On October 08, 2014 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Cmgrp, Inc., D B A Weber Shandwick, A New York Cor,
Peoplebrowsr, Inc., A Delaware Corporation,
and
Cmgrp, Inc., D B A Weber Shandwick, A New York Cor,
for CONTRACT/WARRANTY
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
Nu
WILLIAM J. FRIMEL (Bar No. 160287)
bill@sffwlaw.com
Seubert French Frimel & Warner LLP
1075 Curtis Street
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Tel: 650.322.3048
Fax: 650.322.2976
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant
PEOPLEBROWSR, INC.
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
03/06/2015
Clerk of the Court
BY-WILLIAM TRUPEK
Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
PEOPLEBROWSR, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
CMGRP, INC., d/b/a WEBER
SHANDWICK, a New York corporation,
Defendant.
Case No. CGC-14-542102
PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT
PEOPLEBROWSR, INC,’S ANSWER TO
CMGRP, INC. D/B/A WEBER
SHANDWICK’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS.
COMPLAINT
CMGRP, INC., d/b/a WEBER
SHANDWICK, a New York corporation,
Cross-Complainant,
v.
PEOPLEBROWSR, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and ROES 1 through 10,
inclusive,
Cross-Defendants.
CROSS-DEFENDANT PEOPLEBROWSR, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT|Nu
Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant PeopleBrowsr, Inc. (“PeopleBrowsr”), for its Answer to the
First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) filed by Defendant and Cross-Complainant CMGRP,
Inc., d/b/a Weber Shandwick (“Weber Shandwick”), alleges as follows:
GENERAL DENIAL
Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 431.30(d), PeopleBrowsr denies each and every
material allegation of the FACC, and denies that Weber Shandwick is entitled to any of the relief
sought therein.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
First Affirmative Defense
The FACC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Second Affirmative Defense
The FACC is uncertain.
Third Affirmative Defense
Awarding Weber Shandwick the relief sought in the FACC would result in an unjust
enrichment.
Fourth Affirmative Defense
Weber Shandwick’s claims are barred by the equitable doctrine of estoppel.
Fifth Affirmative Defense
Weber Shandwick’s claims are barred by the equitable doctrine of waiver.
Sixth Affirmative Defense
Weber Shandwick’s claims are barred by the equitable doctrine of ratification.
Seventh Affirmative Defense
Weber Shandwick’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the limitations on damages
in the Insertion Order referenced in the FACC.
Eighth Affirmative Defense
Weber Shandwick’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the disclaimer of liability in
the Insertion Order referenced in the FACC.
CROSS-DEFENDANT PEOPLEBROWSR, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT|Ne
Ninth Affirmative Defense
The alleged injuries suffered by Weber Shandwick were the product of its own failure to
perform under the contract at issue and/or its own negligence.
Tenth Affirmative Defense
PeopleBrowstr’s alleged conduct did not actually or proximately cause the damages
alleged in the FACC.
Eleventh Affirmative Defense
Weber Shandwick is not entitled to attorneys’ fees under the Insertion Order.
Dated: March 6, 2015 Wb pf
WILLIAM J. FRIMEL’
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PEOPLEBROWSR INC.
-2-
CROSS-DEFENDANT PEOPLEBROWSR, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
Document Filed Date
March 06, 2015
Case Filing Date
October 08, 2014
Category
CONTRACT/WARRANTY
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Nu WILLIAM J. FRIMEL (Bar No. 160287) bill@sffwlaw.com Seubert French Frimel & Warner LLP 1075 Curtis Street Menlo Park, CA 94025 Tel: 650.322.3048 Fax: 650.322.2976 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant PEOPLEBROWSR, INC. ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 03/06/2015 Clerk of the Court BY-WILLIAM TRUPEK Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION PEOPLEBROWSR, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. CMGRP, INC., d/b/a WEBER SHANDWICK, a New York corporation, Defendant. Case No. CGC-14-542102 PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT PEOPLEBROWSR, INC,’S ANSWER TO CMGRP, INC. D/B/A WEBER SHANDWICK’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS. COMPLAINT CMGRP, INC., d/b/a WEBER SHANDWICK, a New York corporation, Cross-Complainant, v. PEOPLEBROWSR, INC., a Delaware corporation, and ROES 1 through 10, inclusive, Cross-Defendants. CROSS-DEFENDANT PEOPLEBROWSR, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT|Nu Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant PeopleBrowsr, Inc. (“PeopleBrowsr”), for its Answer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) filed by Defendant and Cross-Complainant CMGRP, Inc., d/b/a Weber Shandwick (“Weber Shandwick”), alleges as follows: GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 431.30(d), PeopleBrowsr denies each and every material allegation of the FACC, and denies that Weber Shandwick is entitled to any of the relief sought therein. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES First Affirmative Defense The FACC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Second Affirmative Defense The FACC is uncertain. Third Affirmative Defense Awarding Weber Shandwick the relief sought in the FACC would result in an unjust enrichment. Fourth Affirmative Defense Weber Shandwick’s claims are barred by the equitable doctrine of estoppel. Fifth Affirmative Defense Weber Shandwick’s claims are barred by the equitable doctrine of waiver. Sixth Affirmative Defense Weber Shandwick’s claims are barred by the equitable doctrine of ratification. Seventh Affirmative Defense Weber Shandwick’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the limitations on damages in the Insertion Order referenced in the FACC. Eighth Affirmative Defense Weber Shandwick’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the disclaimer of liability in the Insertion Order referenced in the FACC. CROSS-DEFENDANT PEOPLEBROWSR, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT|Ne Ninth Affirmative Defense The alleged injuries suffered by Weber Shandwick were the product of its own failure to perform under the contract at issue and/or its own negligence. Tenth Affirmative Defense PeopleBrowstr’s alleged conduct did not actually or proximately cause the damages alleged in the FACC. Eleventh Affirmative Defense Weber Shandwick is not entitled to attorneys’ fees under the Insertion Order. Dated: March 6, 2015 Wb pf WILLIAM J. FRIMEL’ Attorneys for Plaintiff PEOPLEBROWSR INC. -2- CROSS-DEFENDANT PEOPLEBROWSR, INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT