Answer: MATTHEW SMITH VS. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, A BUSINESS ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                WOON

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Feb-15-2012 2:43 pm

Case Number: CGC-11-513734
Filing Date: Feb-15-2012 2:41
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03495706
ANSWER

VATTHEW SMITH VS. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, A BUSINESS ENTITY FORM UNKNOWI

00103495706

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
Christian J. Rowley (SBN 187293)
Sarah K. Hamilton (SBN 238819)
Pritee K. Thakarsey (SBN 266168)
560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
San Francisco, California 94105 py
Telephone: (415) 397-2823 DEPUTY CLEAK
Facsimile: (415) 397-8549

Attomeys for Defendant
WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, INC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MATTHEW SMITH, ) Case No. CGC-1 1-513734
)
Plaintiff, ) ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
)
v. )
)
WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, )
INC. and DOES 1-50, )
} Complaint Filed: August 29, 2011
Defendants. )
) First Amended Complaint File:
) January 5, 2012

_)
Defendant WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, INC. (“Defendant”) hereby

answers, for itself, Plaintiff MATTHEW SMITH’S (“Plaintiff”) unverified Complaint as
follows:

GENERAL DENIAL

Re ——

Pursuant to the provisions of Califomia Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d),
Defendant denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation, statement, matter and
each purported cause of action contained in Plaintiff's Complaint, and without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, denies, generally and specifically, that Plaintiff has been damaged in
the manner or sums alleged, or in any way at all, by reason of any acts or omissions of

Defendant.SEPARATE DEFENSES

In further answer to Plaintiffs Complaint, and as additional separate and/or distinct
defenses and/or affirmative defenses, Defendant alleges the following additional defenses. In
asserting these defenses, Defendant does not assume the burden of proof as to matters that are
Plaintiff's burden to prove.

Defendant does not presently know all of the facts and circumstances related to Plaintiff's
claims and therefore reserve the right to amend this Answer should Defendant later discover
facts demonstrating the existence of additional separate and/or affirmative defenses.

FIRST DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Cause of Action)

Plaintiff's Complaint, and each and every cause of action purported to be alleged therein,
fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant upon which relief
may be granted.

SECOND DEFENSE
(Statute of Limitations)

Upon information and belief, one or more causes of actions alleged in Plaintiff's
Complaint against Defendant is barred by the applicable statute of limitations including, but not
limited to, California Government Code sections 12960 and 12965, and California Code of Civil
Procedure sections 335.1, 337, 338(a), 339, 340, and 343.

THIRD DEFENSE

(Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies)

Plaintiff's Complaint, and each and every cause of action alleged therein against
Defendant, is barred to the extent Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
and/or statutory prerequisites in a complete and timely manner pursuant to California

Government Code sections 12960, 12965 and all other applicable laws.ow a nw

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

FOURTH DEFENSE
(Laches, Unclean Hands, Waiver)

Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief to the extent he forfeited his right to relief under the
doctrines of laches or unclean hands, or waived his right to relief.

FIFTH DEFENSE
(Judicial Estoppel)

Plaintiff's claims and/or damages are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of
judicial estoppel.

SIXTH DEFENSE
(Equitable Estoppel)

Plaintiff's claims and/or damages are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of

equitable estoppel.
SEVENTH DEFENSE
(Legitimate Nondiscriminatory Reason And No Pretext)

The Complaint and each and every cause of action set forth in the Complaint is barred
because all actions undertaken by Defendant were accomplished for legitimate,
nondiscriminatory, and non-retaliatory business reasons and there was no pretext for Defendant’s
actions.

EIGHTH DEFENSE
(At-Will Employment)

Plaintiff's purported causes of action are barred pursuant to California Labor Code
section 2922 because Plaintiff's employment was at all times at-will.

NINTH DEFENSE

(Consent and Ratification)
Plaintiff's Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred to the

extent any conduct attributable to Defendant was ratified or consented to by Plaintiff.TENTH DEFENSE
(Avoidable Consequences)

If any agent of Defendant engaged in unlawful harassing or discriminatory behavior
toward Plaintiff, which Defendant denies, Defendant is not liable for the alleged harassment or
discrimination, and Plaintiff's damages must be reduced, because Defendant exercised
reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any harassing or discriminatory behavior, and
Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities
provided or to avoid harm otherwise.

ELEVENTH DEFENSE

(Prompt Remedial Action)

To the extent Plaintiff complained of any alleged unlawful conduct or Defendant learned

of it, which Defendant denies, prompt remedial action was taken.
TWELFTH DEFENSE
(Employment Decisions Contrary to Employer’s Policies)

Plaintiff may not recover punitive damages for discriminatory employment decisions to
the extent that those decisions are contrary to the policies Defendant instituted in good faith
against wrongful conduct.

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

(After-Acquired Evidence)
Plaintiff's Complaint is barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of after-acquired

evidence or, alternatively, the doctrine of after-acquired evidence limits and reduces Plaintiff's
alleged damages.
FOURTEENTH DEFENSE
(Failure to Mitigate Damages)
Defendant is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that by exercise of
reasonable efforts, Plaintiff could have mitigated the amount of damages he allegedly suffered,

but Plaintiff has failed or refused to exercise reasonable efforts to mitigate his damages.FIFTEENTH DEFENSE
(Undue Hardship)
Assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiff was disabled and Defendant was aware of the alleged
disability, Plaintiff's claims are barred because the accommodation demanded by him was not
reasonable, and would cause Defendant undue hardship.

SIXTEENTH DEFENSE

pAILS.

(Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity)
Plaintiff's claims for purported emotional injuries allegedly suffered during or as a result
of his employment are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff's sole and exclusive remedies,
if any, lie under the California Workers’ Compensation Act, Labor Code §§ 3601, et seq.

SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE

SEVENIES

(E.R.1LS.A. Preemption)

Plaintiff is not entitled to recover any compensatory damages to the extent that any of the
claims in the Complaint relate to benefits subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq. ERISA preempts such claims and
Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative prerequisites under ERISA.

ADDITIONAL DEFENSES

Defendant presently has insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a
belief whether there may be additional, as yet unstated, defenses and reserves the right to assert
additional defenses in the event that discovery indicates that such defenses are appropriate.

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Plaintiff knew or should have known that the claims in the Complaint are without any
reasonable basis in law and equity, and cannot be supported by a good faith argument for
extension, modification or reversal of existing law. As a result of the filing of this Complaint,
Defendant has been required to obtain the service of the undersigned attomeys, and has and will
continue to incur substantial costs and attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs incurred by and

through this action.PRAYER
Wherefore, Defendant prays for judgment as follows:
1. That Plaintiff takes nothing for the Complaint,
2 That judgment be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on all causes

of action;
3. That Defendant be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees;
4, That Defendant be awarded the costs of suit incurred herein; and

5. That Defendant be awarded such other and further relief as the Court may deem
appropriate.

DATED: February 15, 2012 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

hristiah J. Rowley

Sarah K. Hamilton

Pritee K. Thakarsey
Attorneys for Defendant
WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA,
INC.

14169320v.1oo Om NO OW RB Ye OP

wR RN NY NY KR ON Ye SF BF ee Se Se Se Se Se
oa fF fF FB ON = SG 6 Ow HN DH HA RF WN

PROOF OF SERVICE

1 am aresident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party
to the within action. My business address is 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor, San Francisco,
Califomia 94105. On February 15, 2012, I served the within documents:

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

oO I sent such document from facsimile machine (415) 397-8549 on
L certify that said transmission was completed and that all pages were received and
that a report was generated by facsimile machine (41 5) 397-8549 which confirms said

transmission and receipt. I, thereafter, mailed a copy to the interested party(ies) in this
action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed to the
parties listed below.

by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon
fully prepaid, in the United States mail at San Francisco, addressed as set forth below.

by 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, together with an unsigned copy of this
declaration, in a sealed Federal Express envelope with postage paid on account and
deposited with Federal Express at San Francisco, California, addressed as set forth
below.

Michael J, Reed
60 Creek Tree Lane
Alamo, CA 94507
Tel.: (925) 743-8353

1 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 February 15, 2012, at San Francisco, California.

~ “€ S
Le 2 “Tia? Allen

14203006v.1