Preview
1 T. Scott Belden (SBN 184387)
scott@bbr.law
2 Tyler D. Anthony (SBN 305652)
tyler@bbr.law
3 BELDEN BLAINE RAYTIS, LLP
5016 California Avenue, Suite 3
4 Bakersfield, California 93309
Telephone: (661) 864-7826
5 Facsimile: (661) 878-9797
6 Attorneys for Defendants
Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC and
7 Linda Boden
8
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF KERN—METROPOLITAN DIVISION
10 VERONICA VASQUEZ, an individual Case No. BCV-24-100760
11 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS SENIOR LIFESTYLE
HOMES, LLC, AND LINDA BODEN’S
12 v. ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT
13 SENIOR LIFESTYLE HOMES, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company;
14 LINDA BODEN, an individual; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Complaint Filed: March 1, 2024
15 Trial date: None
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 1
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 Defendants Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC and Linda Boden (“Defendants”) hereby answer
2 the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) of Plaintiff Veronica Vasquez (“Plaintiff”), as follows:
3 GENERAL DENIAL
4 Pursuant to the provisions of section 431.30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure,
5 Defendants generally and specifically deny each and every allegation set forth in Plaintiff’s FAC
6 and the whole thereof, including each purported cause of action therein. Defendants also deny
7 Plaintiff has been damaged in any sum (or at all) due to Defendants’ alleged conduct and/or
8 omissions.
9 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
10 As separate and affirmative defenses, and without admitting any of Plaintiff’s allegations
11 or conceding the burden of proof as to any issue found to be an element of any of Plaintiff’s causes
12 of action rather than an element of an affirmative defense, Defendants allege the following
13 affirmative defenses:
14 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 (Failure to State a Cause of Action)
16 Plaintiff’s FAC, and each and every cause of action asserted therein, fails to state facts
17 sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendants.
18 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 (Uncertain)
20 Plaintiff’s FAC, and each and every cause of action asserted therein, is uncertain and allege
21 conclusions of law. (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(f).)
22 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 (Statute of Limitations)
24 Plaintiff’s FAC, and each of its causes of action, is barred by the applicable statute of
25 limitations including, but not limited to, Code of Civil Procedure Sections 335.1, 338, 340, and
26 343; Government Code Sections 12960 and 12965; the statute of limitations that applies to claims
27 brought under Labor Code Section 201, 202, 203 204, 210, 226(a), 226.7, 510, 512(a), 1194, 1197,
28 2
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 1197.1, 1198, 2800, and 2802; and the statute of limitations that applies to claims brought under
2 Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et. seq.
3 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 (Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies)
5 Plaintiff’s FAC, and each and every cause of action asserted therein, is barred (either in whole
6 or in part) to the extent Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies available to her.
7 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 (Limited By Scope Of Administrative Complaint)
9 Plaintiff’s FAC, and each and every cause of action asserted therein, is barred (either in whole
10 or in part) to the extent that it exceeds the scope of the applicable administrative complaint Plaintiff
11 filed with the FEHA, the Equal Opportunity Commission, and/or any other government agency, on
12 which the FAC appears to be based.
13 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (Not Employer)
15 Plaintiff’s FAC, and each and every cause of action asserted therein, is barred (either in
16 whole or in part) to the extent alleged against Defendant Linda Boden because Plaintiff was never
17 employed by Defendant Linda Boden.
18 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 (At-Will Employment)
20 Plaintiff’s FAC, and each and every cause of action asserted therein, is barred (either in
21 whole or in part) by Cal. Lab. Code § 2922. At all relevant times, Plaintiff’s employment with
22 Defendant Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC was “at-will” and could be terminated at any time—with
23 or without cause—by Defendant Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC.
24 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 (Waiver and Estoppel)
26 Plaintiff’s FAC, and each and every cause of action asserted therein, is barred (either in
27 whole or in part) because Plaintiff acknowledged and understood her status as an “at-will”
28 3
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 employee of Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC. As such, Claimant has waived her right to maintain the
2 causes of action asserted in the FAC and is estopped from asserting the theories of recovery set
3 forth therein. .
4 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5 (Good Faith)
6 Plaintiff’s FAC, and each and every cause of action asserted therein, is barred (either in whole
7 or in part) because Defendants acted with probable cause and with good faith belief that it had valid
8 grounds to take whatever actions were taken, if any.
9 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 (Business Necessity/Business Judgment)
11 Plaintiff’s FAC, and each and every cause of action asserted therein, is barred (either in whole
12 or in part) because (1) Defendants’ alleged acts and/or omissions (if any) affecting the terms or
13 conditions of Plaintiff’s employment were done in good faith and motivated by legitimate, non-
14 retaliatory and non-discriminatory reasons or as a result of business necessity; and (2) Defendants’
15 alleged acts and/or omissions (if any) regarding Plaintiff’s alleged employment were fair,
16 reasonable, necessary, and appropriate based on Respondents’ appropriate business judgment and the
17 Plaintiff’s conduct.
18 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 (Claimant’s Conduct)
20 The alleged events, injuries, losses, and damages contained in Plaintiff’s FAC were the
21 result of Plaintiff’s own misconduct, negligence, mistake, act, or omission and occurred without
22 any control, culpability, negligence, want of care, default, or other breach of duty to Plaintiff on the
23 part of Defendants.
24 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 (Preventative Measures)
26 At all relevant times hereto, Defendant Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC had established
27 policies and/or procedures strictly prohibiting retaliation, discrimination, and all other unlawful
28 4
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 conduct. Defendants exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct the alleged unlawful
2 conduct described in the FAC (if any). Defendants contend Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take
3 advantage of preventative and/or corrective opportunities provided by Defendants to avoid harm
4 otherwise.
5 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 (No Retaliation)
7 Each and every cause of action in Plaintiff’s FAC alleging retaliation is barred (either in
8 whole or in part) because Defendants did not retaliate against Plaintiff for allegedly engaging in a
9 protected activity (if any). Likewise, Defendants were not aware that Plaintiff had engaged in any
10 alleged protected activities.
11 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 (Unrelated to Protected Status or Activity)
13 Each and every cause of action in Plaintiff’s FAC premised upon an alleged adverse
14 employment action taken in response to an alleged protected activity on Plaintiff’s part is barred
15 (either in whole or in part) because Defendants would have taken the same action(s) even in the
16 absence of Plaintiff’s alleged engagement in protected activities (if any).
17 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 (Causation)
19 Concerning each and every cause of action set forth in the FAC, to the extent Claimant has
20 suffered damages and/or harm, Defendants’ alleged acts and/or omissions were not the legal cause
21 of said damages and/or harm (if any).
22 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 (Conduct Of Others)
24 If Plaintiff sustained injuries/damage (if any), said injuries/damages were caused (either in
25 whole or in part) by the alleged acts and/or omissions of persons or entities other than Defendants.
26 Moreover, these alleged acts and/or omissions were either unknown to Defendants at the time of
27 their commission or beyond the power and control of Defendants, and Defendants have not ratified
28 5
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 these alleged acts and/or omissions. Accordingly, should Plaintiff recover any amount of damages
2 against Defendants, and to the extent any damages were caused by or contributed by the conduct
3 of others, Defendants contend they are entitled to an abatement, reduction, or elimination of said
4 damages.
5 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 (Punitive Damages– No Malice, Fraud, or Oppression)
7 To the extent that Plaintiff’s FAC seeks exemplary/punitive damages, the FAC fails to set
8 forth facts sufficient to constitute a claim for punitive or exemplary damages because neither
9 Defendants nor their agents (if any) acted with malice, fraud, oppression, or any other state
10 sufficient to impose punitive or exemplary damages on Defendants.
11 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 (Unconstitutional Prayer for Punitive Damages)
13 To the extent that Plaintiff’s FAC seeks exemplary/punitive damages, such damages are
14 unconstitutional under the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
15 States Constitution and constitute an excessive penalty or fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
16 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (Attorney’s Fees and Costs)
18 Any claim for attorney’s fees is barred against Defendants because Plaintiff cannot fulfill
19 the requirements of any doctrine allowing attorney’s fees. Moreover, Defendants have engaged
20 attorneys to represent them in defense of Plaintiff’s frivolous, unfounded, and unreasonable action
21 and – upon judgment thereon in their favor - Respondents are entitled to an award of reasonable
22 attorneys’ fees and costs according to Cal Lab. Code § 218.5 and Cal. Code Civ. Proc., §1021.5.
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 6
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Unconstitutional Penalties)
3 Defendants deny that they have committed or have responsibility for any act that could
4 support recovery against them (if any). However, to the extent any such acts are found, Defendants
5 contend any such recovery is unconstitutional under numerous provisions of the United States
6 Constitution and the California Constitution, including the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth
7 Amendment, the Due Process clauses of the Fifth Amendment and Section 1 of the Fourteenth
8 Amendment and other provisions of the United States Constitution, and the Excessive Fines Clause
9 of Section 17 of Article I, the Due Process Clause of Section 7 of Article I and other provisions of
10 the California Constitution.
11 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 (Reduction of Civil Penalties)
13 If Plaintiff is entitled to recover any penalty against Defendants, such penalty must be
14 reduced because it would be unjust, arbitrary, oppressive, or confiscatory.
15 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 (Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity)
17 Plaintiff’s FAC, and each and every cause of action asserted therein, is barred (in whole or
18 in part) by the doctrine of workers’ compensation exclusivity.
19 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 (Same Decision)
21 Defendants would have taken the same action(s) even in the absence of Plaintiff’s alleged
22 engagement in protected activities (if any).
23 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 (Laches)
25 Plaintiff is barred from asserting each and every cause of action asserted in the FAC by the
26 doctrine of laches due to her delay in bringing her claims long after her separation from employment
27 with Defendant Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC. If Plaintiff had raised her concerns while she was
28 7
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 employed, Defendant Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC would have been able to investigate and correct
2 any legitimate claims.
3 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 (Failure to Mitigate)
5 Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages, and, accordingly, any damages to which she is
6 entitled by virtue of the causes of action alleged in the FAC should be proportionately reduced. This
7 failure to mitigate includes, but is not limited to, not utilizing internal procedures for addressing
8 pay discrepancies and waiting until well after separation from employment before first raising the
9 issues.
10 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 (Equitable Defenses to UCL Claim)
12 Plaintiff’s claim brought under Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. is
13 barred by equitable principles and defenses, including failure to mitigate, laches, and an adequate
14 remedy at law. If Plaintiffs had brought their claims to Defendant Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC
15 while she was still employed, Defendant Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC would have been able to
16 investigate and correct any legitimate claims.
17 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 (No Waiting Time Penalties or Liquidated Damages)
19 Plaintiff is not entitled to waiting time penalties or liquidated damages because Defendant
20 Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC did not fail, much less willfully fail, to pay any wages due, and
21 Defendant Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC acted in good faith, including in accordance with 8 C.C.R.
22 section 13520. Every time an individual raised any wage-related concern with Defendant Senior
23 Lifestyle Homes, LLC, it investigated the matter and made appropriate corrections. At all times
24 Defendant Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC believed it was correctly calculating and paying wages
25 due, if any.
26 ///
27 ///
28 8
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (No Actual Damage)
3 Even if Defendant Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC failed to comply with Labor Code section
4 226, which Defendant denies, Plaintiffs suffered no damage.
5 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 (Avoidable Consequences)
7 Any violations of meal or rest break period requirements, if any, could have been avoided
8 by Plaintiff with reasonable effort by taking the breaks offered to her.
9 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 (Setoff)
11 Defendants are entitled to partially or fully setoff any claimed wages allegedly owing to
12 Plaintiff insofar as Plaintiff has failed to work all of her reported hours but was paid for same.
13 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (Invalidity of Wage Order)
15 Defendants allege that the claims alleged in the FAC, or some of them, are barred because
16 the operative Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order is invalid or unenforceable under
17 applicable law.
18 THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 (Meal and Rest Periods Provided)
20 Plaintiff was provided meal and rest periods and has never been denied the right to take a
21 meal or rest period to which she was entitled.
22 THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 (Unclean Hands)
24 Each of Plaintiff’s claims are barred, and no relief may be obtained under the FAC, by
25 reason of the doctrine of unclean hands.
26 ///
27 ///
28 9
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Settlement/Release)
3 The FAC, and each and every purported cause of action contained therein, is barred in whole
4 or in part to the extent such causes of action have been settled, released, and/or are subject to a
5 separate accord and satisfaction.
6 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 (Additional Affirmative defenses)
8 Defendants reserve the right to amend this Answer as additional affirmative defenses
9 become known or available to Defendants.
10 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
11 WHEREFORE, Defendants pray as follows:
12 1. That Plaintiff takes nothing by the FAC and that judgment be entered in favor of Defendants;
13 2. That Defendants be awarded their costs of suit incurred in defense of this action, including,
14 but not limited to, attorney fees and expert witness fees, if any; and
15 3. For such other relief as the court deems just and proper.
16
17 Dated: May 20, 2024 BELDENT BLAINE RAYTIS, LLP
18
19 By: ______________________________
T. Scott Belden
20 Tyler D. Anthony
Attorneys for Defendants,
21 Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC and
Linda Boden
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 10
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF KERN
3 I am employed in the County of Kern, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not
a party to the within action. My business address is 5016 California Avenue, Suite 3, Bakersfield, California
4 93309, and my email address is coliver@bbr.law.
5 On May 20, 2024 I served the following document(s) described as
6 DEFENDANTS SENIOR LIFESTYLE HOMES, LLC, AND LINDA BODEN’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
7
on the interested parties in this action by placing a copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as
8 follows:
9 LOYR, APC Attorneys for Plaintiff
Attn: Kee Seok Mah, Esq. Veronica Vasquez
10 Young Ryu, Esq.
1055 W. 7th Street, Ste. 2290
11 Los Angeles, CA 90017
young.ryu@loywr.com
12 zach.moura@loywr.com
harley.phleger@loywr.com
13
kee.mah@loywr.com
14 jack.perez@loywr.com
mohammed.alsaffarini@loywr.com
15 roger.ricardez@loywr.com
martha.gutierrez@loywr.com
16
17 X BY MAIL I enclosed such document in sealed envelope(s) with the name(s) and address(s) of the
person(s) served as shown on the envelope(s) and caused such envelope(s) to be deposited in the mail
18 at Bakersfield, California. The envelope(s) was/were mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am
“readily familiar” with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It
19 is deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am
aware that on motion of party, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter
20 date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
21 x BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Upon the parties referenced above by transmitting an e-mail message
on the below date to the e-mail addresses above that included a .PDF attachment to the document(s)
22 served in accordance with the agreement between the parties and Section 1010.6 of the California
Code of Civil Procedure.
23
Executed on May 20, 2024, at Bakersfield, California.
24
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true
25 and correct.
26
27 Cindy Oliver
28 11
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Preview
1 T. Scott Belden (SBN 184387) scott@bbr.law 2 Tyler D. Anthony (SBN 305652) tyler@bbr.law 3 BELDEN BLAINE RAYTIS, LLP 5016 California Avenue, Suite 3 4 Bakersfield, California 93309 Telephone: (661) 864-7826 5 Facsimile: (661) 878-9797 6 Attorneys for Defendants Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC and 7 Linda Boden 8 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF KERN—METROPOLITAN DIVISION 10 VERONICA VASQUEZ, an individual Case No. BCV-24-100760 11 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS SENIOR LIFESTYLE HOMES, LLC, AND LINDA BODEN’S 12 v. ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 13 SENIOR LIFESTYLE HOMES, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; 14 LINDA BODEN, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Complaint Filed: March 1, 2024 15 Trial date: None Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Defendants Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC and Linda Boden (“Defendants”) hereby answer 2 the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) of Plaintiff Veronica Vasquez (“Plaintiff”), as follows: 3 GENERAL DENIAL 4 Pursuant to the provisions of section 431.30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, 5 Defendants generally and specifically deny each and every allegation set forth in Plaintiff’s FAC 6 and the whole thereof, including each purported cause of action therein. Defendants also deny 7 Plaintiff has been damaged in any sum (or at all) due to Defendants’ alleged conduct and/or 8 omissions. 9 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 10 As separate and affirmative defenses, and without admitting any of Plaintiff’s allegations 11 or conceding the burden of proof as to any issue found to be an element of any of Plaintiff’s causes 12 of action rather than an element of an affirmative defense, Defendants allege the following 13 affirmative defenses: 14 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 (Failure to State a Cause of Action) 16 Plaintiff’s FAC, and each and every cause of action asserted therein, fails to state facts 17 sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendants. 18 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 (Uncertain) 20 Plaintiff’s FAC, and each and every cause of action asserted therein, is uncertain and allege 21 conclusions of law. (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(f).) 22 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (Statute of Limitations) 24 Plaintiff’s FAC, and each of its causes of action, is barred by the applicable statute of 25 limitations including, but not limited to, Code of Civil Procedure Sections 335.1, 338, 340, and 26 343; Government Code Sections 12960 and 12965; the statute of limitations that applies to claims 27 brought under Labor Code Section 201, 202, 203 204, 210, 226(a), 226.7, 510, 512(a), 1194, 1197, 28 2 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 1197.1, 1198, 2800, and 2802; and the statute of limitations that applies to claims brought under 2 Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et. seq. 3 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 (Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies) 5 Plaintiff’s FAC, and each and every cause of action asserted therein, is barred (either in whole 6 or in part) to the extent Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies available to her. 7 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 (Limited By Scope Of Administrative Complaint) 9 Plaintiff’s FAC, and each and every cause of action asserted therein, is barred (either in whole 10 or in part) to the extent that it exceeds the scope of the applicable administrative complaint Plaintiff 11 filed with the FEHA, the Equal Opportunity Commission, and/or any other government agency, on 12 which the FAC appears to be based. 13 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (Not Employer) 15 Plaintiff’s FAC, and each and every cause of action asserted therein, is barred (either in 16 whole or in part) to the extent alleged against Defendant Linda Boden because Plaintiff was never 17 employed by Defendant Linda Boden. 18 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 (At-Will Employment) 20 Plaintiff’s FAC, and each and every cause of action asserted therein, is barred (either in 21 whole or in part) by Cal. Lab. Code § 2922. At all relevant times, Plaintiff’s employment with 22 Defendant Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC was “at-will” and could be terminated at any time—with 23 or without cause—by Defendant Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC. 24 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (Waiver and Estoppel) 26 Plaintiff’s FAC, and each and every cause of action asserted therein, is barred (either in 27 whole or in part) because Plaintiff acknowledged and understood her status as an “at-will” 28 3 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 employee of Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC. As such, Claimant has waived her right to maintain the 2 causes of action asserted in the FAC and is estopped from asserting the theories of recovery set 3 forth therein. . 4 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5 (Good Faith) 6 Plaintiff’s FAC, and each and every cause of action asserted therein, is barred (either in whole 7 or in part) because Defendants acted with probable cause and with good faith belief that it had valid 8 grounds to take whatever actions were taken, if any. 9 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 (Business Necessity/Business Judgment) 11 Plaintiff’s FAC, and each and every cause of action asserted therein, is barred (either in whole 12 or in part) because (1) Defendants’ alleged acts and/or omissions (if any) affecting the terms or 13 conditions of Plaintiff’s employment were done in good faith and motivated by legitimate, non- 14 retaliatory and non-discriminatory reasons or as a result of business necessity; and (2) Defendants’ 15 alleged acts and/or omissions (if any) regarding Plaintiff’s alleged employment were fair, 16 reasonable, necessary, and appropriate based on Respondents’ appropriate business judgment and the 17 Plaintiff’s conduct. 18 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 (Claimant’s Conduct) 20 The alleged events, injuries, losses, and damages contained in Plaintiff’s FAC were the 21 result of Plaintiff’s own misconduct, negligence, mistake, act, or omission and occurred without 22 any control, culpability, negligence, want of care, default, or other breach of duty to Plaintiff on the 23 part of Defendants. 24 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (Preventative Measures) 26 At all relevant times hereto, Defendant Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC had established 27 policies and/or procedures strictly prohibiting retaliation, discrimination, and all other unlawful 28 4 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 conduct. Defendants exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct the alleged unlawful 2 conduct described in the FAC (if any). Defendants contend Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take 3 advantage of preventative and/or corrective opportunities provided by Defendants to avoid harm 4 otherwise. 5 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (No Retaliation) 7 Each and every cause of action in Plaintiff’s FAC alleging retaliation is barred (either in 8 whole or in part) because Defendants did not retaliate against Plaintiff for allegedly engaging in a 9 protected activity (if any). Likewise, Defendants were not aware that Plaintiff had engaged in any 10 alleged protected activities. 11 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 (Unrelated to Protected Status or Activity) 13 Each and every cause of action in Plaintiff’s FAC premised upon an alleged adverse 14 employment action taken in response to an alleged protected activity on Plaintiff’s part is barred 15 (either in whole or in part) because Defendants would have taken the same action(s) even in the 16 absence of Plaintiff’s alleged engagement in protected activities (if any). 17 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (Causation) 19 Concerning each and every cause of action set forth in the FAC, to the extent Claimant has 20 suffered damages and/or harm, Defendants’ alleged acts and/or omissions were not the legal cause 21 of said damages and/or harm (if any). 22 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (Conduct Of Others) 24 If Plaintiff sustained injuries/damage (if any), said injuries/damages were caused (either in 25 whole or in part) by the alleged acts and/or omissions of persons or entities other than Defendants. 26 Moreover, these alleged acts and/or omissions were either unknown to Defendants at the time of 27 their commission or beyond the power and control of Defendants, and Defendants have not ratified 28 5 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 these alleged acts and/or omissions. Accordingly, should Plaintiff recover any amount of damages 2 against Defendants, and to the extent any damages were caused by or contributed by the conduct 3 of others, Defendants contend they are entitled to an abatement, reduction, or elimination of said 4 damages. 5 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (Punitive Damages– No Malice, Fraud, or Oppression) 7 To the extent that Plaintiff’s FAC seeks exemplary/punitive damages, the FAC fails to set 8 forth facts sufficient to constitute a claim for punitive or exemplary damages because neither 9 Defendants nor their agents (if any) acted with malice, fraud, oppression, or any other state 10 sufficient to impose punitive or exemplary damages on Defendants. 11 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 (Unconstitutional Prayer for Punitive Damages) 13 To the extent that Plaintiff’s FAC seeks exemplary/punitive damages, such damages are 14 unconstitutional under the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United 15 States Constitution and constitute an excessive penalty or fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 16 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (Attorney’s Fees and Costs) 18 Any claim for attorney’s fees is barred against Defendants because Plaintiff cannot fulfill 19 the requirements of any doctrine allowing attorney’s fees. Moreover, Defendants have engaged 20 attorneys to represent them in defense of Plaintiff’s frivolous, unfounded, and unreasonable action 21 and – upon judgment thereon in their favor - Respondents are entitled to an award of reasonable 22 attorneys’ fees and costs according to Cal Lab. Code § 218.5 and Cal. Code Civ. Proc., §1021.5. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 6 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Unconstitutional Penalties) 3 Defendants deny that they have committed or have responsibility for any act that could 4 support recovery against them (if any). However, to the extent any such acts are found, Defendants 5 contend any such recovery is unconstitutional under numerous provisions of the United States 6 Constitution and the California Constitution, including the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth 7 Amendment, the Due Process clauses of the Fifth Amendment and Section 1 of the Fourteenth 8 Amendment and other provisions of the United States Constitution, and the Excessive Fines Clause 9 of Section 17 of Article I, the Due Process Clause of Section 7 of Article I and other provisions of 10 the California Constitution. 11 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 (Reduction of Civil Penalties) 13 If Plaintiff is entitled to recover any penalty against Defendants, such penalty must be 14 reduced because it would be unjust, arbitrary, oppressive, or confiscatory. 15 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 (Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity) 17 Plaintiff’s FAC, and each and every cause of action asserted therein, is barred (in whole or 18 in part) by the doctrine of workers’ compensation exclusivity. 19 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 (Same Decision) 21 Defendants would have taken the same action(s) even in the absence of Plaintiff’s alleged 22 engagement in protected activities (if any). 23 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 (Laches) 25 Plaintiff is barred from asserting each and every cause of action asserted in the FAC by the 26 doctrine of laches due to her delay in bringing her claims long after her separation from employment 27 with Defendant Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC. If Plaintiff had raised her concerns while she was 28 7 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 employed, Defendant Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC would have been able to investigate and correct 2 any legitimate claims. 3 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 (Failure to Mitigate) 5 Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages, and, accordingly, any damages to which she is 6 entitled by virtue of the causes of action alleged in the FAC should be proportionately reduced. This 7 failure to mitigate includes, but is not limited to, not utilizing internal procedures for addressing 8 pay discrepancies and waiting until well after separation from employment before first raising the 9 issues. 10 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 (Equitable Defenses to UCL Claim) 12 Plaintiff’s claim brought under Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. is 13 barred by equitable principles and defenses, including failure to mitigate, laches, and an adequate 14 remedy at law. If Plaintiffs had brought their claims to Defendant Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC 15 while she was still employed, Defendant Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC would have been able to 16 investigate and correct any legitimate claims. 17 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (No Waiting Time Penalties or Liquidated Damages) 19 Plaintiff is not entitled to waiting time penalties or liquidated damages because Defendant 20 Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC did not fail, much less willfully fail, to pay any wages due, and 21 Defendant Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC acted in good faith, including in accordance with 8 C.C.R. 22 section 13520. Every time an individual raised any wage-related concern with Defendant Senior 23 Lifestyle Homes, LLC, it investigated the matter and made appropriate corrections. At all times 24 Defendant Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC believed it was correctly calculating and paying wages 25 due, if any. 26 /// 27 /// 28 8 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (No Actual Damage) 3 Even if Defendant Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC failed to comply with Labor Code section 4 226, which Defendant denies, Plaintiffs suffered no damage. 5 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (Avoidable Consequences) 7 Any violations of meal or rest break period requirements, if any, could have been avoided 8 by Plaintiff with reasonable effort by taking the breaks offered to her. 9 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 (Setoff) 11 Defendants are entitled to partially or fully setoff any claimed wages allegedly owing to 12 Plaintiff insofar as Plaintiff has failed to work all of her reported hours but was paid for same. 13 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (Invalidity of Wage Order) 15 Defendants allege that the claims alleged in the FAC, or some of them, are barred because 16 the operative Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order is invalid or unenforceable under 17 applicable law. 18 THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 (Meal and Rest Periods Provided) 20 Plaintiff was provided meal and rest periods and has never been denied the right to take a 21 meal or rest period to which she was entitled. 22 THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (Unclean Hands) 24 Each of Plaintiff’s claims are barred, and no relief may be obtained under the FAC, by 25 reason of the doctrine of unclean hands. 26 /// 27 /// 28 9 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Settlement/Release) 3 The FAC, and each and every purported cause of action contained therein, is barred in whole 4 or in part to the extent such causes of action have been settled, released, and/or are subject to a 5 separate accord and satisfaction. 6 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 (Additional Affirmative defenses) 8 Defendants reserve the right to amend this Answer as additional affirmative defenses 9 become known or available to Defendants. 10 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 11 WHEREFORE, Defendants pray as follows: 12 1. That Plaintiff takes nothing by the FAC and that judgment be entered in favor of Defendants; 13 2. That Defendants be awarded their costs of suit incurred in defense of this action, including, 14 but not limited to, attorney fees and expert witness fees, if any; and 15 3. For such other relief as the court deems just and proper. 16 17 Dated: May 20, 2024 BELDENT BLAINE RAYTIS, LLP 18 19 By: ______________________________ T. Scott Belden 20 Tyler D. Anthony Attorneys for Defendants, 21 Senior Lifestyle Homes, LLC and Linda Boden 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF KERN 3 I am employed in the County of Kern, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 5016 California Avenue, Suite 3, Bakersfield, California 4 93309, and my email address is coliver@bbr.law. 5 On May 20, 2024 I served the following document(s) described as 6 DEFENDANTS SENIOR LIFESTYLE HOMES, LLC, AND LINDA BODEN’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 7 on the interested parties in this action by placing a copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as 8 follows: 9 LOYR, APC Attorneys for Plaintiff Attn: Kee Seok Mah, Esq. Veronica Vasquez 10 Young Ryu, Esq. 1055 W. 7th Street, Ste. 2290 11 Los Angeles, CA 90017 young.ryu@loywr.com 12 zach.moura@loywr.com harley.phleger@loywr.com 13 kee.mah@loywr.com 14 jack.perez@loywr.com mohammed.alsaffarini@loywr.com 15 roger.ricardez@loywr.com martha.gutierrez@loywr.com 16 17 X BY MAIL I enclosed such document in sealed envelope(s) with the name(s) and address(s) of the person(s) served as shown on the envelope(s) and caused such envelope(s) to be deposited in the mail 18 at Bakersfield, California. The envelope(s) was/were mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am “readily familiar” with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It 19 is deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter 20 date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 21 x BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Upon the parties referenced above by transmitting an e-mail message on the below date to the e-mail addresses above that included a .PDF attachment to the document(s) 22 served in accordance with the agreement between the parties and Section 1010.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. 23 Executed on May 20, 2024, at Bakersfield, California. 24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true 25 and correct. 26 27 Cindy Oliver 28 11 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT