Answer: WHITNEY LEEMAN PHD VS. NEWEGG, INC ET AL

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Gordon & Rees LLP
101 W. Broadway Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101

BRIAN M. LEDGER (SBN: 156942)
GORDON & REES LLP

101 W. Broadway Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101 TILED
Telephone: (619) 696-6700 superior Gaus ores
‘mile: jor Court of California,
Facsimile: (619) 696-7124 County of San Francisco
01/08/2015

Attorneys for Defendants k of the Court
NEWEGG, INC., MAGNELL ASSOCIATE, INC., AND ROSEWILL, TS.uaressa wor
Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

WHITNEY R. LEEMAN, PH.D., CASE NO. CGC-14-542330
DEFENDANTS NEWEGG, INC.,
MAGNELL ASSOCIATE, INC., AND
ROSEWILL, INC.’S ANSWER TO
COMPLAINT

Plaintiff,
vs.

NEWEGG INC.; MAGNELL ASSOCIATE,
INC.; ROSEWILL, INC., and DOES 1-150,

eS

Defendant.

Defendants NEWEGG INC., MAGNELL ASSOCIATE, INC., and ROSEWILL, INC.
(hereinafter “DEFENDANTS”) answer the allegations of the Complaint of Plaintiff WHITNEY
R. LEEMAN, PH.D. (hereinafter “PLAINTIFF") as follows:

GENERAL DENIAL

1, DEFENDANTS deny generally and specifically each and every allegation and
cause of action of the Complaint in accordance with Section 431.30(d) of the California Code of
Civil Procedure. DEFENDANTS further deny that PLAINTIFF was damaged in the sum or
sums alleged, and further deny that PLAINTIFF is entitled to the relief sought against
DEFENDANTS, or otherwise, or to any relief whatsoever. Additionally, all Affirmative
Defenses are pleaded in the alternative, and do not constitute an admission of liability or that

PLAINTIFF is entitled to any relief whatsoever.

-l-
~DEFENDANTS* ANSWER TO COMPLAINTGordon & Rees LLP
101 W. Broadway Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted)
The Complaint, and each of its purported causes of action, fails to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action against DEFENDANTS.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(No Knowing or Intentional Exposure)

DEFENDANTS have not violated California Health and Safety Code Section 25249.6
because, in the course of doing business in California, they have not knowingly or intentionally
exposed any individual in the State of California to a significant amount of a chemical known to
the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(No Control Over Exposure)
The exposures of which PLAINTIFF complains involve acts and omissions of third
parties and/or are not within the reasonable ability of DEFENDANTS to control.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Compliance with the Applicable Laws)
All conduct and activity of DEFENDANTS alleged in the Complaint conformed to all
laws, government regulations, and industry standards based upon the state of knowledge existing

at all relevant times.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Due Process Violation)

To the extent PLAINTIFF purports to seek relief on behalf of members of the general
public who have suffered no damages, the Complaint and each of its claims for relief therein
violates the right of DEFENDANTS to due process under the California and U.S. Constitutions.
iff
//1

2-

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINTGordon & Rees LLP
101 W. Broadway Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Commerce Clause Violation)
PLAINTIFF seeks to apply California Health and Safety Code Section 25249.6 ina
manner that would pose an impermissible burden on interstate commerce under the U.S.
Constitution.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Statute of Limitations)

To the extent that PLAINTIFF’s claims are derived from allegations concerning
violations of Proposition 65, which has no specific statute of limitation provision of its own, the
applicable statute of limitation for such claims is that provided for by California Code of Civil
Procedure Sections 340(a) and/or 340(b), which bars such claims by PLAINTIFF.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Laches)

PLAINTIFF is barred by the doctrine of laches from asserting all of the claims in the

Complaint.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Good Faith Error and Absence of Intent or Knowledge)

The Complaint and each of its claims for relief therein are barred because
DEFENDANTS at all times acted in good faith and had no intention nor knowledge, nor any
reasonable grounds to know, that they allegedly exposed persons in California to significant
amounts of the substances at issue without providing clear and reasonable warnings.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Estoppel and Waiver)

The claims in the Complaint are barred by the doctrines of estoppel and/or waiver.

~ DEFENDANTS’ ANS

TO COMPLAINTGordon & Rees LLP
101 W. Broadway Suite 2000

San Diego, CA 92101

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Conduct Not Unlawful, Unfair, or Fraudulent)

The business practices and/or acts of DEFENDANTS as described in the Complaint
were, and are, neither unlawful, unfair, nor fraudulent.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Uncertainty)
The Complaint and each cause of action therein presented are vague, ambiguous, and
uncertain.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Basis for Injunctive Relief)
No threat of immediate harm exists sufficient to support a grant of injunctive relief.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Contributing Acts)

Any and all violations alleged in the Complaint were proximately caused or contributed
to by the acts, omissions, conduct, or products of parties other than DEFENDANTS and, for this
reason, the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against
DEFENDANTS.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Superceding Cause)

Any and all violations alleged in the Complaint were the result of superceding or
intervening causes arising from the acts or omissions of parties which DEFENDANTS neither
controlled nor had the legal right to control, and said violations were not proximately or
otherwise caused by any act, omission, or other conduct of DEFENDANTS.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statutory Exemption)

Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 25249. /0(c), any exposures as

alleged in the Complaint are exempt from the warning requirement of California Health and

Safety Code Section 25249.6 because, based on evidence and standards of comparable scientific

4.Gordon & Rees LLP
101 W. Broadway Suite 2000

San Diego, CA 92101

16
17

validity as those which form the scientific basis for listing pursuant to California Health and
Safety Code Section 25249.8(a) and 22 California Code of Regulations Section 12000, the
alleged exposure has no observable effect of reproductive harm assuming exposure at 1000 times
the level in question and the alleged exposure poses no significant risk of cancer.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Justification)
DEFENDANTS’ conduct was justified and in good faith.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Other Applicable Defenses)

DEFENDANTS hereby adopt and incorporate by this reference any and all other
affirmative defenses asserted or to be asserted by any other DEFENDANTS in this proceeding to
the extent DEFENDANTS may share in such affirmative defenses.

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Reservation of Rights to Assert Additional Defenses)

DEFENDANTS have not knowingly or voluntarily waived any applicable affirmative
defenses and reserve the right to assert and rely on such other applicable affirmative defenses as
may become available or apparent during discovery proceedings. DEFENDANTS further
reserve the right to amend its answer and/or affirmative defenses accordingly and/or to delete
affirmative defenses that it determines are not applicable during the course of subsequent
discovery.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Inadequate Notice under Proposition 65)
PLAINTIFF has failed to satisfy the notice requirements under California Health &
Safety Code section 25249.7.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, DEFENDANTS prays for Judgment as follows:
1. That PLAINTIFF takes nothing by reason of the Complaint or any claims stated

therein;

-5-
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINTSan Diego, CA 92101

Gordon & Rees LLP
101 W. Broadway Suite 2000

1101888/21743694y 1

2.

That the Complaint and each cause of action contained therein be dismissed

against DEFENDANTS with prejudice;

3. That DEFENDANTS recovers costs, disbursements, expenses, and attorneys’ fees
herein; and
4. That the Court grant such other and further relief as it may deem just and proper.
Dated: January 8, 2015 GORDON & REES LLP.
{
4
Pon

pO AN

7

. a
Attorney for Defends

NEWEGG, INC., MAGNELL
ASSOCIATE, INC., and
ROSEWILL, INC.

-6-
DEFENDANTS® ANSWER TO COMPLAINTGordon & Rees LLP
101 W. Broadway Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101
a

NEGG/1 101888/2183301 tv.

PROOF OF SERVICE

Iam a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party
to the within action. My business address is: Gordon & Rees LLP 101 W. Broadway Suite 2000,
San Diego, CA 92101. On January 8, 2015, I served the within documents:

e DEFENDANT NEWEGG, INC., MAGNELL ASSOCIATE, INC., AND
ROSEWILL, INC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

oOo by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set
orth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.

oO vy personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the
address(es) set forth below.

by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon
ully prepaid, in United States mail in the State of California at , addressed as set forth
low.

oO acing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, at a station designated
or collection and processing of envelopes and packages for overnight delivery by
FedEx as part of the ordinary business practices of Gordon & Rees LLP described
below, addressed as follows:

oO bye lacing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, at a station designated
for collection and processing of envelopes and packages for overnight delivery by

DHL as part of the ordinary business practices of Gordon & Rees LLP described

elow, addressed as follows:

by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, at a station designated
for collection and processing of envelopes and packages for overnight delivery by
Express Mail by U.S. post office as part of the ordinary business practices of Gordon
& Rees LLP described below, addressed as follows:

Brian C. Johnson

Josh Voorhees

The Chanler Group

2560 nonth street

Parker plaza, Suite 214
Berkeley, Ca 94710-2565
Tele: 510-848-8880

Fax: 510-848-8118

I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence|
for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same
day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. | am aware that on
motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage
meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
is true and correct.

Executed on January 8, 2015 at San Diego, California.

27 Monica L. Mims