Preview
1 ROD M. FLIEGEL, Bar No. 168289
rfliegel@littler.com
2 LISA LIN GARCIA, Bar No. 260582
llgarcia@littler.com
3 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
101 Second Street
4 Suite 1000
San Francisco, California 94105
5 Telephone: 415.433.1940
Fax No.: 415.399.8490
6
ELIZABETH STAGGS WILSON, Bar No. 183160
7 estaggs-wilson@littler.com
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
8 633 West 5th Street
63rd Floor
9 Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: 213.443.4300
10 Fax No.: 800.715.1330
11 ROBERT GEIGER, Bar No. 322914
rgeiger@littler.com
12 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
501 West Broadway
13 Suite 900
San Diego, California 92101
14 Telephone: 619.232.0441
Fax No.: 619.232.4302
15
Attorneys for Defendant
16 SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY
17
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
18
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
19
20
XZAIVER GARCIA, an individual and on behalf Case No. 24-CIV-01931
21 of all others similarly situated,
ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO
22 Plaintiff, JUDGE NICOLE S. HEALY DEPT. 28
23 v. DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER
COMPANY’S ANSWER TO
24 SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY, a PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION
California Corporation, doing business as
25 Recology Sunset Scavenger; and DOES 1 through COMPLAINT
100, inclusive,
26
Defendants. Complaint Filed: March 28, 2024
27
LITTLER 28
MENDELSON, P.C.
101 Second Street
Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO
San Francisco, CA
94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
415.433.1940
1 Defendant SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY (“Defendant”) hereby answers the Class
2 Action Complaint (“Complaint”) filed by Plaintiff XZAIVER GARCIA (“Plaintiff”) as follows:
3 GENERAL DENIAL
4 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, Defendant generally and
5 specifically denies each and every allegation in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and further denies that Plaintiff
6 or the putative class he seeks to represent are entitled to penalties, equitable or injunctive relief,
7 compensatory damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees, prejudgment interest, costs of suit, or any other
8 relief of any kind whatsoever.
9 Defendants’ general denial is based on the factual contentions which include, but are not
10 limited to, the following: (1) Defendant properly and timely paid employees, including Plaintiff, for
11 all wages owed, including but not limited to, overtime calculated at the proper regular rate of pay; (2)
12 Defendant properly provided employee, including Plaintiff, all meal and rest periods to which they
13 were entitled; (3) Defendant properly paid all wages to employees, including Plaintiff, during their
14 employment and all wages and vested and unused vacation time due on termination of employment to
15 terminated employees; (4) Defendant provided employees, including Plaintiff, with complete and
16 accurate wage statements; (5) Defendant did not engage in unlawful business acts or practices in
17 violation of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq.; (6) any alleged
18 misconduct by Defendants did not injure or otherwise damage employees, including Plaintiff; (7)
19 Plaintiff’s definitions of the proposed class is unreasonably broad; and (8) Plaintiff will be unable to
20 establish the prerequisites for class certification, including, but not limited to: standing, numerosity,
21 commonality (questions of law or fact common to the class), typicality (Plaintiff’s claims are typical
22 of the class), superiority (of the class action mechanism), and class action manageability (of the trial
23 plan).
24 Additionally, Defendant reserves its right to move to compel Plaintiff to arbitrate his claims
25 on an individual basis and to dismiss his class claims based on a binding arbitration agreement that
26 Plaintiff signed. Defendant further reserves its due process right to receive a determination regarding
27 class certification and contend that class certification is not appropriate in this instance.
LITTLER 28
MENDELSON, P.C.
101 Second Street
Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO
San Francisco, CA
94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
415.433.1940
1 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
2 In further answer to the Complaint, Defendant asserts the following affirmative and other
3 defenses, which apply to the Plaintiff’s or the putative class’s claims. By asserting these defenses,
4 Defendant does not concede that they have the burden of proof as to any such defense. To the extent
5 any defenses or legal theories asserted herein may be interpreted as being inconsistent, such defenses
6 and legal theories are pleaded in the alternative. Defendant does not presently know all the facts
7 concerning Plaintiff’s and the putative class’s conduct sufficient to state all defenses. Defendant will
8 seek leave to amend this Answer should it later discover facts demonstrating the existence of additional
9 defenses. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, and without waiving Plaintiff’s burden to
10 show otherwise, Defendant pleads as follows:
11 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 (FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM)
13 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause
14 of action set forth therein, or some of them, fail to state a claim sufficient to constitute a cause of action
15 upon which relief may be granted.
16 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (WAIVER)
18 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause
19 of action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine
20 of waiver.
21 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 (UNCLEAN HANDS)
23 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause
24 of action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine
25 of unclean hands.
26
27
LITTLER 28
MENDELSON, P.C.
101 Second Street
3
Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO
San Francisco, CA
94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
415.433.1940
1 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (CONSENT)
3 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause
4 of action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine
5 of consent.
6 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 (ESTOPPEL)
8 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause
9 of action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine
10 of estoppel.
11 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 (LACHES)
13 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause
14 of action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine
15 of laches.
16 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (UNJUST ENRICHMENT)
18 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause
19 of action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine
20 of unjust enrichment.
21 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL/RES JUDICATA)
23 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause
24 of action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of collateral
25 estoppel and res judicata.
26
27
LITTLER 28
MENDELSON, P.C.
101 Second Street
4
Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO
San Francisco, CA
94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
415.433.1940
1 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (RELEASE)
3 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant asserts the Complaint and each cause
4 of action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that Plaintiff
5 and members of the putative class released Defendant from liability or recovery as to any claims
6 alleged in the Complaint.
7 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 (ACCORD AND SATISFACTION)
9 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges Plaintiff’s claims fail because
10 Plaintiff and members of the putative class have been fully paid all amounts legally owed by Defendant
11 and are barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction, and by accepting the payments made to them,
12 Plaintiff and members of the putative class effectuated an accord and satisfaction of their claims.
13 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)
15 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause
16 of action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes
17 of limitations, including, but not limited to, the statute of limitations set forth in California Code of
18 Civil Procedure sections 338(a), 340, 1194.2, and California Business and Professions Code section
19 17208.
20 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 (GOOD FAITH)
22 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause
23 of action set forth therein cannot be maintained because, without admitting that any violation took
24 place, any violation of the Labor Code or Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission was not
25 knowingly, willfully, intentionally done, and was an act or omission made in good faith because there
26 exists a good-faith dispute as to whether further compensation is due, Defendant had reasonable
27 grounds for believing that its wage payment practices complied with applicable laws and that any act
LITTLER 28
MENDELSON, P.C.
101 Second Street
5
Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO
San Francisco, CA
94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
415.433.1940
1 or omission was not a violation of the Labor Code or any Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission,
2 such that Plaintiff and the putative class are not entitled to any recovery in excess of any wages and
3 are not entitled to any liquidated damages.
4 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5 (AVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCES)
6 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause
7 of action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of avoidable
8 consequences. Plaintiff or the putative class or both failed to use preventative and corrective
9 opportunities provided by Defendant. Reasonable use of such procedures would have prevented at
10 least some harm Plaintiff or the putative class allegedly suffered.
11 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 (LABOR CODE § 226 - NO INJURY AND NO KNOWING AND INTENTIONAL FAILURE)
13 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that, assuming arguendo
14 Plaintiff and the putative class were not provided with a compliant statement of wages, they are not
15 entitled to recover damages or penalties because they were not “injured” thereby and because
16 Defendant’s alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code section 226(a) was not a “knowing
17 and intentional failure” under California Labor Code section 226(e).
18 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(DEFENDANT MAINTAINED ACCURATE PAYROLL RECORDS AND PROVIDED
19 WAGE STATEMENTS THAT ACCURATELY REPORTED THE HOURS AND RATES IN
20 EFFECT)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that any underlying claims
21
for failure to maintain accurate payroll records and/or for penalties pursuant to Labor Code section
22
226 are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff and the putative class were provided wage
23
statements that accurately set forth the amount of the wages they received as well as the hours and
24
rates that were used to calculate such wages, and thus, Plaintiff’s wage statement and payroll records
25
maintenance claims fail under Maldonado v. Epsilon Plastics, Inc., 22 Cal.App.5th 1308 (2018).
26
27
LITTLER 28
MENDELSON, P.C.
101 Second Street
6
Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO
San Francisco, CA
94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
415.433.1940
1 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (BONA FIDE DISPUTE)
3 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s claims for
4 penalties are barred, in whole or in part, because (1) there are bona fide disputes as to whether
5 Defendant failed to timely pay all wages due, (2) Defendant has not willfully failed to pay such
6 compensation, if any is owed; and (3) there are bona fide disputes as to whether Defendant failed to
7 present wage statements on a timely basis.
8 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 (WAITING TIME PENALTIES – SECRETED OR ABSENTED)
10 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges any claims for penalties
11 pursuant to California Labor Code section 203 are barred to the extent that Plaintiff and the putative
12 class secreted or absented themselves to avoid payment of wages, thereby relieving Defendant of
13 liability for waiting time penalties under the California Labor Code, including but not limited to
14 California Labor Codes sections 201, 202, and 203.
15 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 (WAITING TIME PENALTIES – STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)
17 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges any claims for penalties
18 pursuant to California Labor Code section 203 are barred, in whole or in part, by the statute of
19 limitations, as any claim stopped accruing upon the filing of the Complaint.
20 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 (CREDIT AND OFFSET)
22 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges it is entitled to an offset
23 against any relief due Plaintiff and the putative class based upon their respective wrongful conduct or
24 monies owed to Defendant, including, but not limited to, any overpayments related to the work they
25 performed.
26
27
LITTLER 28
MENDELSON, P.C.
101 Second Street
7
Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO
San Francisco, CA
94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
415.433.1940
1 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (MEAL BREAKS – EXEMPTION)
3 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that to the extent Plaintiff or
4 the putative class meet the requirements under California Labor Code section 512(e) pertaining to
5 commercial driver because (1) they are covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement and (2) the
6 collective bargaining agreement expressly provides for the wages, hours of work, and working
7 conditions of employees, and expressly provides for meal periods for those employees, final and
8 binding arbitration of disputes concerning application of its meal period provisions, premium wage
9 rates for all overtime hours worked, and a regular hourly rate of pay of not less than 30 percent more
10 than the state minimum wage rate, the meal break requirements under California law do not apply to
11 them.
12 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 (FAILURE TO TAKE MEAL OR REST BREAKS PROVIDED UNDER THE LAW)
14 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges Plaintiff and the putative class
15 have no right to a premium payment under California Labor Code section 226.7 because to the extent,
16 any person did not take meal or rest breaks, it was because they (1) failed to take breaks that were
17 provided to them in compliance with California law; (2) chose not to take breaks that were authorized
18 and permitted; or (3) waived their right to meal breaks under California Labor Code section 512(a) or
19 applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission.
20 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 (MEAL BREAKS – NO AUTOMATIC LIABILITY)
22 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that to the extent Plaintiff, or
23 the putative class have time records that appear to show missed, short, or delayed meal periods,
24 automatic liability does not result, because Plaintiff and the putative class were either compensated
25 for noncompliant meal periods or were provided compliant meal periods during which they chose to
26 work. See Donohue v. AMN Servs., LLC, 11 Cal.5th 58, 77 (2021).
27
LITTLER 28
MENDELSON, P.C.
101 Second Street
8
Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO
San Francisco, CA
94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
415.433.1940
1 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (LABOR CODE §§ 226.7 AND 512 - VIOLATE EQUAL PROTECTION)
3 As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause of
4 action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred, in whole or in part, because California Labor
5 Code sections 226.7 and 512 violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States and California
6 Constitution because they arbitrarily and unjustly exempt certain employers and employees to the
7 exclusion of others without a rational basis for such unequal application of the law.
8 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 (OVERTIME – CBA EXEMPTION)
10 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges to the extent Plaintiff or the
11 putative class meet the requirements under California Labor Code section 514, the requirements under
12 California Labor Code sections 510 and 511 do not apply to them.
13 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (ALTERNATIVE WORKWEEK SCHEDULE)
15 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that to the extent Plaintiff or
16 the putative class worked under an alternative workweek schedule, such alternative workweek
17 schedule has complied with the California Labor Code, the applicable IWC Wage Order(s) and/or the
18 applicable collective bargaining agreement(s).
19 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 (OVERTIME – EXEMPTION)
21 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause
22 of action set forth therein, or some of them, fail because Plaintiff and the putative class are not due
23 any overtime under California law because their work for Defendant met the requirements set forth in
24 Section 3(L)(1) and/or 3(L)(2) of the applicable IWC Wage Order.
25
26
27
LITTLER 28
MENDELSON, P.C.
101 Second Street
9
Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO
San Francisco, CA
94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
415.433.1940
1 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (PAID SICK LEAVE – EXEMPTION)
3 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges to the extent Plaintiff or the
4 putative class meet the requirements under California Labor Code section 245.5(a), the requirements
5 under California Labor Code sections 246 et seq. do not apply to them.
6 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 (VACATION – CBA)
8 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges to the extent Plaintiff or the
9 putative class are covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement, the terms and payment of vested
10 vacation is governed by such collective bargaining agreement as provided under California Labor
11 Code section 227.3.
12 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 (LABOR CODE SECTION 204 – NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION)
14 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s claims under
15 California Labor Code section 204 are barred because there is no private right of action for such claim.
16 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (FEDERAL EXEMPTION)
18 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause
19 of action set forth therein, or some of them, fail because they are barred or preempted, in whole or in
20 part, by federal law, including, but not limited to, the Motor Carrier Act, the Federal Aviation
21 Administration Authorization Act of 2004, and/or the Employment Retirement Income Security Act
22 of 1974 (“ERISA”).
23 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 (NO KNOWLEDGE OF WORK)
25 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action set
26 forth therein, or some of them, Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff or members of the putative class
27 “worked” hours for which compensation was not paid, Defendant had no knowledge, or reason to
LITTLER 28
MENDELSON, P.C.
101 Second Street
10
Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO
San Francisco, CA
94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
415.433.1940
1 know, of such “work” and such “work” was undertaken without the consent or permission of
2 Defendant.
3 THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 (DE MINIMIS)
5 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported cause of
6 action therein, Defendant alleges Plaintiff and the putative class are barred from recovering damages
7 or penalties because even if Plaintiff establishes such claims, Plaintiff’s claims involve activities that
8 are so irregular or brief in duration that it would not be reasonable to require Defendant to compensate
9 Plaintiff or the putative class for the time they allegedly spent on it. See Troester v. Starbucks Corp.,
10 5 Cal. 5th 829, 835 (2018).
11 THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 (LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF)
13 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint, and each and
14 every cause of action alleged therein, fail to state a claim for an award of liquidated damages, costs,
15 or attorneys’ fees under California Labor Code sections 203, 218.5, 226, 1194, 1194.2(a), and
16 California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq., or any other basis.
17 THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 (ARBITRATION – EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR PLAINTIFF)
19 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense Defendant alleges the Complaint and each and
20 every cause of action alleged therein, of some of them, fails, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff is
21 subject to an arbitration agreement in which he agreed to litigate any claims pertaining to his
22 employment with Defendant and separation of such employment, including those individual claims
23 asserted in this action, to binding individual arbitration, and, therefore, his class claims must be
24 dismissed, and the exclusive remedy for Plaintiff’s remaining claims is through final and binding
25 arbitration on an individual basis.
26
27
LITTLER 28
MENDELSON, P.C.
101 Second Street
11
Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO
San Francisco, CA
94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
415.433.1940
1 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (ARBITRATION – EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS)
3 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense Defendant alleges the Complaint and each and
4 every cause of action alleged therein, of some of them, fail, in whole or in part, to the extent any
5 putative class members contracted to submit any claims arising out of their employment with
6 Defendant and separation of such employment to binding individual arbitration, and, therefore, their
7 exclusive remedy is through final and binding arbitration.
8 THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT – PREEMPTION)
10 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense Defendant alleges the Complaint and each and
11 every cause of action alleged therein, or some of them, is substantially dependent on analysis of one
12 or more collective bargaining agreement that governs the employment of Plaintiff and members of the
13 putative class and is therefore preempted by section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act,
14 29 U.S.C. § 185(a).
15 THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT – FAILURE TO EXHAUST)
17 The Complaint, and each and every cause of action alleged therein, is barred, in whole or in
18 part, because Plaintiff and the putative class failed to exhaust any applicable administrative, arbitral,
19 and/or contractual procedures and/or remedies, or otherwise properly perfect a right of action against
20 Defendant as required under one or more collective bargaining agreement applicable to them.
21 THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 (WAGE ORDERS – VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS)
23 As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause of
24 action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred, in whole or in part, because the applicable Wage
25 Orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission are unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous and violate
26 Defendant’s rights under the United States Constitution and the California Constitution as to, among
27 other things, due process of law.
LITTLER 28
MENDELSON, P.C.
101 Second Street
12
Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO
San Francisco, CA
94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
415.433.1940
1 THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (ACTIONS BY AGENTS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF AUTHORITY)
3 As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that claims in the Complaint cannot
4 be maintained against Defendant because if employees of Defendant (including Plaintiff) took the
5 actions alleged, such actions were committed outside the course and scope of such employees’
6 employment, were not authorized, adopted or ratified by Defendant, and Defendant did not know of
7 nor should it have known of such conduct.
8 FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 (PENALTIES – EXCESSIVE FINES)
10 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that any claims for penalties
11 are barred, in whole or in part, because such claims violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of
12 the United States Constitution and Article 1, §§ 7 and 8 of the California Constitution, including the
13 prohibition against excessive fines and punishment. See Timbs v. Indiana, 139 S. Ct. 682 (2019)
14 (Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment prohibits the government from imposing
15 “excessive fines” as punishment); United States v. Mackby, 261 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 2001) (civil
16 sanctions under False Claims Act should be analyzed under “the Excessive Fines Clause because the
17 sanctions represent a payment to the government, at least in part, as punishment.”); City & Cty. of San
18 Francisco v. Sainez, 77 Cal. App. 4th 1302, 1321 (2000) (applying the prohibition of excessive fines
19 to penalties imposed under California’s Building Code: “The law is settled that a civil penalty such as
20 the one here, by virtue of its partially punitive purpose, is a fine for purposes of the constitutional
21 protection.”).
22 FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 (ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW)
24 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff and the putative
25 class are not entitled to equitable relief insofar as they have an adequate remedy at law and are not
26 entitled to any relief with respect to any and all alleged violations of California Business and
27 Professions Code section 17200, et seq. that have discontinued, ceased, and are not likely to recur.
LITTLER 28
MENDELSON, P.C.
101 Second Street
13
Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO
San Francisco, CA
94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
415.433.1940
1 FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (CLAIMS BARRED WHERE VIOLATIONS HAVE DISCONTINUED)
3 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the ninth cause of action
4 for recovery in the form of restitution, disgorgement, or injunctive relief under California Business
5 and Professions Code section 17200, et seq., is barred with respect to any alleged violations that have
6 been discontinued, ceased, or are not likely to recur.
7 FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 (INJUNCTIVE RELIEF – LACK OF STANDING)
9 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff lacks standing
10 to pursue injunctive relief. Plaintiff was, and still is, a former employee at the time this action was
11 filed. Because injunctive relief is only proper when the individual requesting relief is being affected
12 by the acts for which injunctive relief is sought, injunctive relief is improper in this case. See Wal-
13 Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (reasoning that former employees have no standing
14 to assert claims for declaratory or injunctive relief).
15 ADDITIONAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
16 Defendant presently has insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as
17 to whether additional, as yet unstated, defenses may be warranted and reserve the right to assert
18 additional defenses or affirmative defenses in the event discovery indicates such defenses are
19 appropriate.
20 \\\
21 \\\
22 \\\
23 \\\
24 \\\
25 \\\
26 \\\
27 \\\
LITTLER 28
MENDELSON, P.C.
101 Second Street
14
Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO
San Francisco, CA
94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
415.433.1940
1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows:
3 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by this action;
4 2. That the Complaint be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice;
5 3. That judgment be entered on the Complaint in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on
6 all causes of action;
7 4. That the Court award Defendant their costs of suit and attorneys’ fees incurred herein,
8 including but not limited to attorneys’ fees and costs provided under California Labor Code
9 section 218.5; and
10 5. Defendant be awarded such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
11 Dated: May 20, 2024
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
12
13
14 ROD M. FLIEGEL
LISA LIN GARCIA
15 ELIZABETH STAGGS WILSON
ROBERT M. GEIGER
16
Attorneys for Defendant
17 SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
LITTLER 28
MENDELSON, P.C.
101 Second Street
15
Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO
San Francisco, CA
94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
415.433.1940
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over
the age of 18 years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is LITTLER
3 MENDELSON, P.C., 101 Second Street, Suite 1000, San Francisco, CA 94105.
4 On May 20, 2024, I served the foregoing document(s) described as:
5
• DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
6 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
7 on the interested parties addressed as follows:
8 David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
9 BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Boulevard
10 Los Angeles, California 90024
11 Emails: david@tomorrowlaw.com
jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
12
Attorney for Plaintiff
13 XZAIVER GARCIA
14
VIA U.S. MAIL: I caused the document(s) addressed to the person(s) at the
15 address(es) listed above and for collection and mailing, following our ordinary
business practices. I am readily familiar with Littler Mendelson, P.C.’s practice
16 for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
17
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
18 foregoing is true and correct.
19 Executed on May 20, 2024, at San Francisco, California.
20
21
22 Joanna Venegas
23 4885-5553-7587.2 / 016440-2898
24
25
26
27
LITTLER 28
MENDELSON, P.C.
101 Second Street
16
Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO
San Francisco, CA
94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
415.433.1940
Preview
1 ROD M. FLIEGEL, Bar No. 168289 rfliegel@littler.com 2 LISA LIN GARCIA, Bar No. 260582 llgarcia@littler.com 3 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street 4 Suite 1000 San Francisco, California 94105 5 Telephone: 415.433.1940 Fax No.: 415.399.8490 6 ELIZABETH STAGGS WILSON, Bar No. 183160 7 estaggs-wilson@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 8 633 West 5th Street 63rd Floor 9 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: 213.443.4300 10 Fax No.: 800.715.1330 11 ROBERT GEIGER, Bar No. 322914 rgeiger@littler.com 12 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 501 West Broadway 13 Suite 900 San Diego, California 92101 14 Telephone: 619.232.0441 Fax No.: 619.232.4302 15 Attorneys for Defendant 16 SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY 17 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 18 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 19 20 XZAIVER GARCIA, an individual and on behalf Case No. 24-CIV-01931 21 of all others similarly situated, ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO 22 Plaintiff, JUDGE NICOLE S. HEALY DEPT. 28 23 v. DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO 24 SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY, a PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION California Corporation, doing business as 25 Recology Sunset Scavenger; and DOES 1 through COMPLAINT 100, inclusive, 26 Defendants. Complaint Filed: March 28, 2024 27 LITTLER 28 MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO San Francisco, CA 94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 415.433.1940 1 Defendant SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY (“Defendant”) hereby answers the Class 2 Action Complaint (“Complaint”) filed by Plaintiff XZAIVER GARCIA (“Plaintiff”) as follows: 3 GENERAL DENIAL 4 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, Defendant generally and 5 specifically denies each and every allegation in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and further denies that Plaintiff 6 or the putative class he seeks to represent are entitled to penalties, equitable or injunctive relief, 7 compensatory damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees, prejudgment interest, costs of suit, or any other 8 relief of any kind whatsoever. 9 Defendants’ general denial is based on the factual contentions which include, but are not 10 limited to, the following: (1) Defendant properly and timely paid employees, including Plaintiff, for 11 all wages owed, including but not limited to, overtime calculated at the proper regular rate of pay; (2) 12 Defendant properly provided employee, including Plaintiff, all meal and rest periods to which they 13 were entitled; (3) Defendant properly paid all wages to employees, including Plaintiff, during their 14 employment and all wages and vested and unused vacation time due on termination of employment to 15 terminated employees; (4) Defendant provided employees, including Plaintiff, with complete and 16 accurate wage statements; (5) Defendant did not engage in unlawful business acts or practices in 17 violation of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq.; (6) any alleged 18 misconduct by Defendants did not injure or otherwise damage employees, including Plaintiff; (7) 19 Plaintiff’s definitions of the proposed class is unreasonably broad; and (8) Plaintiff will be unable to 20 establish the prerequisites for class certification, including, but not limited to: standing, numerosity, 21 commonality (questions of law or fact common to the class), typicality (Plaintiff’s claims are typical 22 of the class), superiority (of the class action mechanism), and class action manageability (of the trial 23 plan). 24 Additionally, Defendant reserves its right to move to compel Plaintiff to arbitrate his claims 25 on an individual basis and to dismiss his class claims based on a binding arbitration agreement that 26 Plaintiff signed. Defendant further reserves its due process right to receive a determination regarding 27 class certification and contend that class certification is not appropriate in this instance. LITTLER 28 MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO San Francisco, CA 94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 415.433.1940 1 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 2 In further answer to the Complaint, Defendant asserts the following affirmative and other 3 defenses, which apply to the Plaintiff’s or the putative class’s claims. By asserting these defenses, 4 Defendant does not concede that they have the burden of proof as to any such defense. To the extent 5 any defenses or legal theories asserted herein may be interpreted as being inconsistent, such defenses 6 and legal theories are pleaded in the alternative. Defendant does not presently know all the facts 7 concerning Plaintiff’s and the putative class’s conduct sufficient to state all defenses. Defendant will 8 seek leave to amend this Answer should it later discover facts demonstrating the existence of additional 9 defenses. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, and without waiving Plaintiff’s burden to 10 show otherwise, Defendant pleads as follows: 11 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 (FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM) 13 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause 14 of action set forth therein, or some of them, fail to state a claim sufficient to constitute a cause of action 15 upon which relief may be granted. 16 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (WAIVER) 18 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause 19 of action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine 20 of waiver. 21 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 (UNCLEAN HANDS) 23 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause 24 of action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine 25 of unclean hands. 26 27 LITTLER 28 MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street 3 Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO San Francisco, CA 94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 415.433.1940 1 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (CONSENT) 3 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause 4 of action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine 5 of consent. 6 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 (ESTOPPEL) 8 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause 9 of action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine 10 of estoppel. 11 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 (LACHES) 13 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause 14 of action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine 15 of laches. 16 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (UNJUST ENRICHMENT) 18 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause 19 of action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine 20 of unjust enrichment. 21 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL/RES JUDICATA) 23 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause 24 of action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of collateral 25 estoppel and res judicata. 26 27 LITTLER 28 MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street 4 Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO San Francisco, CA 94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 415.433.1940 1 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (RELEASE) 3 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant asserts the Complaint and each cause 4 of action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that Plaintiff 5 and members of the putative class released Defendant from liability or recovery as to any claims 6 alleged in the Complaint. 7 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 (ACCORD AND SATISFACTION) 9 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges Plaintiff’s claims fail because 10 Plaintiff and members of the putative class have been fully paid all amounts legally owed by Defendant 11 and are barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction, and by accepting the payments made to them, 12 Plaintiff and members of the putative class effectuated an accord and satisfaction of their claims. 13 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS) 15 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause 16 of action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes 17 of limitations, including, but not limited to, the statute of limitations set forth in California Code of 18 Civil Procedure sections 338(a), 340, 1194.2, and California Business and Professions Code section 19 17208. 20 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 (GOOD FAITH) 22 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause 23 of action set forth therein cannot be maintained because, without admitting that any violation took 24 place, any violation of the Labor Code or Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission was not 25 knowingly, willfully, intentionally done, and was an act or omission made in good faith because there 26 exists a good-faith dispute as to whether further compensation is due, Defendant had reasonable 27 grounds for believing that its wage payment practices complied with applicable laws and that any act LITTLER 28 MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street 5 Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO San Francisco, CA 94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 415.433.1940 1 or omission was not a violation of the Labor Code or any Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, 2 such that Plaintiff and the putative class are not entitled to any recovery in excess of any wages and 3 are not entitled to any liquidated damages. 4 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5 (AVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCES) 6 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause 7 of action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of avoidable 8 consequences. Plaintiff or the putative class or both failed to use preventative and corrective 9 opportunities provided by Defendant. Reasonable use of such procedures would have prevented at 10 least some harm Plaintiff or the putative class allegedly suffered. 11 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 (LABOR CODE § 226 - NO INJURY AND NO KNOWING AND INTENTIONAL FAILURE) 13 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that, assuming arguendo 14 Plaintiff and the putative class were not provided with a compliant statement of wages, they are not 15 entitled to recover damages or penalties because they were not “injured” thereby and because 16 Defendant’s alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code section 226(a) was not a “knowing 17 and intentional failure” under California Labor Code section 226(e). 18 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (DEFENDANT MAINTAINED ACCURATE PAYROLL RECORDS AND PROVIDED 19 WAGE STATEMENTS THAT ACCURATELY REPORTED THE HOURS AND RATES IN 20 EFFECT) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that any underlying claims 21 for failure to maintain accurate payroll records and/or for penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 22 226 are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff and the putative class were provided wage 23 statements that accurately set forth the amount of the wages they received as well as the hours and 24 rates that were used to calculate such wages, and thus, Plaintiff’s wage statement and payroll records 25 maintenance claims fail under Maldonado v. Epsilon Plastics, Inc., 22 Cal.App.5th 1308 (2018). 26 27 LITTLER 28 MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street 6 Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO San Francisco, CA 94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 415.433.1940 1 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (BONA FIDE DISPUTE) 3 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s claims for 4 penalties are barred, in whole or in part, because (1) there are bona fide disputes as to whether 5 Defendant failed to timely pay all wages due, (2) Defendant has not willfully failed to pay such 6 compensation, if any is owed; and (3) there are bona fide disputes as to whether Defendant failed to 7 present wage statements on a timely basis. 8 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 (WAITING TIME PENALTIES – SECRETED OR ABSENTED) 10 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges any claims for penalties 11 pursuant to California Labor Code section 203 are barred to the extent that Plaintiff and the putative 12 class secreted or absented themselves to avoid payment of wages, thereby relieving Defendant of 13 liability for waiting time penalties under the California Labor Code, including but not limited to 14 California Labor Codes sections 201, 202, and 203. 15 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 (WAITING TIME PENALTIES – STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS) 17 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges any claims for penalties 18 pursuant to California Labor Code section 203 are barred, in whole or in part, by the statute of 19 limitations, as any claim stopped accruing upon the filing of the Complaint. 20 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 (CREDIT AND OFFSET) 22 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges it is entitled to an offset 23 against any relief due Plaintiff and the putative class based upon their respective wrongful conduct or 24 monies owed to Defendant, including, but not limited to, any overpayments related to the work they 25 performed. 26 27 LITTLER 28 MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street 7 Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO San Francisco, CA 94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 415.433.1940 1 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (MEAL BREAKS – EXEMPTION) 3 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that to the extent Plaintiff or 4 the putative class meet the requirements under California Labor Code section 512(e) pertaining to 5 commercial driver because (1) they are covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement and (2) the 6 collective bargaining agreement expressly provides for the wages, hours of work, and working 7 conditions of employees, and expressly provides for meal periods for those employees, final and 8 binding arbitration of disputes concerning application of its meal period provisions, premium wage 9 rates for all overtime hours worked, and a regular hourly rate of pay of not less than 30 percent more 10 than the state minimum wage rate, the meal break requirements under California law do not apply to 11 them. 12 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 (FAILURE TO TAKE MEAL OR REST BREAKS PROVIDED UNDER THE LAW) 14 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges Plaintiff and the putative class 15 have no right to a premium payment under California Labor Code section 226.7 because to the extent, 16 any person did not take meal or rest breaks, it was because they (1) failed to take breaks that were 17 provided to them in compliance with California law; (2) chose not to take breaks that were authorized 18 and permitted; or (3) waived their right to meal breaks under California Labor Code section 512(a) or 19 applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission. 20 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 (MEAL BREAKS – NO AUTOMATIC LIABILITY) 22 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that to the extent Plaintiff, or 23 the putative class have time records that appear to show missed, short, or delayed meal periods, 24 automatic liability does not result, because Plaintiff and the putative class were either compensated 25 for noncompliant meal periods or were provided compliant meal periods during which they chose to 26 work. See Donohue v. AMN Servs., LLC, 11 Cal.5th 58, 77 (2021). 27 LITTLER 28 MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street 8 Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO San Francisco, CA 94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 415.433.1940 1 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (LABOR CODE §§ 226.7 AND 512 - VIOLATE EQUAL PROTECTION) 3 As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause of 4 action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred, in whole or in part, because California Labor 5 Code sections 226.7 and 512 violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States and California 6 Constitution because they arbitrarily and unjustly exempt certain employers and employees to the 7 exclusion of others without a rational basis for such unequal application of the law. 8 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 (OVERTIME – CBA EXEMPTION) 10 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges to the extent Plaintiff or the 11 putative class meet the requirements under California Labor Code section 514, the requirements under 12 California Labor Code sections 510 and 511 do not apply to them. 13 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (ALTERNATIVE WORKWEEK SCHEDULE) 15 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that to the extent Plaintiff or 16 the putative class worked under an alternative workweek schedule, such alternative workweek 17 schedule has complied with the California Labor Code, the applicable IWC Wage Order(s) and/or the 18 applicable collective bargaining agreement(s). 19 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 (OVERTIME – EXEMPTION) 21 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause 22 of action set forth therein, or some of them, fail because Plaintiff and the putative class are not due 23 any overtime under California law because their work for Defendant met the requirements set forth in 24 Section 3(L)(1) and/or 3(L)(2) of the applicable IWC Wage Order. 25 26 27 LITTLER 28 MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street 9 Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO San Francisco, CA 94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 415.433.1940 1 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (PAID SICK LEAVE – EXEMPTION) 3 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges to the extent Plaintiff or the 4 putative class meet the requirements under California Labor Code section 245.5(a), the requirements 5 under California Labor Code sections 246 et seq. do not apply to them. 6 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 (VACATION – CBA) 8 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges to the extent Plaintiff or the 9 putative class are covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement, the terms and payment of vested 10 vacation is governed by such collective bargaining agreement as provided under California Labor 11 Code section 227.3. 12 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 (LABOR CODE SECTION 204 – NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION) 14 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s claims under 15 California Labor Code section 204 are barred because there is no private right of action for such claim. 16 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (FEDERAL EXEMPTION) 18 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause 19 of action set forth therein, or some of them, fail because they are barred or preempted, in whole or in 20 part, by federal law, including, but not limited to, the Motor Carrier Act, the Federal Aviation 21 Administration Authorization Act of 2004, and/or the Employment Retirement Income Security Act 22 of 1974 (“ERISA”). 23 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 (NO KNOWLEDGE OF WORK) 25 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action set 26 forth therein, or some of them, Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff or members of the putative class 27 “worked” hours for which compensation was not paid, Defendant had no knowledge, or reason to LITTLER 28 MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street 10 Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO San Francisco, CA 94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 415.433.1940 1 know, of such “work” and such “work” was undertaken without the consent or permission of 2 Defendant. 3 THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 (DE MINIMIS) 5 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported cause of 6 action therein, Defendant alleges Plaintiff and the putative class are barred from recovering damages 7 or penalties because even if Plaintiff establishes such claims, Plaintiff’s claims involve activities that 8 are so irregular or brief in duration that it would not be reasonable to require Defendant to compensate 9 Plaintiff or the putative class for the time they allegedly spent on it. See Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 10 5 Cal. 5th 829, 835 (2018). 11 THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 (LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF) 13 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint, and each and 14 every cause of action alleged therein, fail to state a claim for an award of liquidated damages, costs, 15 or attorneys’ fees under California Labor Code sections 203, 218.5, 226, 1194, 1194.2(a), and 16 California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq., or any other basis. 17 THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (ARBITRATION – EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR PLAINTIFF) 19 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense Defendant alleges the Complaint and each and 20 every cause of action alleged therein, of some of them, fails, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff is 21 subject to an arbitration agreement in which he agreed to litigate any claims pertaining to his 22 employment with Defendant and separation of such employment, including those individual claims 23 asserted in this action, to binding individual arbitration, and, therefore, his class claims must be 24 dismissed, and the exclusive remedy for Plaintiff’s remaining claims is through final and binding 25 arbitration on an individual basis. 26 27 LITTLER 28 MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street 11 Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO San Francisco, CA 94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 415.433.1940 1 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (ARBITRATION – EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS) 3 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense Defendant alleges the Complaint and each and 4 every cause of action alleged therein, of some of them, fail, in whole or in part, to the extent any 5 putative class members contracted to submit any claims arising out of their employment with 6 Defendant and separation of such employment to binding individual arbitration, and, therefore, their 7 exclusive remedy is through final and binding arbitration. 8 THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT – PREEMPTION) 10 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense Defendant alleges the Complaint and each and 11 every cause of action alleged therein, or some of them, is substantially dependent on analysis of one 12 or more collective bargaining agreement that governs the employment of Plaintiff and members of the 13 putative class and is therefore preempted by section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 14 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). 15 THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT – FAILURE TO EXHAUST) 17 The Complaint, and each and every cause of action alleged therein, is barred, in whole or in 18 part, because Plaintiff and the putative class failed to exhaust any applicable administrative, arbitral, 19 and/or contractual procedures and/or remedies, or otherwise properly perfect a right of action against 20 Defendant as required under one or more collective bargaining agreement applicable to them. 21 THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 (WAGE ORDERS – VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS) 23 As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint and each cause of 24 action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred, in whole or in part, because the applicable Wage 25 Orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission are unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous and violate 26 Defendant’s rights under the United States Constitution and the California Constitution as to, among 27 other things, due process of law. LITTLER 28 MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street 12 Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO San Francisco, CA 94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 415.433.1940 1 THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (ACTIONS BY AGENTS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF AUTHORITY) 3 As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that claims in the Complaint cannot 4 be maintained against Defendant because if employees of Defendant (including Plaintiff) took the 5 actions alleged, such actions were committed outside the course and scope of such employees’ 6 employment, were not authorized, adopted or ratified by Defendant, and Defendant did not know of 7 nor should it have known of such conduct. 8 FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 (PENALTIES – EXCESSIVE FINES) 10 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that any claims for penalties 11 are barred, in whole or in part, because such claims violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of 12 the United States Constitution and Article 1, §§ 7 and 8 of the California Constitution, including the 13 prohibition against excessive fines and punishment. See Timbs v. Indiana, 139 S. Ct. 682 (2019) 14 (Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment prohibits the government from imposing 15 “excessive fines” as punishment); United States v. Mackby, 261 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 2001) (civil 16 sanctions under False Claims Act should be analyzed under “the Excessive Fines Clause because the 17 sanctions represent a payment to the government, at least in part, as punishment.”); City & Cty. of San 18 Francisco v. Sainez, 77 Cal. App. 4th 1302, 1321 (2000) (applying the prohibition of excessive fines 19 to penalties imposed under California’s Building Code: “The law is settled that a civil penalty such as 20 the one here, by virtue of its partially punitive purpose, is a fine for purposes of the constitutional 21 protection.”). 22 FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW) 24 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff and the putative 25 class are not entitled to equitable relief insofar as they have an adequate remedy at law and are not 26 entitled to any relief with respect to any and all alleged violations of California Business and 27 Professions Code section 17200, et seq. that have discontinued, ceased, and are not likely to recur. LITTLER 28 MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street 13 Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO San Francisco, CA 94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 415.433.1940 1 FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (CLAIMS BARRED WHERE VIOLATIONS HAVE DISCONTINUED) 3 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the ninth cause of action 4 for recovery in the form of restitution, disgorgement, or injunctive relief under California Business 5 and Professions Code section 17200, et seq., is barred with respect to any alleged violations that have 6 been discontinued, ceased, or are not likely to recur. 7 FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 (INJUNCTIVE RELIEF – LACK OF STANDING) 9 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff lacks standing 10 to pursue injunctive relief. Plaintiff was, and still is, a former employee at the time this action was 11 filed. Because injunctive relief is only proper when the individual requesting relief is being affected 12 by the acts for which injunctive relief is sought, injunctive relief is improper in this case. See Wal- 13 Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (reasoning that former employees have no standing 14 to assert claims for declaratory or injunctive relief). 15 ADDITIONAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 16 Defendant presently has insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as 17 to whether additional, as yet unstated, defenses may be warranted and reserve the right to assert 18 additional defenses or affirmative defenses in the event discovery indicates such defenses are 19 appropriate. 20 \\\ 21 \\\ 22 \\\ 23 \\\ 24 \\\ 25 \\\ 26 \\\ 27 \\\ LITTLER 28 MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street 14 Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO San Francisco, CA 94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 415.433.1940 1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 2 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows: 3 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by this action; 4 2. That the Complaint be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice; 5 3. That judgment be entered on the Complaint in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on 6 all causes of action; 7 4. That the Court award Defendant their costs of suit and attorneys’ fees incurred herein, 8 including but not limited to attorneys’ fees and costs provided under California Labor Code 9 section 218.5; and 10 5. Defendant be awarded such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 11 Dated: May 20, 2024 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 12 13 14 ROD M. FLIEGEL LISA LIN GARCIA 15 ELIZABETH STAGGS WILSON ROBERT M. GEIGER 16 Attorneys for Defendant 17 SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LITTLER 28 MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street 15 Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO San Francisco, CA 94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 415.433.1940 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is LITTLER 3 MENDELSON, P.C., 101 Second Street, Suite 1000, San Francisco, CA 94105. 4 On May 20, 2024, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: 5 • DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S 6 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 7 on the interested parties addressed as follows: 8 David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. 9 BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard 10 Los Angeles, California 90024 11 Emails: david@tomorrowlaw.com jeff@tomorrowlaw.com 12 Attorney for Plaintiff 13 XZAIVER GARCIA 14 VIA U.S. MAIL: I caused the document(s) addressed to the person(s) at the 15 address(es) listed above and for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with Littler Mendelson, P.C.’s practice 16 for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. 17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 18 foregoing is true and correct. 19 Executed on May 20, 2024, at San Francisco, California. 20 21 22 Joanna Venegas 23 4885-5553-7587.2 / 016440-2898 24 25 26 27 LITTLER 28 MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street 16 Suite 1000 DEFENDANT SUNSET SCAVENGER COMPANY’S ANSWER TO San Francisco, CA 94105 PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 415.433.1940