arrow left
arrow right
  • Vishal Mangla vs Vivos IT, LLC et al Other Collections Unlimited (09)  document preview
  • Vishal Mangla vs Vivos IT, LLC et al Other Collections Unlimited (09)  document preview
  • Vishal Mangla vs Vivos IT, LLC et al Other Collections Unlimited (09)  document preview
  • Vishal Mangla vs Vivos IT, LLC et al Other Collections Unlimited (09)  document preview
  • Vishal Mangla vs Vivos IT, LLC et al Other Collections Unlimited (09)  document preview
  • Vishal Mangla vs Vivos IT, LLC et al Other Collections Unlimited (09)  document preview
  • Vishal Mangla vs Vivos IT, LLC et al Other Collections Unlimited (09)  document preview
  • Vishal Mangla vs Vivos IT, LLC et al Other Collections Unlimited (09)  document preview
						
                                

Preview

Gregory J. Wood (200780) Denise Mejlszenkier (215166) Keegan Royal-Eisenberg (318700) WOOD ROBBINS, LLP One Post St., Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 247-7900 Facsimile: (415) 247-7901 gwood@woodrobbins.com dmejlszenkier@woodrobbins.com kroyal@woodrobbins.com Attorneys for Defendants VIVOS IT, LLC, US IT SOLUTIONS, INC., and 360 IT PROFESSIONALS, INC. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA VISHAL MANGLA Case No.: 19CV342424 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS VIVOS IT, LLC , US IT SOLUTIONS, INC. 360 IT v. PROFESSIONALS, INC. ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF VISHAL MANGLA’S VIVOS IT, LLC, a Virginia limited liability COMPLAINT company, US IT SOLUTIONS, INC., a California corporation, 360 IT PROFESSIONALS, INC., a California corporation, SURESH BOYAPATI, SURESH VENKAT DOKI, NAVEEN DOKI, SENRYO INC. (doing business under an assumed name SENRYO TECHNOLOGIES), an Illinois corporation, CELERUS CONSULTING, a business entity of unknown form, and Complaint Filed: Feb. 1, 2019 DOES 1 - 100., Trial Date: None Defendant Defendants VIVOS IT, LLC(“V IVOS IT , US IT SOLUTIONS, INC.(“US , and 360 IT PROFESSIONALS, INC. (“360 ”) (collectively “Defendants”) hereby answers the unverified Complaint filed by plaintiff VISHAL MANGLA (“Plaintiff”) as follows: Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30, subdivision (d), Answering Defendants hereby deny generally and specifically, all and singular, each and every ANSWER TO COMPLAINT, CASE NO. 19CV342424 allegation contained in the Complaint and den that Plaintiff has been damaged in any sum, manner or at all. Answering Defendants also assert the following Affirmative Defenses against Plaintiff FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Failure to State A Cause of Action Plaintiff’s complaint and each and every separate cause of action therein fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Answering Defendant SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Good Faith Any alleged transfer by and/or to Answering Defendants was done in good faith. Accordingly, the Complaint and each and every cause of action asserted therein should be dismissed. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Reasonably Equivalent Value Each and every claim and cause of action alleged against Answering Defendants is barred, in whole or in part, because VIVOS IT, US IT and 360 IT received greater and/or reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfers alleged in the Complaint. Accordingly, the alleged transfers described in the Complaint are neither avoidable nor recoverable and the Complaint and each and every cause of action asserted therein should be dismissed. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Permissible Preference Under Civil Code Each and every claim and cause of action alleged against Answering Defendants is barred, in whole or in part, because any alleged transfer by Answering Defendant was a permissible preference in payment to a creditor. Accordingly, the Complaint andeach and every cause of action asserted therein should be dismissed. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT, CASE NO. 19CV342424 FIFTHAFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Limited Remedies Under California Civil Code § 3439.07 Plaintiff’s remedies for any alleged UVTA violation are limited to equitable remedies such as avoidance, attachment, an injunction, or appointment of a receiver. Plaintiff may seek to have the Court cancel the alleged transfer or impose a lien against the transferred property, but Plaintiff may not obtain an award of damages. SIXTHAFFIRMATIVE DEFE NSE No Damage Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because neither Plaintiff nor VIVOS IT, US IT, or 360 IT have sustained any loss, damage, harm or detriment in any amountfor which Answering Defendants are liableas a result of any alleg ed transfers SEVENTHAFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Duplicative Claims Plaintiff’s alleged remedies are limited to the extent Plaintiff seeks overlapping and duplicative recovery based on various claims against Answering Defendants and/or additional defendants for any alleged single wrong. EIGH TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Cal. Bus & Prof. Code §16600 The Complaint, and each purported cause of action thereof, is barred by Cal. Bus & Prof. Code §16600 which prohibits the restraint of any lawful profession,trade or business. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Waiver The Complaint, and each purported cause of action thereof, is barred by the doctrine of waiver. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT, CASE NO. 19CV342424 ENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) As to each cause of action alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff is estopped from seeking relief therein due to hisown acts or omissions with reference to the subject matter of the Complaint. ELEVENTHAFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Laches) Each and every cause of action alleged against theseAnswering Defendant is barred under the doctrine of laches. TWELFTHAFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) Each and every cause of action alleged against theseAnswering Defendant is barred in its entirety by the doctrine of unclean hands. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Anticipatory Repudiation) Plaintiff breached his contracts, if any, with Answering Defendants and by reason of said breaches, Answering Defendants have been excused of any obligation under said contracts. FOURTEENTHAFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure of Consideratio Thecontracts alleged in the Complaint and each and every purported Cause of Action in the Complaint alleged against Answering Defendants, are barred as a result of a failure of considerationwith respect to the alleged contracts FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVEDEFENSE (Fraud) Plaintiff’s fraudulent conduct in contracting voided any and all contracts allegedly breached by Answering Defendants. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT, CASE NO. 19CV342424 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Frustration of Purposes) The mployment greement contract alleged against US ITis void due to frustration of purpose. SEVEN TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Plaintiff’s violation of Employment Agreement) The employment agreement contract alleged against US ITis unenforceable due to Plaintiff’s dishonest and willful acts and violations of the terms of the alleged contract. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Business Necessity) Plaintiff’s employmentagreement, if not void,was voidable by reason of business necessity and/or for lawful business reasons. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata) This omplaint and the separate causes of action are barred under the doctrines of collateral estoppel or res judicata or both. TWENTIETHAFFIR MATIVE DEFENSE (Mistake) Therights, claims or obligations which Plaintiff seeks to enforce by way of his Complaint are unenforceable by reason of materialmistake of fact or law, or both TWENTY FIRSTAFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) The Complaint and each separate cause of action thereof, is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, including, but not limited to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§359, 343, 337, and ANSWER TO COMPLAINT, CASE NO. 19CV342424 TWENTY SECONDAFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Mitigate Damages) If Plaintiff has suffered any damages, Plaintiff s recovery for those damages should be barred or limited by Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate those damages. TWENT THIRDAFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Jurisdiction) Answering Defendant allege that the ourt lacks jurisdiction over the matters alleged in the omplaint against Answering Defendant TWENTY FORTHAFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Assumed Risk) Plaintiff andhis agents, employees, servants, and representatives assumed the risk of any injury or damages alleged in the complaint. Accordingly, if Plaintiff suffered damages, should be denied any recovery in this action. TWENTY FIFTHAFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Consent) Plaintiff and/or hisagents have at all times g avetheir consent, expressed or implied, to any acts, omissions, representations, and courses of conduct of Answering Defendants as alleged in the Complaint TWENTY SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Not Real Party in Interest) Plaintiff has sued certain defendants who are not the real party in interest either because they were not parties to subject contracts, were not parties who caused Plaintiff harm, or because Plaintiff has sued certain Answering Defendants as natural persons who are themselves protected by the law of corporations which limit liability. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT, CASE NO. 19CV342424 TWEN SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Apportionment) Third party individuals and entities willfully, or by want ofordinary care, proximately caused or contributed to the damages sustained, if any, by Plaintiff. Accordingly,any damages to which Plaintiff might be entitled should be apportioned by the amount of fault attributable to such third parties. TWENTY EIGHTHAFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Consent) To the extent that any breach, act, omission, representation, or course of conduct of persons and/or entities other than answering Defendant directly and proximately caused and contributedto the damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff, said persons or entities, other than answering Defendant were acting without the consent, authoriz ation, knowledge, and/or ratification of answering Defendant TWENTY NINTHAFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Recovery of Fees and Costs) Each and every cause of action in Plaintiff s Complaint is frivolous, unreasonable, and/or groundless, and, accordingly, Defendantshould recover all costs and attorneys fees incurred herein under applicable federal and state law. THIRTIETHAFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Reservation of Rights and Non Waiver) Answering Defendant reserve the right to assert additional defenses, including affirmative defenses, based upon further investigation and/or discovery. Answering Defendant also reserve the right to amend or supplement this Answer based on further formal or informal discovery and/or in response to any amendments or supplements to the Complaint made by Plaintiff, and for any such amendments or supplements to the Answer to relate back to the filing of the original Answer. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT, CASE NO. 19CV342424 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants pray for judgment from in their favor and against Plaintiff as follows That Plaintiff takes nothing by way of this action; That the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered against Plaintiff and infavor of Answering Defendants on each cause of action; That Defendants be awarded its attorneys’ fees and costs of suit herein to the extent permitted under applicable law; and For such other relief as the Court may deemproper. Respectfully submitted, WOOD ROBBINS, LLP Date: April 10, 2019 By: /s/ enise Mejlszenkier Gregory J. Wood Denise Mejlszenkier Keegan Royal Eisenberg Attorneys for Defendant VIVOS IT, LLC,US IT SOLUTIONS, INC., and 360 IT PROFESSIONALS, INC. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT, CASE NO. 19CV342424