Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
1 BARSAMIAN & MOODY County of Santa Barbara
A Professional Corporation Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
2 Ronald H. Barsamian (SBN 81531) 1/19/2024 4:01 PM
ronbarsamian@aol.com By: Michael Rosales , Deputy
J Patrick S. Moody (SBN 156928)
pmo o dy @t he e mpl oy er s I awfi r m. c o m
4 Seth G. Mehrten (SBN 292843)
s m e hr t e n@t h e e mpl oy e r s I awJir m. c o m
5 Catherine M. Houlihan (SBN 312113)
c ho ul i han@the e mp I oy e r s I awfi r m. c o m
6 1141 West Shaw Avenue, Suite #104
Fresno, California 937 II
7
Telephone: (559) 248-2360
8 Facsimile: (5 59) 248-237 0
Email : I ab orl aw @the empl oy er s I awfirm. c om
9
Attorneys for Defendant,
10 Adam Bros. Farming, Inc
l1
t2 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
t4
15 PEDRO SANTIAGO LOPEZ AKA SANTIAGO) Case No.: 23CV05165
LOPE7,; SAUL GALVEZ ROJAS, as individuals,)
T6 on behalf of themselves and others similarlv] CLASS ACTION')
situated, )
T7
l8 Plaintiff,
DEFENDANT ADAM BROS. l
vs' ) FARMING, INC.'S ANSWER TO
t9 ) PLAINTIFFS' CLASS ACTION
BS TRANSPLANT; ADAM BROS FARMING, ) COMPLAINT
20 INC.; AGRO-JAL FARMING ENTERPRISES; I
and DOES I thru 50, inclusive, )
2l )
Complaint Filed: November 16,2023
22 Defendants ]
23
24 Defendant, ADAM BROS. FARMING, fNC.("Defendant"), hereby answers Plaintiffs
25 Pedro Santiago Lopez AKA Santiago Lopez and Saul Galvez Rojas' ("Plaintiffs") unverified
26 Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein as follows:
27
ilt
28
DEFENDANT ADAM BROS. FARMING, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS'
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 GENERAL DENIAL
2 1. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), Defendant
J generally denies each and every allegation of each purported cause of action of Plaintiffs'
4 Complaint, and specifically denies that it has damaged Plaintiffs, the putative class members
5 andlor other individuals Plaintiffs purport to represent in the amounts alleged in the Complaint
6 or in any other amount whatsoever.
7 AFF'IRMATIVE DEFENSES
8 By way of further answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint, Defendant asserts the following
9 affirmative defenses:
10 First Affi rmative Defense
11
(Failure to State a Claim)
t2 2. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the
13
Complaint and each purported cause of action fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause
l4 of action or claim upon which relief can be granted.
15
Second Affirmative Defense
t6
(Statute of Limitations)
l7
3. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the
l8
Complaint, and each and every purported cause of action is barred by the applicable statute of
19
limitations to the extent they seek to recover for periods of time prior to the commencement of
20
the applicable statute of limitations, including, without limitation, Code of Civil Procedure
2l
section 335.1, Code of Civil Procedure section 338, Code of Civil Procedure section 340 and
22
Business and Professions Code section 17208. Furthermore, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs
23
misconstrue Rule 9(a) of the Emergency Rules Related to COVID- 19 which tolled civil actions
24
from April 6,2020, until October I,2020 and expired June 30, 2022in that such tolling under
25
Rule 9(a) is not applicable to this matter and does not extend the period of recovery as alleged
26
in the Complaint.
27
28
-2-
DEFENDANT ADAM BROS. FARMING, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS'
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Third Affi rmative Defense
2 (Unclean Hands)
J 4. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs,
4 the putative class members and/or other individuals Plaintiffs purport to represent are barred
5 from recovery by reason ofunclean hands.
6 Fourth Affi rm ative Defense
7 (Prior Settlement)
8 5. Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each and every alleged cause of
9 action related to alleged Labor Code violations are barred, settled andlor released, in whole
10
or in part, andlor recovery is precluded, in whole or in part, to the extent there are
l1 settlements, judgement and or resolutions in other legal actions brought against Defendant by
t2 or on behalf of Plaintiffs and/or the putative class members that Plaintiffs' purport to
13
represent..
I4
Fifth Affi rm ative Defense
15
(Offset)
t6
6. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Defendant
t7
is entitled to an oflset against any relief claimed by Plaintifls, putative class members andlor
18
other individuals Plaintiffs purport to represent for wages Defendant, BS TRANSPLANT and
r9
AGRO-JAL FARMING ENTERPRISES have paid Plaintiffs and other current and former
20
employees they purport to represent for time not worked or that otherwise is not required under
21
state law.
22
Sixth Affi rmative I)efense
z)
(Standing)
24
7. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint
25
and each alleged cause of action is barred because Plaintiffs, putative class members and/or
26
other individuals Plaintifls purport to represent lack standing as to all or a portion of the claims
27
alleged in the Complaint because they did not suffer an injury and therefore have no standing
28
-3-
DEFENDANT ADAM BROS. FARMING, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS'
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
I to sue.
2 Seventh Affirmative Defense
a
J (Third Party Act or Omission)
4 8. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that any
5 damages Plaintiffs, putative class members and/or other individuals Plaintiffs purport to
6 represent might have suffered were caused solely or in part by persons, firms, corporations or
7 entities other than Defendant and not by any act or omissions for which Defendant may be held
8 legally or equitably responsible.
9 Eighth Affirm ative Defense
10 (Not Knowing, Intentional, or Willful)
11
9. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that assuming,
t2 arguendo, that Plaintiffs, putative class members andlor other individuals Plaintiffs purport to
l3 represent are entitled to additional compensation, Defendant has not knowingly, intentionally
t4
or willfully failed to pay any such additional compensation to Plaintiffs, putative class
15
members andlor other individuals Plaintiffs purport to represent to justifu any awards, penalties
16
or fees.
t7
Ninth Affi rmative Defense
l8
(Good Faith)
t9
10. As a separate and distinct affrrmative defense, Defendant alleges that any
20
actions Defendant took with respect to Plaintiffs, putative class members and/or other
2l
individuals Plaintiffs purport to represent were in good faith and with reasonable grounds to
22
believe that such conduct comported with all applicable laws so that liquidated damages or
23
other penalties, including but not limited to, those alleged under Labor Code section2}3, Labor
24
Code section 226 and/or Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., would be
25
inappropriate in this case even should Plaintiffs, putative class members and/or other
26
individuals Plaintiffs purport to represent be entitled to any remedy, which Defendant denies.
27
28
-4-
DEFENDANT ADAM BROS. FARMING, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS'
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Tenth Affi rmative Defense
2 (Due Process)
J 11. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the
4 Complaint, and each and every alleged cause of action, is barred because the use of a class
5 action, based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, would constitute a denial of
6 Defendant's right to due process under the United States and California Constitutions.
7 Eleventh Affi rmative Defense
8 (Payment of Wages)
9 12. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the
10
Complaint and each purported cause of action fails to the extent that Plaintiffs, putative class
11
members andlor other individuals Plaintiffs purport to represent, have been compensated for
t2 all hours worked.
t3
Twelfth Affi rmative Defense
T4
(Failure to Mitigate Damages)
15
13. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the
r6
Complaint, and each purported cause of action is barred or any recovery should be reduced on
t7
the grounds that Plaintiffs, putative class members andlor other individuals Plaintiffs purport
18
to represent have failed to mitigate their alleged damages.
l9
Thirteenth Affi rmative Defense
20
(No Unreimbursed Business Expenses)
2I
14. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the
22
Complaint and each purported cause of action fails to the extent that BS TRANSPLANT,
23
Plaintiff and putative class members' employer, reimbursed its employees for the costs of
24
expenses incurred in the discharge of their duties andlor did not otherwise require them to bear
25
such costs andlor that Plaintiffs, putative class members andlor other individuals Plaintiffs
26
purport to represent failed to notiff their employer, BS TRANSPLANT, or Defendant, that
27
they had purchased any items in discharge of his or her duties andlor the items purchased were
28
5
DEFENDANT ADAM BROS. FARMING, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS'
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 not necessary expenditures.
2 Fourteenth Affi rmative Defense
a
J (Wage Statements)
4 15. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the
5 Complaint and each purported cause of action is barred to the extent that it fails to state a claim
6 for penalties under California Labor Code section 226, or otherwise, in that BS
7 TRANSPLANT's alleged failure to issue accurate wage statements, if any, was not knowing
8 or intentional and in any event is not a claim for which Defendant may be held liable.
9 Furthermore, Defendant has adopted and enforces a set of policies, procedures and practices
10
that fully comply with Labor Code section 226 and is informed and believes that BS
11
TRANSPLANT has also adopted and enforces a set of policies, procedures and practices that
t2 fully comply with Labor Code section226 and Plaintiffs, putative class members andlor other
13
individuals Plaintiffs purport to represent can promptly and easily determine from the wage
l4
statement all required information pursuant to Labor Code section226.
15
Fifteenth Affi rmative Defense
T6
(Arbitration Agreement)
l7
16. As a separate and affrrmative defense, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs have
18
agreed to arbitrate any and all of the purported claims asserted in the unverified Complaint.
I9
The filing of this Complaint violates such agreements to arbitrate and the Complaint should be
20
2T dismissed andlor stayed and Plaintiffs should be compelled to arbitrate.
22 Sixteenth Affirmative Defense
23 (Class Standing)
24 17. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that this suit
25 may not be properly maintained as a class action because: (i) Plaintiffs have failed to plead,
26 and cannot establish, the necessary procedural elements for class treatment; (ii) a class action
27 is not an appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims described in
28
6
DEFENDANT ADAM BROS. FARMING, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS'
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
I the Complaint; (iii) common issues of fact or law do not predominate; to the contrary individual
2 issues predominate; (iv) Plaintiffs' claims are not representative or typical of the claims of the
J putative class; (v) Plaintiffs are not a proper class representative; (vi) the named Plaintiffs and
4 alleged putative class counsel are not adequate representatives for the alleged putative class;
5 (vii) there is not a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law or fact affecting
6 Plaintiffs and the members of the alleged putative class; and (viii) the alleged putative class is
7 not ascertainable, nor are its members identifiable.
8 Seventeenth Affirm ative Defense
9 (No Unfair Business Practice)
10 18. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs
11
and the putative class members' claims under Business and Professions Code section 17200 et
t2 seq., are barred because the alleged practices are not unfair, the public is not likely to be
r3
deceived by any alleged practices, Defendant gained no competitive advantages by any such
t4
alleged practices, and the benefits of the alleged practices, if any, outweigh any harm or other
15
impact they might cause.
r6
Eighteenth Affi rm ative Defense
T7
(Established Meal & Rest Period Policies)
18
19. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs,
l9
the putative class members and/or other individuals Plaintiffs purport to represent were
20
authorized, permitted, and afforded the opportunity to take meal and rest periods in accordance
2t
with the applicable federal and state laws and regulations and any failure of Plaintiffs, and the
22
putative class members and/or other individuals Plaintiffs purport to represent, to take full meal
23
andlor rest periods was the result of the discretion and independent judgment of Plaintiffs, the
24
putative class members and/or other individuals Plaintiffs purport to represent, and not due to
25
any alleged failure by Defendant to provide compliant meal and rest periods.
26
27
28
-7 -
DEFENDANT ADAM BROS. FARMING, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS'
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Nineteenth Affi rmative Defense
2 (Failure to Plead with Sufficient Particularity)
J 20. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the
4 Complaint, and each purported cause of action, is barred because Plaintiffs failed to plead their
5 claims with suffrcient particularity to enable Defendant to allege all appropriate affirmative
6 defenses therefore, Defendant reseryes the right to allege additional affirmative defenses as
7 needed.
8
9 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays forjudgment as follows:
10
1. The Plaintiffs and the putative class members taking nothing by their claims in the
11
Complaint.
r2
2. That judgement be entered for Defendant;
13
3. That Defendant be awarded reasonable costs as provided by statute and attorneys'
t4
fees; and
15
4. That Defendant be awarded such other and further relief, general or special, either at
t6
law or in equity as the Court deems just and proper.
t7
18
DATED: January 19,2024
t9 BARSAMIAN & MOODY
A Professional Corporalion
20
2I By: Catherine M.
22
Attorneys for Defendant
ADAM BROS. FARMING, INC
23
24
25
26
27
28
-8-
DEFENDANT ADAM BROS. FARMING, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS'
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 Pedro Santiago Lopez AKA Santiago Lopez, et al., v. Bs Transplant, et al
Santa BarbaraCounty Superior Court, Case No.: 23CV05I65
J
4 I, Catherine Gallegos, declare as follows:
5 I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of Fresno. I am over
the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action. My business address is
6
1141 West ShawAvenue, Suite 104, Fresno, California 9371I-3704.
7
On January 19,2024,I served the within document(s) described as
8
a DEFENDANT ADAM BROS. FARMING, INC.'S ANSWER TO
9
PLAINTIFFS' CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
10
on each of the interested parties in this action, as addressed and by the method of service
11 indicated below, and as stated on the attached service list.
l2
X BY MAIL: I am familiar with my employer's practice for the collecting and
13
processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. I
served the foregoing document(s) by placing a true copy of the foregoing
I4 document(s) in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, with return
receipt requested, in the United States mail, at Fresno, California.
15
t6 BY UPS OVERNIGHT DELMRY: I served the foregoing document(s) by
personally delivering a true copy of the foregoing document(s) to a facility regularly
t7 maintained by United Parcel Service, a delivery service carrier, with delivery fees
paid or provided for.
18
t9 I By E-MAIL oR ELECTRONTC TRANSMISSTON: I served the foregoing
document(s) by causing a true copy of the foregoing document(s) to be sent from e-
20 mail address Laborlaw@TheEmployerslawFirm.com to the person(s) at the e-mail
address(es) listed on the Service List pursuant to CCP $1010.6; CCP $1013(g). I did
2t not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or
other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
22
23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct, andthat this declaration was executed on January 19,2024, at
24 Fresno, California.
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 SERVICE LIST
2 Counsel for Plaintiff: Counsel for Plaintiff:
a
J Eric B. Kingsley Edgar I. Aguilasocho
Liane Katzenstein Ly Mario Martinez
4
Iessica Bulaon MARTINEZ AGUILASOCHO LAW, INC.
5 KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC P.O. Box 1998
16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Bakersfield, California 93303
6 Encino, CA9I436
7 Courteslt E-Mail: Courteslt E-Mail:
e a guil a s o c ho
8
zr i c @Kings I ey Kin gs I ey. c o m @far mw or ker I aw. c om
I i an e @Kin g s I ey Kin gs I ey. c o m mmar tine z @farmw or ker I aw. c om
9 i
e s s i@Kings I ey Kings I ey. com
10
11
t2
13
t4
15
16
T7
18
I9
20
2T
22
z3
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California 1 BARSAMIAN & MOODY County of Santa Barbara A Professional Corporation Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer 2 Ronald H. Barsamian (SBN 81531) 1/19/2024 4:01 PM ronbarsamian@aol.com By: Michael Rosales , Deputy J Patrick S. Moody (SBN 156928) pmo o dy @t he e mpl oy er s I awfi r m. c o m 4 Seth G. Mehrten (SBN 292843) s m e hr t e n@t h e e mpl oy e r s I awJir m. c o m 5 Catherine M. Houlihan (SBN 312113) c ho ul i han@the e mp I oy e r s I awfi r m. c o m 6 1141 West Shaw Avenue, Suite #104 Fresno, California 937 II 7 Telephone: (559) 248-2360 8 Facsimile: (5 59) 248-237 0 Email : I ab orl aw @the empl oy er s I awfirm. c om 9 Attorneys for Defendant, 10 Adam Bros. Farming, Inc l1 t2 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA t4 15 PEDRO SANTIAGO LOPEZ AKA SANTIAGO) Case No.: 23CV05165 LOPE7,; SAUL GALVEZ ROJAS, as individuals,) T6 on behalf of themselves and others similarlv] CLASS ACTION') situated, ) T7 l8 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT ADAM BROS. l vs' ) FARMING, INC.'S ANSWER TO t9 ) PLAINTIFFS' CLASS ACTION BS TRANSPLANT; ADAM BROS FARMING, ) COMPLAINT 20 INC.; AGRO-JAL FARMING ENTERPRISES; I and DOES I thru 50, inclusive, ) 2l ) Complaint Filed: November 16,2023 22 Defendants ] 23 24 Defendant, ADAM BROS. FARMING, fNC.("Defendant"), hereby answers Plaintiffs 25 Pedro Santiago Lopez AKA Santiago Lopez and Saul Galvez Rojas' ("Plaintiffs") unverified 26 Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein as follows: 27 ilt 28 DEFENDANT ADAM BROS. FARMING, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 GENERAL DENIAL 2 1. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), Defendant J generally denies each and every allegation of each purported cause of action of Plaintiffs' 4 Complaint, and specifically denies that it has damaged Plaintiffs, the putative class members 5 andlor other individuals Plaintiffs purport to represent in the amounts alleged in the Complaint 6 or in any other amount whatsoever. 7 AFF'IRMATIVE DEFENSES 8 By way of further answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint, Defendant asserts the following 9 affirmative defenses: 10 First Affi rmative Defense 11 (Failure to State a Claim) t2 2. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the 13 Complaint and each purported cause of action fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause l4 of action or claim upon which relief can be granted. 15 Second Affirmative Defense t6 (Statute of Limitations) l7 3. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the l8 Complaint, and each and every purported cause of action is barred by the applicable statute of 19 limitations to the extent they seek to recover for periods of time prior to the commencement of 20 the applicable statute of limitations, including, without limitation, Code of Civil Procedure 2l section 335.1, Code of Civil Procedure section 338, Code of Civil Procedure section 340 and 22 Business and Professions Code section 17208. Furthermore, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs 23 misconstrue Rule 9(a) of the Emergency Rules Related to COVID- 19 which tolled civil actions 24 from April 6,2020, until October I,2020 and expired June 30, 2022in that such tolling under 25 Rule 9(a) is not applicable to this matter and does not extend the period of recovery as alleged 26 in the Complaint. 27 28 -2- DEFENDANT ADAM BROS. FARMING, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Third Affi rmative Defense 2 (Unclean Hands) J 4. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs, 4 the putative class members and/or other individuals Plaintiffs purport to represent are barred 5 from recovery by reason ofunclean hands. 6 Fourth Affi rm ative Defense 7 (Prior Settlement) 8 5. Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each and every alleged cause of 9 action related to alleged Labor Code violations are barred, settled andlor released, in whole 10 or in part, andlor recovery is precluded, in whole or in part, to the extent there are l1 settlements, judgement and or resolutions in other legal actions brought against Defendant by t2 or on behalf of Plaintiffs and/or the putative class members that Plaintiffs' purport to 13 represent.. I4 Fifth Affi rm ative Defense 15 (Offset) t6 6. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Defendant t7 is entitled to an oflset against any relief claimed by Plaintifls, putative class members andlor 18 other individuals Plaintiffs purport to represent for wages Defendant, BS TRANSPLANT and r9 AGRO-JAL FARMING ENTERPRISES have paid Plaintiffs and other current and former 20 employees they purport to represent for time not worked or that otherwise is not required under 21 state law. 22 Sixth Affi rmative I)efense z) (Standing) 24 7. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges the Complaint 25 and each alleged cause of action is barred because Plaintiffs, putative class members and/or 26 other individuals Plaintifls purport to represent lack standing as to all or a portion of the claims 27 alleged in the Complaint because they did not suffer an injury and therefore have no standing 28 -3- DEFENDANT ADAM BROS. FARMING, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT I to sue. 2 Seventh Affirmative Defense a J (Third Party Act or Omission) 4 8. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that any 5 damages Plaintiffs, putative class members and/or other individuals Plaintiffs purport to 6 represent might have suffered were caused solely or in part by persons, firms, corporations or 7 entities other than Defendant and not by any act or omissions for which Defendant may be held 8 legally or equitably responsible. 9 Eighth Affirm ative Defense 10 (Not Knowing, Intentional, or Willful) 11 9. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that assuming, t2 arguendo, that Plaintiffs, putative class members andlor other individuals Plaintiffs purport to l3 represent are entitled to additional compensation, Defendant has not knowingly, intentionally t4 or willfully failed to pay any such additional compensation to Plaintiffs, putative class 15 members andlor other individuals Plaintiffs purport to represent to justifu any awards, penalties 16 or fees. t7 Ninth Affi rmative Defense l8 (Good Faith) t9 10. As a separate and distinct affrrmative defense, Defendant alleges that any 20 actions Defendant took with respect to Plaintiffs, putative class members and/or other 2l individuals Plaintiffs purport to represent were in good faith and with reasonable grounds to 22 believe that such conduct comported with all applicable laws so that liquidated damages or 23 other penalties, including but not limited to, those alleged under Labor Code section2}3, Labor 24 Code section 226 and/or Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., would be 25 inappropriate in this case even should Plaintiffs, putative class members and/or other 26 individuals Plaintiffs purport to represent be entitled to any remedy, which Defendant denies. 27 28 -4- DEFENDANT ADAM BROS. FARMING, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Tenth Affi rmative Defense 2 (Due Process) J 11. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the 4 Complaint, and each and every alleged cause of action, is barred because the use of a class 5 action, based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, would constitute a denial of 6 Defendant's right to due process under the United States and California Constitutions. 7 Eleventh Affi rmative Defense 8 (Payment of Wages) 9 12. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the 10 Complaint and each purported cause of action fails to the extent that Plaintiffs, putative class 11 members andlor other individuals Plaintiffs purport to represent, have been compensated for t2 all hours worked. t3 Twelfth Affi rmative Defense T4 (Failure to Mitigate Damages) 15 13. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the r6 Complaint, and each purported cause of action is barred or any recovery should be reduced on t7 the grounds that Plaintiffs, putative class members andlor other individuals Plaintiffs purport 18 to represent have failed to mitigate their alleged damages. l9 Thirteenth Affi rmative Defense 20 (No Unreimbursed Business Expenses) 2I 14. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the 22 Complaint and each purported cause of action fails to the extent that BS TRANSPLANT, 23 Plaintiff and putative class members' employer, reimbursed its employees for the costs of 24 expenses incurred in the discharge of their duties andlor did not otherwise require them to bear 25 such costs andlor that Plaintiffs, putative class members andlor other individuals Plaintiffs 26 purport to represent failed to notiff their employer, BS TRANSPLANT, or Defendant, that 27 they had purchased any items in discharge of his or her duties andlor the items purchased were 28 5 DEFENDANT ADAM BROS. FARMING, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 not necessary expenditures. 2 Fourteenth Affi rmative Defense a J (Wage Statements) 4 15. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the 5 Complaint and each purported cause of action is barred to the extent that it fails to state a claim 6 for penalties under California Labor Code section 226, or otherwise, in that BS 7 TRANSPLANT's alleged failure to issue accurate wage statements, if any, was not knowing 8 or intentional and in any event is not a claim for which Defendant may be held liable. 9 Furthermore, Defendant has adopted and enforces a set of policies, procedures and practices 10 that fully comply with Labor Code section 226 and is informed and believes that BS 11 TRANSPLANT has also adopted and enforces a set of policies, procedures and practices that t2 fully comply with Labor Code section226 and Plaintiffs, putative class members andlor other 13 individuals Plaintiffs purport to represent can promptly and easily determine from the wage l4 statement all required information pursuant to Labor Code section226. 15 Fifteenth Affi rmative Defense T6 (Arbitration Agreement) l7 16. As a separate and affrrmative defense, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs have 18 agreed to arbitrate any and all of the purported claims asserted in the unverified Complaint. I9 The filing of this Complaint violates such agreements to arbitrate and the Complaint should be 20 2T dismissed andlor stayed and Plaintiffs should be compelled to arbitrate. 22 Sixteenth Affirmative Defense 23 (Class Standing) 24 17. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that this suit 25 may not be properly maintained as a class action because: (i) Plaintiffs have failed to plead, 26 and cannot establish, the necessary procedural elements for class treatment; (ii) a class action 27 is not an appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims described in 28 6 DEFENDANT ADAM BROS. FARMING, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT I the Complaint; (iii) common issues of fact or law do not predominate; to the contrary individual 2 issues predominate; (iv) Plaintiffs' claims are not representative or typical of the claims of the J putative class; (v) Plaintiffs are not a proper class representative; (vi) the named Plaintiffs and 4 alleged putative class counsel are not adequate representatives for the alleged putative class; 5 (vii) there is not a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law or fact affecting 6 Plaintiffs and the members of the alleged putative class; and (viii) the alleged putative class is 7 not ascertainable, nor are its members identifiable. 8 Seventeenth Affirm ative Defense 9 (No Unfair Business Practice) 10 18. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs 11 and the putative class members' claims under Business and Professions Code section 17200 et t2 seq., are barred because the alleged practices are not unfair, the public is not likely to be r3 deceived by any alleged practices, Defendant gained no competitive advantages by any such t4 alleged practices, and the benefits of the alleged practices, if any, outweigh any harm or other 15 impact they might cause. r6 Eighteenth Affi rm ative Defense T7 (Established Meal & Rest Period Policies) 18 19. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs, l9 the putative class members and/or other individuals Plaintiffs purport to represent were 20 authorized, permitted, and afforded the opportunity to take meal and rest periods in accordance 2t with the applicable federal and state laws and regulations and any failure of Plaintiffs, and the 22 putative class members and/or other individuals Plaintiffs purport to represent, to take full meal 23 andlor rest periods was the result of the discretion and independent judgment of Plaintiffs, the 24 putative class members and/or other individuals Plaintiffs purport to represent, and not due to 25 any alleged failure by Defendant to provide compliant meal and rest periods. 26 27 28 -7 - DEFENDANT ADAM BROS. FARMING, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Nineteenth Affi rmative Defense 2 (Failure to Plead with Sufficient Particularity) J 20. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the 4 Complaint, and each purported cause of action, is barred because Plaintiffs failed to plead their 5 claims with suffrcient particularity to enable Defendant to allege all appropriate affirmative 6 defenses therefore, Defendant reseryes the right to allege additional affirmative defenses as 7 needed. 8 9 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays forjudgment as follows: 10 1. The Plaintiffs and the putative class members taking nothing by their claims in the 11 Complaint. r2 2. That judgement be entered for Defendant; 13 3. That Defendant be awarded reasonable costs as provided by statute and attorneys' t4 fees; and 15 4. That Defendant be awarded such other and further relief, general or special, either at t6 law or in equity as the Court deems just and proper. t7 18 DATED: January 19,2024 t9 BARSAMIAN & MOODY A Professional Corporalion 20 2I By: Catherine M. 22 Attorneys for Defendant ADAM BROS. FARMING, INC 23 24 25 26 27 28 -8- DEFENDANT ADAM BROS. FARMING, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 Pedro Santiago Lopez AKA Santiago Lopez, et al., v. Bs Transplant, et al Santa BarbaraCounty Superior Court, Case No.: 23CV05I65 J 4 I, Catherine Gallegos, declare as follows: 5 I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of Fresno. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action. My business address is 6 1141 West ShawAvenue, Suite 104, Fresno, California 9371I-3704. 7 On January 19,2024,I served the within document(s) described as 8 a DEFENDANT ADAM BROS. FARMING, INC.'S ANSWER TO 9 PLAINTIFFS' CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 on each of the interested parties in this action, as addressed and by the method of service 11 indicated below, and as stated on the attached service list. l2 X BY MAIL: I am familiar with my employer's practice for the collecting and 13 processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. I served the foregoing document(s) by placing a true copy of the foregoing I4 document(s) in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, with return receipt requested, in the United States mail, at Fresno, California. 15 t6 BY UPS OVERNIGHT DELMRY: I served the foregoing document(s) by personally delivering a true copy of the foregoing document(s) to a facility regularly t7 maintained by United Parcel Service, a delivery service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for. 18 t9 I By E-MAIL oR ELECTRONTC TRANSMISSTON: I served the foregoing document(s) by causing a true copy of the foregoing document(s) to be sent from e- 20 mail address Laborlaw@TheEmployerslawFirm.com to the person(s) at the e-mail address(es) listed on the Service List pursuant to CCP $1010.6; CCP $1013(g). I did 2t not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 22 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, andthat this declaration was executed on January 19,2024, at 24 Fresno, California. 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 SERVICE LIST 2 Counsel for Plaintiff: Counsel for Plaintiff: a J Eric B. Kingsley Edgar I. Aguilasocho Liane Katzenstein Ly Mario Martinez 4 Iessica Bulaon MARTINEZ AGUILASOCHO LAW, INC. 5 KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC P.O. Box 1998 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Bakersfield, California 93303 6 Encino, CA9I436 7 Courteslt E-Mail: Courteslt E-Mail: e a guil a s o c ho 8 zr i c @Kings I ey Kin gs I ey. c o m @far mw or ker I aw. c om I i an e @Kin g s I ey Kin gs I ey. c o m mmar tine z @farmw or ker I aw. c om 9 i e s s i@Kings I ey Kings I ey. com 10 11 t2 13 t4 15 16 T7 18 I9 20 2T 22 z3 24 25 26 27 28 -1- PROOF OF SERVICE