by way of their FAC;
25 2. That judgment be entered in favor of Defendant;
26 3. That Plaintiffs’ FAC be dismissed;
27 4. That Defendant be awarded its costs herein incurred;
28 //
11 Case No. 23CV002860
DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 5. For attorneys' fees to the extent permitted by contract or statute, including without
2 limitation Labor Code § 218.5 if it is found that Plaintiff acted in bad faith in bringing
3 the instant action; and
4 6. For other such and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
5 DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY, P.C.
6
7 Dated: May 17, 2024 By:
Jennifer E. Douglas
8 Melissa Culp Granillo
Attorneys for Defendant J. Lohr Vineyards, Inc.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12 Case No. 23CV002860
DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
I, the undersigned, certify that I am over age 18, and am not a party to this action, and am
2 employed in the County of Sonoma, California. My business address is 520 Third Street, Suite 260,
Santa Rosa, CA 95401.
3
On the date indicated below, I served the following document: DEFENDANT J. LOHR
4 VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the
person(s) below, as follows:
5
STAN S. MALLISON ESQ Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6 HECTOR R. MARTINEZ ESQ
GONZALO QUEZADA ESQ
7 MALLISON & MARTINEZ
1939 HARRISON ST STE 730
8 OAKLAND CA 94612-3547
stanm@themmlawfirm.com
9 hectorm@themmlawfirm.com
gquezada@themmlawfirm.com
10
JENNIFER E DOUGLAS ESQ Attorneys for Defendants J. Lohr Vineyards
11 MELISSA C. GRANILLO ESQ and Cagliero Vineyards, Inc.
DICKENSON PEATMAN & FOGARTY
12 1500 FIRST ST STE 200
NAPA, CA 94559
13 jdouglas@dpf-law.com
mgranillo@dpf-law.com
14
GERARDO HERNANDEZ ESQ Attorneys for Defendants
15 EMILIO A RODRIGUEZ ESQ Central Cali Farm Labor, Inc.
LITTLER MENDELSON PC Aguilar Farming, Inc.
16 5200 N PALM AVE STE 302 Filberto Aguilar Perez
FRESNO CA 93704 Jose Antonio Aguilar
17 ghernandez@littler.com
earodriguez@littler.com
18
19 ( ) PERSONAL SERVICE. I personally delivered the document(s) to the person(s) at the
address(es) listed above. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the
20 attorney or at the attorney’s office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly
labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the
21 office, between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery
was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party’s residence with some person not
22 younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening.
23 ( ) U. S. MAIL. I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the
person(s) at the address(es) listed above and placed the envelope for collection and mailing,
24 following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business’s practice for
collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is
25 placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United
States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
26
//
27
//
28
13 Case No. 23CV002860
DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
( ) BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY. I enclosed the document(s) in an envelope or package
1 provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) above. I
placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly
2 utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier.
3 ( ) BY FAX TRANSMISSION. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax
transmission, I faxed the document(s) to the person(s) at the fax number(s) indicated after the
4 address(es) noted above. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record
of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached.
5
( XX ) BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE. I caused a copy of the document(s) to be sent to the person(s)
6 at the electronic notification address(es) listed above pursuant to CCP §1010.6. I did not receive,
within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the
7 transmission was unsuccessful.
8 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct. Executed on May 17, 2024 at Santa Rosa, California.
9
10
/s/ Kelly J. Mortensen
11 Kelly J. Mortensen
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14 Case No. 23CV002860
DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Preview
Jennifer E. Douglas, SBN 172770 1 Melissa Culp Granillo, SBN 265159 2 DICKENSON PEATMAN & FOGARTY, P.C. 1500 First Street, Suite 200 3 Napa, CA 94559 Telephone: (707) 261-7000 4 Facsimile: (707) 340-7239 Email: jdouglas@dpf-law.com 5 mgranillo@dpf-law.com 6 Attorneys for Defendant, J. Lohr Vineyards, Inc. 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF MONTEREY 10 ALBINO GUZMAN, BARBARINO Case No. 23CV002860 11 RAMIREZ, GUILLERMO RAMIREZ, 12 ARTURO CRUZ, RUBEN MARTINEZ, and DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, LEONEL MARTINEZ, individually and on INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST 13 behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals AMENDED COMPLAINT and the State of California, 14 Plaintiffs, 15 v. 16 CENTRAL CALI FARM LABOR a California Corporation; AGUILAR FARMING INC. a 17 California Corporation; J LOHR VINEYARDS, INC., a California Corporation; CAGLIERO 18 RANCHES, INC., a California Corporation; 19 FILBERTO AGUILAR PEREZ, an individual; JOSE ANTONIO AGUILAR, an individual; and 20 Does 1 TO 50, 21 Defendants. 22 23 Defendant J LOHR VINEYARDS, INC. (“Defendant” or “J. LOHR”) hereby answers 24 Plaintiffs ALBINO GUZMAN, BARBARINO RAMIREZ, GUILLERMO RAMIREZ, ARTURO 25 CRUZ, RUBEN MARTINEZ, and LEONEL MARTINEZ’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) unverified 26 First Amended Class Action and Non-Class Complaint (“FAC”) as follows: 27 // 28 // 1 Case No. 23CV002860 DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 GENERAL DENIAL 2 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, Defendant denies generally each and 3 every allegation contained in each and every paragraph of Plaintiffs’ unverified FAC. Defendant 4 further denies that Plaintiffs have, or any purported Plaintiff class member or aggrieved employee 5 has, been, is or will be damaged in any sum or manner, or is or will be entitled to any recovery or 6 remedy of any type whatsoever, by reason of Defendant’s acts, conduct or omissions. 7 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 8 Without waiving its general denial and without admitting any of Plaintiffs’ allegations, 9 Defendant affirmatively alleges the following defenses to Plaintiffs’ claims: 10 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 (Failure to State a Cause of Action) 12 Defendant alleges the FAC and each cause of action set forth therein fails to state sufficient 13 facts to constitute a cause of action against Defendant. 14 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 (Class Action - Certification Requirements) 16 Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the prerequisites for class certification and 17 therefore cannot represent the interests of others. 18 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 (Class Action - Standing) 20 Defendant alleges that the FAC and each cause of action set forth therein is barred because 21 the named Plaintiffs lack standing as representatives of the purported class and do not adequately 22 represent the putative class members. 23 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 (Class Action – Lack of Predominance) 25 Defendant alleges that the type of claims alleged by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and/or 26 the alleged putative group they purport to represent are matters in which individual questions 27 dominate and thus are not appropriate for class treatment. 28 // 2 Case No. 23CV002860 DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Class Action – Lack of Commonality) 3 Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs are not similarity situated to other potential members of the 4 alleged putative group they purport to represent and thus are inadequate representatives of the 5 alleged putative group. 6 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 (Class Action – Lack of Typicality) 8 Defendant alleges that certain of the interests of the alleged putative group are in conflict 9 with the interests of all or certain subgroups of the members of the putative group. 10 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 (Class Action – Lack of Superiority) 12 Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs have not shown and cannot show that class treatment of the 13 purported causes of action in their Class Action FAC is superior to the other methods of adjudicating 14 the controversy. 15 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 (Class Action – Lack of Numerosity) 17 Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs have not shown and cannot show sufficient numerosity in 18 order to establish an ascertainable class, as a significant number of Plaintiffs and/or members of the 19 putative class and/or aggrieved employees Plaintiffs purport to represent would have no right to 20 recovery. 21 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 (Class Action – Violation of Due Process) 23 Defendant alleges that certification of a class, as applied to the facts and circumstances of 24 this case, would constitute a denial of Defendant’s due process rights, both substantive and 25 procedural, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the 26 California Constitution. Defendant reserves the right to amend its answer upon further investigation 27 and discovery of facts supporting this defense. 28 // 3 Case No. 23CV002860 DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Manageability) 3 Defendant alleges that the FAC is barred in whole or in part because it is not manageable 4 because establishing violations of the Labor Code sections Plaintiffs allege in the FAC is not 5 possible with common proof and instead would require individualized analysis of each purported 6 aggrieved employees’ violations (or lack thereof). 7 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 (PAGA Action - Certification Requirements) 9 Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause of Action is barred in whole or in part because 10 Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the prerequisites for bringing an action under the Private Attorneys General 11 Act and, therefore, cannot represent the interests of others. 12 TWELTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 (PAGA - Standing) 14 Defendant alleges that the Fifth Cause of Action is barred in whole or in part because 15 Plaintiffs lack standing to bring such claims because Plaintiffs did not incur any recoverable injury 16 during the applicable statutory period under Labor Code section 2699, et seq. 17 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (Received All Wages) 19 Defendant alleges that the FAC is barred in whole or in part because Plaintiffs and any 20 purported aggrieved employees that Plaintiffs represent have been paid and/or received all wages 21 due to them by virtue of their employment, including minimum and overtime wages, and that 22 Plaintiffs have not alleged and/or cannot prove a violation of the underlying laws on which 23 Plaintiffs’ FAC is based. 24 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (PAGA Action - Statute of Limitations) 26 Any recovery on Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause of Action for civil penalties under PAGA is barred 27 insofar as Plaintiffs seek to redress Labor Code violations which are time barred by Labor Code 28 // 4 Case No. 23CV002860 DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Section 2699, et seq., including without limitation 2699.3, and by Plaintiffs’ delay in filing the 2 PAGA notice and/or Plaintiff’s Complaint. 3 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 (Statute of Limitations) 5 Defendant alleges that each purported cause of action set forth in the FAC is barred in 6 whole or in part by the applicable statute(s) of limitations, including without limitation the three- 7 year limitations period contained in California Code of Civil Procedure sections 337-38; the 8 one-year limitation period governing recovery of statutory penalties contained in California 9 Code of Civil Procedure section 340; and California Labor Code section 203. 10 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 (All Business Expenses Reimbursed) 12 Defendant is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims under 13 Labor Code section 2800 and/or 2802 is barred in whole or in part because, at all relevant times, 14 Defendants reimbursed their employees for their reasonable costs or expenses incurred in the 15 discharge of their duties and/or did not otherwise require them to bear such costs. 16 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (Good Faith – Meal and Rest Breaks) 18 Defendant is informed and believes that further investigation and discovery will reveal, and 19 on that basis alleges, that any violation of the Labor Code or an Order of the Industrial Welfare 20 Commission with respect to meal and rest breaks was an act or omission made in good faith and 21 Defendant had reasonable grounds for believing that meal and rest break practices complied with 22 applicable laws and that any such act or omission was not a violation of the Labor Code or any 23 Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission such that Plaintiffs and/or purported aggrieved 24 employees are not entitled to any damages. 25 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 (Discretionary Reduction in Penalties) 27 Defendant alleges that imposition of statutory penalties, including but not limited to 28 replicating penalties, is subject to reduction pursuant to Labor Code §2699(e)(1)-(2) based upon 5 Case No. 23CV002860 DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 discretion of the Court, and because under the facts and circumstances of Plaintiffs’ FAC, to do 2 otherwise would result in an unjust, arbitrary and oppressive or confiscatory award. 3 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 (Imposition of Penalties Would Violate Due Process) 5 Defendant alleges that the imposition of replicating penalties, as applied to the alleged facts 6 and circumstances of this case, would violate Defendant’s due process rights under the Fourteenth 7 Amendment of the United States Constitution and under the Constitution and laws of the State of 8 California. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 707; Ratner v. Chemical Bank 9 New York Trust Co. (S.D.N.Y. 1972) 54 F.R.D. 412. 10 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 (Wage Order 13 Inapplicable) 12 Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs and/or members of the putative class or other purported 13 aggrieved employees Plaintiffs represent are not entitled to payment of wages and/or penalties 14 under Wage Order 13 as that Wage Order does not apply to Plaintiffs, the putative class 15 members or aggrieved employees Plaintiffs purport to represent. 16 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (Off-the-Clock Work Minute, Irregular, and De Minimis) 18 Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs and any members of the putative class or other purported 19 aggrieved employees Plaintiffs represent are not entitled to payment for any purported off-the- 20 clock time worked as any such time was minute, irregular and de minimis. 21 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 (Rounding Impact Neutral) 23 Defendant alleges that any impact rounding had on Plaintiffs, and any members of the 24 putative class or other purported aggrieved employees Plaintiffs represent, had a neutral or positive 25 effect, and accordingly no damages or penalties are due. 26 // 27 // 28 // 6 Case No. 23CV002860 DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 1 (Waiver) 2 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the FAC and each cause of action 3 set forth therein are barred by the doctrine of waiver. Defendant is informed and believes, and on 4 that basis alleges, that Plaintiffs and/or the purported aggrieved employees voluntarily worked 5 through their meal and rest breaks, failed to inform their supervisor when a meal or rest period was 6 missed, failed to submit expense reimbursements and/or failed to request personnel, pay or time 7 records or follow the specified procedure to do so. 8 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 (Estoppel) 10 Defendant is informed and believes and on that basis alleges, the FAC and each cause of 11 action set forth therein are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. Defendant is informed and believes, 12 and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiffs and/or the purported aggrieved employees voluntarily 13 worked through their meal and rest breaks, failed to inform their supervisor when a meal or rest 14 period was missed, failed to submit expense reimbursements and/or failed to request personnel, pay 15 or time records or follow the specified procedure to do so. 16 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (Laches) 18 Defendant is informed and believes and on that basis alleges, the FAC and each cause of 19 action set forth therein are barred by the doctrine of laches to the extent that Plaintiffs and/or the 20 purported aggrieved employees delayed in raising the issues regarding Defendant’s conduct as 21 alleged in the FAC. 22 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (Unclean Hands) 24 Defendant is informed and believes and on that basis alleges, the FAC and each cause of 25 action set forth therein are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. Defendant is informed and 26 believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiffs and/or some or all of the purported aggrieved 27 employees’ conduct was fraudulent, deceitful, unconscionable and/or in bad faith, including but not 28 7 Case No. 23CV002860 DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 limited to, purported unreimbursed business expenses that were not actually incurred, alleged 2 missed meal and rest breaks that were actually taken, claiming to not been paid for hours worked 3 that were not actually worked and claiming to have not received time, pay, or personnel records that 4 were never requested. 5 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (No Subsequent Violation) 7 Defendant alleges that a subsequent violation, for purposes of assessing applicable penalties 8 under the Private Attorneys General Act, is only applicable if the Labor Commissioner and/or a tier 9 of fact finds a violation occurred, and since no such violation has been found, Plaintiffs and any and 10 all aggrieved employees Plaintiffs purport to represent, may only collect penalties applicable to initial 11 violations, to the extent any such violations are found. 12 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 (Wage Practices — Good Faith) 14 Defendant alleges that the FAC and each cause of action therein is barred in whole or 15 in part because any violation of the Labor Code was an act or omission made in good faith and 16 Defendant had reasonable grounds for believing that its wage payment practices complied with 17 applicable laws and that any such act or omission was not a violation of the Labor Code and 18 that Plaintiffs and any aggrieved employees and putative class members are not entitled to any 19 penalties or damages in excess of any wages which might be found to be due. 20 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 (Labor Code § 203 — Not Willful or Intentional) 22 Defendant alleges that, even assuming arguendo Plaintiffs, purported putative class 23 members, and aggrieved employees are entitled to any additional compensation, it has not willfully 24 or intentionally failed to pay any such additional compensation to Plaintiff and/or the aggrieved 25 employees, within the meaning and scope of California Labor Code section 203. 26 // 27 // 28 // 8 Case No. 23CV002860 DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Bona Fide Dispute) 3 Defendant alleges there exists a bona fide dispute as to whether any further compensation 4 is actually due to Plaintiffs and any purported putative class members and aggrieved employees 5 and, if so, the amount thereof. 6 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 (Labor Code 226 — Information Ascertainable) 8 Defendant alleges that the FAC is barred in whole or in part because the wage statements 9 provided to Plaintiffs and any other purported putative class members and aggrieved employees 10 provided information that allowed prompt and easy determination of all information as required by 11 Labor Code 226(e)(2). 12 THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 (Labor Code § 226 — No Injury Suffered) 14 Defendant alleges that the FAC is barred in whole or in part because if any inaccurate wage 15 statement was provided, no injury was suffered by Plaintiffs or any other purported putative class 16 member or aggrieved employee. 17 THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (Labor Code § 226 — No Intent) 19 Defendant alleges that the FAC is barred in whole or in part because, even if Plaintiff and/or 20 any purported putative class member or aggrieved employees were provided inaccurate and/or 21 untimely wage statements. Defendant did not do so knowingly and/or intentionally. 22 THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (Good Faith/Justification) 24 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action 25 therein, Defendant alleges that it acted in good faith and/or its conduct was justified in that it 26 conformed to all applicable statutes, governmental regulations and industry standards existing at the 27 time of such conduct. 28 // 9 Case No. 23CV002860 DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Unjust Enrichment) 3 Plaintiffs, and any purported putative class member or aggrieved employees, may not 4 recover damages in this action because, under the circumstances presented, it would constitute 5 unjust enrichment. 6 THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 (Due Process — Damages) 8 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action 9 therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims for damages are so disproportionate to any injury 10 allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs and any purported putative class members or aggrieved employees 11 as to violate the Due Process Clauses of the United States and California Constitutions. 12 THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 (Offset) 14 Defendant alleges that the FAC and each purported cause of action therein are barred in whole 15 or in part because any recovery by Plaintiffs and/or any putative class member or aggrieved 16 employees must be offset by and any benefits and/or other monies they have received. 17 THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (Duplicative Recovery) 19 Defendants allege that Plaintiffs, and the aggrieved employees Plaintiffs purport to represent, 20 are not entitled to penalties under PAGA to the extent that such penalties are sought in addition to 21 penalties for the same claims and such duplicative recovery is barred and constitutes unjust 22 enrichment. 23 THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 (Acts of Omissions of Plaintiffs and Purported Aggrieved Employees) 25 The FAC and each cause of action asserted therein is barred, in whole or in part, to the extent 26 that any damages Plaintiffs and/or any aggrieved employees Plaintiffs purport to represent were 27 incurred by their own acts or omissions. Defendant is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, 28 that Plaintiffs and/or the purported aggrieved employees voluntarily worked through their meal and 10 Case No. 23CV002860 DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 rest breaks, failed to inform their supervisor when a meal or rest period was missed, failed to 2 accurately report all worktime and/or failed to request personnel records or submit expense 3 reimbursements. 4 FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5 (Unpaid Wages Not Available in PAGA Action) 6 Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs, and the aggrieved employees Plaintiffs purport to represent, 7 are not entitled to collect any unpaid wages, either as penalties or as compensatory damages, as such 8 wages are not collectable as damages under the Private Attorneys General Act, which is the only 9 theory Plaintiffs bases the allegations of their FAC on. 10 FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 (Regular Rate Properly Calculated) 12 Defendant is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the regular rate of pay 13 was at all times properly calculated and incorporated into the overtime pay due Plaintiffs and any 14 and all aggrieved employees Plaintiffs purport to represent. 15 FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 (Uncertainty) 17 Defendant alleges the FAC does not describe the claims or facts being alleged with sufficient 18 particularity to permit Defendant to ascertain what other defenses may exist. Defendant will rely on 19 any and all further defenses that become available or appear during discovery in this action and 20 specifically reserves the right to amend this Answer for purposes of asserting such additional 21 affirmative defenses. 22 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 23 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows: 24 1. That Plaintiffs take nothing by way of their FAC; 25 2. That judgment be entered in favor of Defendant; 26 3. That Plaintiffs’ FAC be dismissed; 27 4. That Defendant be awarded its costs herein incurred; 28 // 11 Case No. 23CV002860 DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 5. For attorneys' fees to the extent permitted by contract or statute, including without 2 limitation Labor Code § 218.5 if it is found that Plaintiff acted in bad faith in bringing 3 the instant action; and 4 6. For other such and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. 5 DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY, P.C. 6 7 Dated: May 17, 2024 By: Jennifer E. Douglas 8 Melissa Culp Granillo Attorneys for Defendant J. Lohr Vineyards, Inc. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12 Case No. 23CV002860 DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PROOF OF SERVICE 1 I, the undersigned, certify that I am over age 18, and am not a party to this action, and am 2 employed in the County of Sonoma, California. My business address is 520 Third Street, Suite 260, Santa Rosa, CA 95401. 3 On the date indicated below, I served the following document: DEFENDANT J. LOHR 4 VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the person(s) below, as follows: 5 STAN S. MALLISON ESQ Attorneys for Plaintiffs 6 HECTOR R. MARTINEZ ESQ GONZALO QUEZADA ESQ 7 MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 HARRISON ST STE 730 8 OAKLAND CA 94612-3547 stanm@themmlawfirm.com 9 hectorm@themmlawfirm.com gquezada@themmlawfirm.com 10 JENNIFER E DOUGLAS ESQ Attorneys for Defendants J. Lohr Vineyards 11 MELISSA C. GRANILLO ESQ and Cagliero Vineyards, Inc. DICKENSON PEATMAN & FOGARTY 12 1500 FIRST ST STE 200 NAPA, CA 94559 13 jdouglas@dpf-law.com mgranillo@dpf-law.com 14 GERARDO HERNANDEZ ESQ Attorneys for Defendants 15 EMILIO A RODRIGUEZ ESQ Central Cali Farm Labor, Inc. LITTLER MENDELSON PC Aguilar Farming, Inc. 16 5200 N PALM AVE STE 302 Filberto Aguilar Perez FRESNO CA 93704 Jose Antonio Aguilar 17 ghernandez@littler.com earodriguez@littler.com 18 19 ( ) PERSONAL SERVICE. I personally delivered the document(s) to the person(s) at the address(es) listed above. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the 20 attorney or at the attorney’s office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the 21 office, between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party’s residence with some person not 22 younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening. 23 ( ) U. S. MAIL. I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) listed above and placed the envelope for collection and mailing, 24 following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is 25 placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. 26 // 27 // 28 13 Case No. 23CV002860 DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ( ) BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY. I enclosed the document(s) in an envelope or package 1 provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) above. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly 2 utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. 3 ( ) BY FAX TRANSMISSION. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I faxed the document(s) to the person(s) at the fax number(s) indicated after the 4 address(es) noted above. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached. 5 ( XX ) BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE. I caused a copy of the document(s) to be sent to the person(s) 6 at the electronic notification address(es) listed above pursuant to CCP §1010.6. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the 7 transmission was unsuccessful. 8 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 17, 2024 at Santa Rosa, California. 9 10 /s/ Kelly J. Mortensen 11 Kelly J. Mortensen 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14 Case No. 23CV002860 DEFENDANT J. LOHR VINEYARDS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT