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