arrow left
arrow right
  • Button, Roger A vs Waller, Janette et alcivil document preview
  • Button, Roger A vs Waller, Janette et alcivil document preview
  • Button, Roger A vs Waller, Janette et alcivil document preview
  • Button, Roger A vs Waller, Janette et alcivil document preview
  • Button, Roger A vs Waller, Janette et alcivil document preview
  • Button, Roger A vs Waller, Janette et alcivil document preview
  • Button, Roger A vs Waller, Janette et alcivil document preview
  • Button, Roger A vs Waller, Janette et alcivil document preview
						
                                

Preview

1 DAVID C. KURTZ (SBN 330527) dkurtz@constangy.com 2 SARAH E. ROBERTSON (SBN 142439) 8/6/2020 srobertson@constangy.com 3 CHRISTIN A. LAWLER (SBN 272607) 4 clawler@constangy.com CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP 5 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 350 San Francisco, CA 94111 6 Telephone: (415) 918-3000 7 Attorneys for Defendants 8 MID VALLEY TITLE AND ESCROW COMPANY, FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 9 and JANETTE WALLER 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE 12 13 ROGER A. BUTTON, an individual, Case No. 20CV00846 14 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS MID VALLEY TITLE AND 15 ESCROW COMPANY, FIRST AMERICAN vs. TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY AND 16 JANETTE WALLER’S ANSWER TO MID VALLEY TITLE AND ESCROW PLAINTIFF ROGER BUTTON’S 17 COMPANY, FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES INSURANCE COMPANY, JANETTE 18 WALLER, as President of FIRST 19 AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE Complaint Filed: April 6, 2020 COMPANY and individually, and DOES 1 20 through 50, inclusive, 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CASE NO: 20CV00846 COMPLAINT 1 Defendants Mid Valley Title and Escrow Company, First American Title Insurance 2 Company, and Janette Waller (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby answer the unverified 3 Complaint for Damages (“Complaint”) of Plaintiff Roger Button (“Plaintiff”) as follows: 4 GENERAL DENIAL 5 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30, Defendants deny, generally and 6 specifically, each and every allegation contained in the Complaint and further deny, generally 7 and specifically, that Plaintiff has sustained any harm, injury, damage or loss in any amount or 8 manner whatsoever by reason of any act or omission of Defendants. Defendants further deny 9 that they are liable to Plaintiff for the sum or sums alleged, any injunctive relief sought, or for 10 any other amount whatsoever. 11 AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES 12 Without assuming any burden of proof that it would not otherwise bear under applicable 13 law, Defendants assert the following affirmative and other defenses: 14 FIRST DEFENSE 15 (Failure to State a Claim) 16 1. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege the Complaint and each and 17 every alleged cause of action therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action 18 upon which relief can be granted. 19 SECOND DEFENSE 20 (Statute of Limitations) 21 2. To the extent that the Complaint and any of the causes of action alleged therein 22 are premised upon conduct that occurred prior to the applicable statute of limitations, the 23 Complaint and any cause of action alleged therein are barred by the applicable statute of 24 limitations, including but not limited to those set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure 25 §§ 335.1, 338 and 340, and California Government Code §§ 12960 and 12965. 26 // 27 // 28 2 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CASE NO: 20CV00846 COMPLAINT 1 THIRD DEFENSE 2 (Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies) 3 3. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s First, Second, 4 Third and Fifth Causes of Action are barred because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative 5 remedies with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and/or the Equal 6 Employment Opportunity Commission. 7 FOURTH DEFENSE 8 (Legitimate Non-Discriminatory/Non-Retaliatory Reason) 9 4. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege the Complaint and each and 10 every alleged cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or part, because at all times relevant to 11 the Complaint, Defendants aver, without admitting to any of the acts, conduct, or statements 12 attributed to Defendants in the Complaint, that any acts, conduct or statements of Defendants or 13 anyone acting on their behalf were justified, in good faith, and for legitimate, non-discriminatory 14 and/or non-retaliatory reasons and/or as a result of business necessity that were wholly unrelated 15 to Plaintiff’s alleged gender, age, other protected characteristics, protected activity or any other 16 alleged unlawful conduct. 17 FIFTH DEFENSE 18 (Mixed Motive) 19 5. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege the Complaint and each and 20 every alleged cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or part, because at all times relevant to 21 the Complaint, Defendants allege, without admitting to any of the acts, conduct, or statements 22 attributed to Defendants in the Complaint, if it is found that Defendants’ actions were motivated 23 by both discriminatory and non-discriminatory reasons, and/or retaliatory and non-retaliatory 24 reasons, the legitimate non-discriminatory/non-retaliatory reasons alone would have induced 25 Defendants to make the same decision regarding Plaintiff’s employment. 26 // 27 // 28 3 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CASE NO: 20CV00846 COMPLAINT 1 SIXTH DEFENSE 2 (Lack of Knowledge) 3 6. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege the Complaint and each and 4 every alleged cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or part, because at all times relevant to 5 the Complaint, Defendants allege that any unlawful or wrongful acts, if any, taken by its agents 6 or employees were outside the course and scope of their authority and such acts, if any, were not 7 authorized, ratified, or condoned by Defendants, and Defendants neither knew nor should have 8 known of such acts. 9 SEVENTH DEFENSE 10 (Plaintiff’s Failure to Use Complaint Process) 11 7. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege the Complaint and each and 12 every alleged cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or part, because of Plaintiff’s 13 unreasonable failure to avail himself of his employer’s measures to prevent and correct 14 discrimination and retaliation, the use of which would have prevented the harm Plaintiff alleges 15 that he suffered. 16 EIGHTH DEFENSE 17 (Prompt and Appropriate Corrective Action) 18 8. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege the Complaint and each and 19 every alleged cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or part, because Defendants took 20 prompt and appropriate corrective action in response to any complaint(s) or stated concerns 21 regarding the workplace made by Plaintiff, if any, thereby satisfying all of their legal obligations. 22 NINTH DEFENSE 23 (Conduct of Others) 24 9. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege the Complaint and each and 25 every alleged cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or part because, although Defendants 26 deny that Plaintiff has been damaged in any way, if it should be determined that Plaintiff has 27 been damaged, then Defendants allege, based on information and belief, that the proximate cause 28 4 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CASE NO: 20CV00846 COMPLAINT 1 of such damage was the conduct of others for which Defendants were not and are not 2 responsible. 3 TENTH DEFENSE 4 (Estoppel/Waiver/Unclean Hands) 5 10. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege the Complaint and each and 6 every alleged cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or part, by the doctrines of estoppel, 7 waiver and/or unclean hands. 8 ELEVENTH DEFENSE 9 (Laches) 10 11. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege the Complaint and each and 11 every alleged cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or part, by the doctrine of laches. 12 TWELFTH DEFENSE 13 (Failure to Mitigate) 14 12. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that recovery on and each 15 and every alleged cause of action in the Complaint is barred, or in the alternative, is offset, by 16 Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate his damages, if any, and Defendants further allege that, to the extent 17 any damages could have been mitigated, such sums should be deducted from any award of 18 damages. 19 THIRTEENTH DEFENSE 20 (After-Acquired Evidence) 21 13. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that recovery on and each 22 and every alleged cause of action in the Complaint is barred by the doctrine of after-acquired 23 evidence. 24 FOURTEENTH DEFENSE 25 (Apportionment) 26 14. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that, should Plaintiff recover 27 damages against Defendants, Defendants are entitled to have the amount abated, apportioned or 28 5 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CASE NO: 20CV00846 COMPLAINT 1 reduced to the extent that any other party’s action caused or contributed to said damage, if there 2 were any. 3 FIFTEENTH DEFENSE 4 (Privilege) 5 15. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause 6 of Action is barred to the extent that Defendants’ communications of and concerning Plaintiff 7 were privileged by statute or by common law, including pursuant to Civil Code section 47(c), 8 made without malice, and/or true. 9 SIXTEENTH DEFENSE 10 (Truth/Opinion) 11 16. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause 12 of Action is barred to the extent Defendants’ communications of and concerning Plaintiff were 13 true and/or opinion. 14 SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE 15 (Consent) 16 17. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff consented to 17 and/or acquiesced in the alleged acts or omissions, if any, barring Plaintiff from any relief as 18 prayed for in his Complaint. 19 EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE 20 (Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity) 21 18. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claims for 22 emotional distress are barred, in whole or in part, by the exclusivity provisions of California 23 Labor Code §§ 3600, et seq. 24 NINETEENTH DEFENSE 25 (Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata) 26 19. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claims may 27 be barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of collateral estoppel or res judicata. 28 6 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CASE NO: 20CV00846 COMPLAINT 1 TWENTIETH DEFENSE 2 (Accord and Satisfaction and Release) 3 20. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claims may 4 be barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of accord and satisfaction and release. 5 TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE 6 (No Punitive Damages) 7 21. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff is not entitled 8 to recover punitive or exemplary damages because the Complaint fails to state sufficient facts to 9 maintain any claim for punitive or exemplary damages and because Defendants did not act 10 maliciously, fraudulently, or oppressively with respect to Plaintiff’s employment. 11 TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE 12 (Punitive Damages Unconstitutional) 13 22. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that an award of punitive 14 damages is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the 15 United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution. 16 TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE 17 (No Attorneys’ Fees) 18 23. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that the Complaint fails to 19 allege facts sufficient to establish a claim for attorneys’ fees. 20 TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE 21 (Arbitration) 22 24. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claims are 23 barred, in whole or in part, on the ground that Plaintiff is subject to binding arbitration of his 24 claims. 25 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS 26 Defendants hereby give notice that they intend to rely upon such other and further 27 affirmative or other defenses as may become available during discovery in this action and 28 7 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CASE NO: 20CV00846 COMPLAINT 1 reserve the right to amend this Answer to assert any such defenses. 2 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 3 WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment as follows: 4 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by his Complaint herein; 5 2. That the Complaint be dismissed; 6 3. That judgment be entered in favor of Defendants; 7 4. For attorneys’ fees; 8 5. For costs of suit incurred herein; and 9 6. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper. 10 11 Dated: August 6, 2020 CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP 12 By: ____________________________________ 13 David C. Kurtz 14 Sarah E. Robertson Christin A. Lawler 15 Attorneys for Defendant MID VALLEY TITLE AND ESCROW COMPANY, 16 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, and JANETTE WALLER 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CASE NO: 20CV00846 COMPLAINT 1 PROOF OF SERVICE Roger A. Button v. Mid Valley Title and Escrow Company, et al. 2 Butte County Superior Court Case No.: 20CV00846 3 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am 4 employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. My business address is Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP, 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 350, San Francisco, California 5 94111. 6 On August 6, 2020 I served true copies of the following document(s) described as: 7 DEFENDANTS MID VALLEY TITLE AND ESCROW COMPANY, FIRST AMERICAN 8 TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY AND JANETTE WALLER’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF ROGER BUTTON’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 9 on the interested parties in this action as follows: 10 Larry L. Baumbach 11 LAW OFFICES OF LARRY L. BAUMBACH 2531 Forest Avenue, Suite 100 12 Chico, CA 95928 13 Telephone: (530)-891-6222 Fax: (530)-852-3969 14 Email: llblaw@sandpipernet.com 15 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: I electronically served, from e-mail lmarquez@constangy.com, the 16 document(s) listed above to the e-mail address(es) to the person(s) listed in the Service List on 17 the above date. I am readily familiar with Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. 18 STATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 19 foregoing is true and correct. 20 Executed on August 6, 2020, in San Francisco, California. 21 22 23 Luis Marquez 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE CASE NO. 20CV00846