Preview
IOLA
San Francisco Superior Courts
tnformation Technology Group
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Feb-07-2008 2:22 pm
Case Number: CGC-07-469499
Filing Date: Feb-07-2008 2:18
Juke Box: 001 Image: 02019666
ANSWER
BLACKSTONE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. VS. ANDREAS AMUNDIN et al
001002019666
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.
nL TTT, ST‘SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
(415) 398-7860,
‘ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 2300
PAYNE & FEARS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
wo oN DH UW WY N
=
o
ll
ORIGINAC
PAYNE & FEARS LLP
Attomeys at Law
Charles M. Louderback, Bar No. 88788 fe
Clarice C. Liu, Bar No. 160555 San Francisco County Suneror Cour
Leila Narvid, Bar No. 229402
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2300 FEB 07 2008
San Francisco, CA 94111 |
Telephone: (415) 398-7860 oa PARICL, Clerk
Facsimile: (415) 398-7863 . Denuty Clerk
Attorneys for Defendant
ANDREAS AMUNDIN
a“
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ~ UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
BLACKSTONE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, CASE NO. CGC 07-469499
Plaintiff,
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
v.
ANDREAS AMUNDIN and DOES I through
50,
Date Action Filed: November 27, 2007
Defendant. Trial Date:
Defendant ANDREAS AMUNDIN (hereinafter referred to as “Amundin” or
“Defendant”), hereby answers the unverified Complaint (hereinafter the “Complaint”) of Plaintiff
BLACKSTONE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. (hereinafter referred to as “BTG” or Plaintiff”)
as follows:
Pursuant to Califomia Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30, Defendant denies
generally and specifically each and every allegation of the Complaint. Defendant denies that
Plaintiff has ever been or will be injured or damaged in the sums alleged, or in any sum or sums,
or at all, or that Plaintiff is or will be entitled at all to any relief sought in the Complaint.
As and for a separate defense to the Complaint and to each cause of action
purported to be set forth therein, Defendant pleads as follows:
a
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
nT ‘ToPAYNE & FEARS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 2300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
(415) 398-7860,
Oo
ay
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Cause of Action)
1 The Complaint, and each cause of action for relief contained therein, fails to
state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for relief against Defendant.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Restraint of Trade In Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600)
2. The Complaint, and each cause of action for relief contained therein, is
barred by the provisions of California Business & Professions Code § 16600.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unclean Hands)
3. The Complaint, and each cause of action for relief contained therein, is
barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
FUURTE AS
(Failure to Avoid Consequences or Mitigate Damages)
4. Plaintiff has failed to avoid consequences and mitigate any damages
allegedly caused by Defendant, as required by law.
2-
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
TS ST‘SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94111
(415) 398-7860
ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 2300
PAYNE & FEARS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
oe NY A AH FY NY
C c
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
(Privilege)
5. The Complaint, and each cause of action for relief contained therein, is
barred because Defendant’s activities were privileged.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Estoppel)
6. The Complaint, and each cause of action for relief contained therein, is
barred because Plaintiff is estopped to assert the causes of action and allegations contained therein. :
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Justification)
7. The Complaint, and each cause of action for relief contained therein, is
barred because Defendant’s activities were justified.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(nsufficient Facts for Punitive Damages)
8 Plaintiff is not entitled to recover punitive or exemplary damages because it
has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action for punitive or exemplary damages or
to show that Defendant engaged in oppressive, fraudulent or malicious conduct.
3.
ANSWER TO COMPLAINTpw ey A HW FF WN =
eee
wu & YN | &
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 2300
(415) 398-7860
‘SAN FRANCISCO, CA 84111
an
PAYNE & FEARS LLP
RBNRBRRBRBKRH FS Sa A
€
oy
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Punitive Damages Unconstitutional)
9 Plaintiff is not entitled to recover any punitive or exemplary damages as
prayed for in the Complaint on the grounds that any award of punitive or exemplary damages
would violate Defendant’s constitutional rights under provisions of the United States and
California Constitutions, including but not limited to the due process clauses of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unlawful Restraint of Trade)
10. The Complaint, and each cause of action for relief contained therein,
constitutes an unlawful attempt by Plaintiff to restrain trade and competition.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Identify Trade Secrets)
11. Plaintiff's Complaint is barred because Plaintiff has failed to identify the
alleged trade secrets with particularity as required by law including but not limited to California
Civil Code § 3426., ef. seg. and California Code of Civil Procedure § 2019.210.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Bad Faith Allegations of Trade Sccret Violations)
12. Plaintiff's Complaint is barred because Plaintiff has alleged a misuse and/ot
misappropriation of alleged trade secrets in bad faith within the meaning of California Civil Code
§ 3426.4 and accordingly Defendant is entitled to recover his attomeys’ fees incurred in this action
4.
nn
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
a mray
5 E
ets
meas
gee
Qez
Be
= ¥
Ay
(415) 398-7860
wo wean A uw & YW NH
- =
= oOo
N yw N NY NR = SF SOF
oO
nN
from Plaintiff.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
@rivilege of Competition)
13. The Complaint, and each cause of action for relief contained therein, is
barred as a result of the privilege of competition which Defendant has at all relevant times.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Gad Faith Allegations)
14. The Complaint, and each cause of action for relief contained therein, was
brought by Plaintiff in bad faith and is frivolous and by reason of this conduct, Defendant is
entitled to, and will seek, reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in defending
this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Irreparable Injury)
15. _ Plaintiffis not entitled to any equitable or injunctive relief as prayed for in
the Complaint because Plaintiff will not suffer irreparable injury based upon any alleged conduct
of Defendant and Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law for any such alleged conduct.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Causation by Defendants)
16. Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that any damages
allegedly suffered by Plaintiff were caused by Plaintiff and/or persons other than Defendant.
5.
es ——
ANSWER TO COMPLAINTPAYNE & FEARS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 2300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 941119
(415) 398-7860
o
aN
SEVENTEETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Additional Defenses)
17. Defendant presently has insufficient knowledge or information upon which
to form a belief as to whether they may have additional, yet unstated, affirmative defenses.
Defendant reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses in the event that discovery
indicates that additional affirmative defenses are appropriate.
WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment as follows:
1, That judgment be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff;
2. That the Complaint and all cause of action therein be dismissed in their entirety
with prejudice;
3. That Defendant be awarded reasonable attomeys’ fees against Plaintiff and his
costs incurred herein; and
4. For such other and further relief'as the Court may deem just and proper.
DATED: February 7, 2008 PAYNE & FEARS LLP
By: gaursrh
CHARLES M. LOUDERBACK
CLARICE C. LIU
LEILA NARVID
Attorneys for Defendant
ANDREAS AMUNDIN
384927.1
~6-
am
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT(ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 2300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 4111
(415) 398-7860
PAYNE & FEARS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
0 wnt nA nu fF YW Nn =
=
o
e
&u
ey
PROOF OF SERVICE
BLACKSTONE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. v. ANDREAS AMUNDIN
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Iam employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18
years and am not a party to the within action; my business address is .
On February 7, 2008, I served the following document(s) described as ANSWER TO
COMPLAINT on interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed
envelopes as follows:
Oo
J
Dena L. Narbaitz, Esq.
Curiale, Dellaverson, Hirschfeld
727 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Attorneys For Attorneys for Plaintiff
(BY U.S. Mail) Lam readily familiar with my employer’s business practice for collection
and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Iam
aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation
date or postage meter is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 1
deposited such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United
States Mail at San Francisco, California.
(By Personal Service) I caused to have personally delivered by hand on the interested
parties in this action by placing the above mentioned document(s) thereof in envelope
addressed to the office of the addressee(s) listed above or on attached sheet.
By Facsimile) I served a true and correct copy by facsimile pursuant to C.C.P. 1013(e),
calling for agreement and written confirmation of that agreement or court order, to the
number(s) listed above or on attached sheet. Said transmission was reported complete and
without error. ee
(By Overnight Courier) served the above referenced document(s) enclosed in a sealed
package, for collection and for delivery marked for next day delivery in the ordinary
course of business, addressed to the office of the addressee(s) listed above or on attached
sheet.
y E-Mail) I transmitted a copy of the foregoing documents(s) via e-mail to the
addressee(s).
(STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct. :
385414.1
ee
Executed on February 7, 2008, at San Francisco, California.
DEBORAH L. f es
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
IOLA San Francisco Superior Courts tnformation Technology Group Document Scanning Lead Sheet Feb-07-2008 2:22 pm Case Number: CGC-07-469499 Filing Date: Feb-07-2008 2:18 Juke Box: 001 Image: 02019666 ANSWER BLACKSTONE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. VS. ANDREAS AMUNDIN et al 001002019666 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. nL TTT, ST‘SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 (415) 398-7860, ‘ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 2300 PAYNE & FEARS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW wo oN DH UW WY N = o ll ORIGINAC PAYNE & FEARS LLP Attomeys at Law Charles M. Louderback, Bar No. 88788 fe Clarice C. Liu, Bar No. 160555 San Francisco County Suneror Cour Leila Narvid, Bar No. 229402 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2300 FEB 07 2008 San Francisco, CA 94111 | Telephone: (415) 398-7860 oa PARICL, Clerk Facsimile: (415) 398-7863 . Denuty Clerk Attorneys for Defendant ANDREAS AMUNDIN a“ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ~ UNLIMITED JURISDICTION BLACKSTONE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, CASE NO. CGC 07-469499 Plaintiff, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT v. ANDREAS AMUNDIN and DOES I through 50, Date Action Filed: November 27, 2007 Defendant. Trial Date: Defendant ANDREAS AMUNDIN (hereinafter referred to as “Amundin” or “Defendant”), hereby answers the unverified Complaint (hereinafter the “Complaint”) of Plaintiff BLACKSTONE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. (hereinafter referred to as “BTG” or Plaintiff”) as follows: Pursuant to Califomia Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30, Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation of the Complaint. Defendant denies that Plaintiff has ever been or will be injured or damaged in the sums alleged, or in any sum or sums, or at all, or that Plaintiff is or will be entitled at all to any relief sought in the Complaint. As and for a separate defense to the Complaint and to each cause of action purported to be set forth therein, Defendant pleads as follows: a ANSWER TO COMPLAINT nT ‘ToPAYNE & FEARS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW (ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 2300 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 (415) 398-7860, Oo ay AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Cause of Action) 1 The Complaint, and each cause of action for relief contained therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for relief against Defendant. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Restraint of Trade In Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600) 2. The Complaint, and each cause of action for relief contained therein, is barred by the provisions of California Business & Professions Code § 16600. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) 3. The Complaint, and each cause of action for relief contained therein, is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FUURTE AS (Failure to Avoid Consequences or Mitigate Damages) 4. Plaintiff has failed to avoid consequences and mitigate any damages allegedly caused by Defendant, as required by law. 2- ANSWER TO COMPLAINT TS ST‘SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94111 (415) 398-7860 ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 2300 PAYNE & FEARS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW oe NY A AH FY NY C c FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, (Privilege) 5. The Complaint, and each cause of action for relief contained therein, is barred because Defendant’s activities were privileged. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) 6. The Complaint, and each cause of action for relief contained therein, is barred because Plaintiff is estopped to assert the causes of action and allegations contained therein. : SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Justification) 7. The Complaint, and each cause of action for relief contained therein, is barred because Defendant’s activities were justified. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (nsufficient Facts for Punitive Damages) 8 Plaintiff is not entitled to recover punitive or exemplary damages because it has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action for punitive or exemplary damages or to show that Defendant engaged in oppressive, fraudulent or malicious conduct. 3. ANSWER TO COMPLAINTpw ey A HW FF WN = eee wu & YN | & ATTORNEYS AT LAW (ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 2300 (415) 398-7860 ‘SAN FRANCISCO, CA 84111 an PAYNE & FEARS LLP RBNRBRRBRBKRH FS Sa A € oy NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Punitive Damages Unconstitutional) 9 Plaintiff is not entitled to recover any punitive or exemplary damages as prayed for in the Complaint on the grounds that any award of punitive or exemplary damages would violate Defendant’s constitutional rights under provisions of the United States and California Constitutions, including but not limited to the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unlawful Restraint of Trade) 10. The Complaint, and each cause of action for relief contained therein, constitutes an unlawful attempt by Plaintiff to restrain trade and competition. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Identify Trade Secrets) 11. Plaintiff's Complaint is barred because Plaintiff has failed to identify the alleged trade secrets with particularity as required by law including but not limited to California Civil Code § 3426., ef. seg. and California Code of Civil Procedure § 2019.210. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Bad Faith Allegations of Trade Sccret Violations) 12. Plaintiff's Complaint is barred because Plaintiff has alleged a misuse and/ot misappropriation of alleged trade secrets in bad faith within the meaning of California Civil Code § 3426.4 and accordingly Defendant is entitled to recover his attomeys’ fees incurred in this action 4. nn ANSWER TO COMPLAINT a mray 5 E ets meas gee Qez Be = ¥ Ay (415) 398-7860 wo wean A uw & YW NH - = = oOo N yw N NY NR = SF SOF oO nN from Plaintiff. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE @rivilege of Competition) 13. The Complaint, and each cause of action for relief contained therein, is barred as a result of the privilege of competition which Defendant has at all relevant times. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Gad Faith Allegations) 14. The Complaint, and each cause of action for relief contained therein, was brought by Plaintiff in bad faith and is frivolous and by reason of this conduct, Defendant is entitled to, and will seek, reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in defending this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Irreparable Injury) 15. _ Plaintiffis not entitled to any equitable or injunctive relief as prayed for in the Complaint because Plaintiff will not suffer irreparable injury based upon any alleged conduct of Defendant and Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law for any such alleged conduct. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Causation by Defendants) 16. Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that any damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiff were caused by Plaintiff and/or persons other than Defendant. 5. es —— ANSWER TO COMPLAINTPAYNE & FEARS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 2300 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 941119 (415) 398-7860 o aN SEVENTEETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Additional Defenses) 17. Defendant presently has insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to whether they may have additional, yet unstated, affirmative defenses. Defendant reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses in the event that discovery indicates that additional affirmative defenses are appropriate. WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment as follows: 1, That judgment be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff; 2. That the Complaint and all cause of action therein be dismissed in their entirety with prejudice; 3. That Defendant be awarded reasonable attomeys’ fees against Plaintiff and his costs incurred herein; and 4. For such other and further relief'as the Court may deem just and proper. DATED: February 7, 2008 PAYNE & FEARS LLP By: gaursrh CHARLES M. LOUDERBACK CLARICE C. LIU LEILA NARVID Attorneys for Defendant ANDREAS AMUNDIN 384927.1 ~6- am ANSWER TO COMPLAINT(ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 2300 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 4111 (415) 398-7860 PAYNE & FEARS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 0 wnt nA nu fF YW Nn = = o e &u ey PROOF OF SERVICE BLACKSTONE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. v. ANDREAS AMUNDIN STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Iam employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to the within action; my business address is . On February 7, 2008, I served the following document(s) described as ANSWER TO COMPLAINT on interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes as follows: Oo J Dena L. Narbaitz, Esq. Curiale, Dellaverson, Hirschfeld 727 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Attorneys For Attorneys for Plaintiff (BY U.S. Mail) Lam readily familiar with my employer’s business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Iam aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 1 deposited such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States Mail at San Francisco, California. (By Personal Service) I caused to have personally delivered by hand on the interested parties in this action by placing the above mentioned document(s) thereof in envelope addressed to the office of the addressee(s) listed above or on attached sheet. By Facsimile) I served a true and correct copy by facsimile pursuant to C.C.P. 1013(e), calling for agreement and written confirmation of that agreement or court order, to the number(s) listed above or on attached sheet. Said transmission was reported complete and without error. ee (By Overnight Courier) served the above referenced document(s) enclosed in a sealed package, for collection and for delivery marked for next day delivery in the ordinary course of business, addressed to the office of the addressee(s) listed above or on attached sheet. y E-Mail) I transmitted a copy of the foregoing documents(s) via e-mail to the addressee(s). (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. : 385414.1 ee Executed on February 7, 2008, at San Francisco, California. DEBORAH L. f es PROOF OF SERVICE