Preview
1 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Electronically Filed
Aaron R. Lubeley (SBN 199837) 1/12/2021 9:32 AM
2 alubeley@seyfarth.com Superior Court of California
Peter J. Choi (SBN 306763)
3 pchoi@seyfarth.com County of Stanislaus
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Clerk of the Court
4 Los Angeles, California 90017-5793 By: Narelly Garcia, Deputy
Telephone: (213) 270-9600
5 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
6 Attorneys for Defendant
RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.
7
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
11
12 ANA ARREOLA, as an individual and on behalf Case No. CV20-002386
of all others similarly situated,
13 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO
Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED
14 COMPLAINT
v.
15
RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC., a Delaware
16 corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
17 Defendants.
18
19 Defendant RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC., by and through its attorneys, hereby submits
20 its Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and states as follows:
21 GENERAL DENIAL
22 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), Defendant denies each, every,
23 and all allegations in the First Amended Complaint, and the whole thereof, and deny that Plaintiffs, or
24 aggrieved employees, have sustained damages in the sums alleged, or in any other sums, or at all.
25 Further answering Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and the whole thereof, Defendant denies that
26 Plaintiff, or the aggrieved employees, have sustained any injury, damage, or loss, if any, by reason of
27 any act, omission or negligence on the part of Defendant or their agents or employees.
28
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. CV-20-002386
67216178v.3
1 SEPARATE ADDITIONAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
2 In further answering to the First Amended Complaint, Defendant alleges the following separate
3 and distinct affirmative or additional defenses. In asserting these defenses, Defendant does not assume
4 the burden of proof as to matters that, pursuant to law, are Plaintiff’s burden to prove. Further,
5 Defendant does not presently know all of the facts and circumstances respecting Plaintiff’s claims and
6 therefore reserves the right to amend its Answer to add facts and defenses, should Defendant later
7 discover facts demonstrating the existence of additional defenses.
8 FIRST DEFENSE
9 (Failure To State A Cause of Action)
10 1. Neither the First Amended Complaint as a whole, nor any purported claims alleged
11 therein, states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or claim for relief against Defendant.
12 SECOND DEFENSE
13 (Statute of Limitations)
14 2. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and each and every cause of action purported to be
15 alleged therein, is barred by the applicable statute of limitations including, but not limited to, Code of
16 Civil Procedure sections 338 and 340 and Labor Code sections 203 and 2699.3.
17 THIRD DEFENSE
18 (Waiver)
19 3. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and each and every claim set forth therein alleged
20 against Defendant, is barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of waiver.
21 FOURTH DEFENSE
22 (Unclean Hands)
23 4. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and each and every claim set forth therein alleged
24 against Defendant, is barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of unclean hands.
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28
2
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. CV-20-002386
67216178v.3
1 FIFTH DEFENSE
2 (Estoppel)
3 5. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and each and every claim set forth therein alleged
4 against Defendant, is barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of estoppel. Defendant alleges that
5 Plaintiff is estopped by her own conduct from asserting any and all claims she individually and/or
6 collectively may have had or has against Defendant from facts alleged in the First Amended Complaint.
7 SIXTH DEFENSE
8 (Laches)
9 6. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and each and every claim set forth therein alleged
10 against Defendant, is barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of laches due to Plaintiff’s inexcusable
11 and unreasonable delay in filing the First Amended Complaint.
12 SEVENTH DEFENSE
13 (Consent)
14 7. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and each and every claim set forth therein alleged
15 against Defendant, in whole or in part by Plaintiff and the alleged aggrieved employees’ express or
16 implied consent to the alleged acts, omissions and conduct of Defendant.
17 EIGHTH DEFENSE
18 (Release)
19 8. To the extent Plaintiff or the alleged aggrieved employees have executed a release or
20 been included in a release encompassing claims alleged in the First Amended Complaint, their claims
21 are barred by that release.
22 NINTH DEFENSE
23 (Arbitration)
24 9. To the extent that Plaintiff or the alleged aggrieved employees have executed agreements
25 to arbitrate that encompass claims alleged in the First Amended Complaint, their claims are barred by
26 their contractual agreement to arbitrate.
27
28
3
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. CV-20-002386
67216178v.3
1 TENTH DEFENSE
2 (Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies)
3 10. Plaintiff’s purported cause of action is barred as Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the statutory
4 prerequisites to sue and to exhaust administrative remedies under the Private Attorneys General Act,
5 Labor Code sections 2698 and 2699 and/or any other applicable administrative remedy.
6 ELEVENTH DEFENSE
7 (Not an Aggrieved Employee)
8 11. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring a representative action under the
9 Private Attorneys General Act because she is not an “aggrieved employee.”
10 TWELFTH DEFENSE
11 (Good Faith Dispute)
12 12. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and each and every claim set forth therein alleged
13 against Defendant, is barred, in whole or in part, because actions taken with respect to Plaintiff’s
14 employment, and the employment of the alleged aggrieved employees, if any, were based on an honest,
15 reasonable, and good faith belief in the facts as known and understood at the time.
16 THIRTEENTH DEFENSE
17 (Plaintiff’s Acts)
18 13. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and each and every claim set forth therein alleged
19 against Defendant, is barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff’s damages, if any, were caused by
20 Plaintiff’s own intentional or negligent acts, thus barring or limiting Plaintiff’s right of recover on behalf
21 of herself or the alleged aggrieved employees.
22 FOURTEENTH DEFENSE
23 (Avoidable Consequences)
24 14. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff and the alleged aggrieved employees are precluded from
25 asserting the PAGA claim, because she failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid the injuries she
26 purportedly suffered in that, among other things, Plaintiff and the alleged aggrieved employees
27 unreasonably failed to utilize Defendant’s internal grievance procedures. To the extent there was any
28
4
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. CV-20-002386
67216178v.3
1 statutory violation (which is not admitted, but considered solely for purposes of this affirmative
2 defense), Plaintiff and the alleged aggrieved employees unreasonably failed to avoid or reduce harm.
3 This includes an obligation that if Plaintiff and the alleged aggrieved employees felt that they were not
4 paid wages for all hours worked and/or were not paid minimum wage and/or were not paid overtime
5 and/or were not paid wages at discharge and/or were not provided with accurate wage statements,
6 Plaintiff and the alleged aggrieved employees had an obligation to utilize any and all internal complaint
7 procedures and timely bring that to the attention of Defendant and/or their supervisors so that if there
8 was any violation, it would be promptly corrected and remedied and would not be allowed to repeat and
9 recur. Plaintiff and the alleged aggrieved employees are therefore barred from any recover based on any
10 harm that could have been reasonably avoided.
11 FIFTEENTH DEFENSE
12 (No Wages Owed)
13 15. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s claims for unpaid regular and overtime wages, and
14 those of the alleged aggrieved employees, are barred because Defendant timely paid all wages owed to
15 them.
16 SIXTEENTH DEFENSE
17 (Minimum Wage)
18 16. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s claims for unpaid minimum wage, and those of the
19 alleged aggrieved employees, are barred because Defendant paid all minimum wages as required by
20 applicable law in relation to the work performed as alleged in the First Amended Complaint.
21 SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE
22 (Not Intentional or Willful Conduct)
23 17. Defendant alleges that even if Defendant engaged in the conduct alleged by Plaintiff,
24 which Defendant denies, such actions or failure to act were not intentional or not willful.
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28
5
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. CV-20-002386
67216178v.3
1 EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE
2 (Derivative Wage Statement Claims)
3 18. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s derivate wage statement allegations, and those made on
4 behalf of the alleged aggrieved employees, are barred pursuant to Maldonado v. Epsilon Plastics, Inc.,
5 Cal. App. 5th 1308, 1337 (2018).
6 NINETEENTH DEFENSE
7 (Penalties)
8 19. Defendant alleges that the First Amended Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to
9 establish a claim for penalties.
10 TWENTIETH DEFENSE
11 (Unconstitutionality of PAGA Penalties)
12 20. The penalties claimed in the First Amended Complaint are excessive and violate the
13 California and United States’ Constitutions. Although Defendant denies that it had committed or had
14 responsibility for any act that could support the recovery of civil penalties in this lawsuit, if and to the
15 extent any such act or responsibility is found, recovery of civil penalties against Defendants is
16 unconstitutional under numerous provisions of the United States Constitution and the California
17 Constitution, including the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment, the due process clause of
18 the Fifth Amendment and Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the self-incrimination clause of the
19 Fifth Amendment, and other provisions of the United States Constitution, and the excessive fines clause
20 of Section 17 of Article I, the due process clause of Section 7 of Article I, the self-incrimination clause
21 of Section 15 of Article I, and other provisions of the California Constitution.
22 TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE
23 (No Penalties Beyond “Initial” Violation)
24 21. Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred to the extent Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees seek
25 penalties beyond the “initial” violation as described in California Labor Code section 2699(f)(2).
26 ///
27 ///
28
6
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. CV-20-002386
67216178v.3
1 TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE
2 (De Minimis Damages)
3 22. Defendant alleges that if, in fact, it has failed to pay Plaintiff or the alleged aggrieved
4 employees for all time worked, the time is de minimis and therefore not compensable.
5 TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE
6 (Offset)
7 23. To the extent that Plaintiff or the alleged aggrieved employees are entitled to restitution,
8 damages, or penalties, Defendant is entitled to an offset for any overpayments of wages or other
9 consideration previously provided to them.
10 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
11 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows:
12 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by reason of the First Amended Complaint;
13 2. That judgment be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on all causes of
14 action;
15 3. That Defendants be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees according to proof;
16 4. That Defendants be awarded the costs of suit incurred herein; and
17 5. That Defendants be awarded such other and further relief as the County may deem
18 appropriate
19
20 DATED: January 12, 2021 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
21
22 By:
Aaron R. Lubeley
23 Peter J. Choi
Attorneys for Defendant
24 RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.
25
26
27
28
7
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. CV-20-002386
67216178v.3
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS
3 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
4 I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the
within action. My business address is 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300, Los Angeles, California
5 90017-5793. On January 12, 2021, I served the within document(s):
6 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
7 by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid,
in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California, addressed as set forth below.
8
by placing the document(s) listed above, together with an unsigned copy of this declaration, in a
9 sealed envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier with postage paid on
account and deposited for collection with the overnight carrier at Los Angeles, California,
10 addressed as set forth below.
11 by transmitting the document(s) listed above, electronically, via the e-mail addresses set forth
below.
12
Larry W. Lee Dennis S. Hyun
13 Max Gavron HYUN LEGAL, APC
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
14
515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071
15 Los Angeles, CA 90071 dhyun@hyunlegal.com
lwlee@diversitylaw.com
16 mgavron@diversitylaw.com
17 William L. Marder
18 POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
19 Hollister, CA 95023
bill@polarislawgroup.com
20
I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for
21 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. I am aware that on motion of the party
22 served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day
after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
23
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and
24 correct. Executed on January 12, 2021, at Los Angeles, California.
25
26
Kassandra Cutler
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
65841084v.1
Preview
1 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Electronically Filed Aaron R. Lubeley (SBN 199837) 1/12/2021 9:32 AM 2 alubeley@seyfarth.com Superior Court of California Peter J. Choi (SBN 306763) 3 pchoi@seyfarth.com County of Stanislaus 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Clerk of the Court 4 Los Angeles, California 90017-5793 By: Narelly Garcia, Deputy Telephone: (213) 270-9600 5 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 6 Attorneys for Defendant RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC. 7 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS 11 12 ANA ARREOLA, as an individual and on behalf Case No. CV20-002386 of all others similarly situated, 13 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 14 COMPLAINT v. 15 RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC., a Delaware 16 corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Defendant RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC., by and through its attorneys, hereby submits 20 its Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and states as follows: 21 GENERAL DENIAL 22 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), Defendant denies each, every, 23 and all allegations in the First Amended Complaint, and the whole thereof, and deny that Plaintiffs, or 24 aggrieved employees, have sustained damages in the sums alleged, or in any other sums, or at all. 25 Further answering Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and the whole thereof, Defendant denies that 26 Plaintiff, or the aggrieved employees, have sustained any injury, damage, or loss, if any, by reason of 27 any act, omission or negligence on the part of Defendant or their agents or employees. 28 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. CV-20-002386 67216178v.3 1 SEPARATE ADDITIONAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 2 In further answering to the First Amended Complaint, Defendant alleges the following separate 3 and distinct affirmative or additional defenses. In asserting these defenses, Defendant does not assume 4 the burden of proof as to matters that, pursuant to law, are Plaintiff’s burden to prove. Further, 5 Defendant does not presently know all of the facts and circumstances respecting Plaintiff’s claims and 6 therefore reserves the right to amend its Answer to add facts and defenses, should Defendant later 7 discover facts demonstrating the existence of additional defenses. 8 FIRST DEFENSE 9 (Failure To State A Cause of Action) 10 1. Neither the First Amended Complaint as a whole, nor any purported claims alleged 11 therein, states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or claim for relief against Defendant. 12 SECOND DEFENSE 13 (Statute of Limitations) 14 2. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and each and every cause of action purported to be 15 alleged therein, is barred by the applicable statute of limitations including, but not limited to, Code of 16 Civil Procedure sections 338 and 340 and Labor Code sections 203 and 2699.3. 17 THIRD DEFENSE 18 (Waiver) 19 3. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and each and every claim set forth therein alleged 20 against Defendant, is barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of waiver. 21 FOURTH DEFENSE 22 (Unclean Hands) 23 4. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and each and every claim set forth therein alleged 24 against Defendant, is barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of unclean hands. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 2 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. CV-20-002386 67216178v.3 1 FIFTH DEFENSE 2 (Estoppel) 3 5. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and each and every claim set forth therein alleged 4 against Defendant, is barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of estoppel. Defendant alleges that 5 Plaintiff is estopped by her own conduct from asserting any and all claims she individually and/or 6 collectively may have had or has against Defendant from facts alleged in the First Amended Complaint. 7 SIXTH DEFENSE 8 (Laches) 9 6. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and each and every claim set forth therein alleged 10 against Defendant, is barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of laches due to Plaintiff’s inexcusable 11 and unreasonable delay in filing the First Amended Complaint. 12 SEVENTH DEFENSE 13 (Consent) 14 7. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and each and every claim set forth therein alleged 15 against Defendant, in whole or in part by Plaintiff and the alleged aggrieved employees’ express or 16 implied consent to the alleged acts, omissions and conduct of Defendant. 17 EIGHTH DEFENSE 18 (Release) 19 8. To the extent Plaintiff or the alleged aggrieved employees have executed a release or 20 been included in a release encompassing claims alleged in the First Amended Complaint, their claims 21 are barred by that release. 22 NINTH DEFENSE 23 (Arbitration) 24 9. To the extent that Plaintiff or the alleged aggrieved employees have executed agreements 25 to arbitrate that encompass claims alleged in the First Amended Complaint, their claims are barred by 26 their contractual agreement to arbitrate. 27 28 3 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. CV-20-002386 67216178v.3 1 TENTH DEFENSE 2 (Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies) 3 10. Plaintiff’s purported cause of action is barred as Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the statutory 4 prerequisites to sue and to exhaust administrative remedies under the Private Attorneys General Act, 5 Labor Code sections 2698 and 2699 and/or any other applicable administrative remedy. 6 ELEVENTH DEFENSE 7 (Not an Aggrieved Employee) 8 11. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring a representative action under the 9 Private Attorneys General Act because she is not an “aggrieved employee.” 10 TWELFTH DEFENSE 11 (Good Faith Dispute) 12 12. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and each and every claim set forth therein alleged 13 against Defendant, is barred, in whole or in part, because actions taken with respect to Plaintiff’s 14 employment, and the employment of the alleged aggrieved employees, if any, were based on an honest, 15 reasonable, and good faith belief in the facts as known and understood at the time. 16 THIRTEENTH DEFENSE 17 (Plaintiff’s Acts) 18 13. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and each and every claim set forth therein alleged 19 against Defendant, is barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff’s damages, if any, were caused by 20 Plaintiff’s own intentional or negligent acts, thus barring or limiting Plaintiff’s right of recover on behalf 21 of herself or the alleged aggrieved employees. 22 FOURTEENTH DEFENSE 23 (Avoidable Consequences) 24 14. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff and the alleged aggrieved employees are precluded from 25 asserting the PAGA claim, because she failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid the injuries she 26 purportedly suffered in that, among other things, Plaintiff and the alleged aggrieved employees 27 unreasonably failed to utilize Defendant’s internal grievance procedures. To the extent there was any 28 4 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. CV-20-002386 67216178v.3 1 statutory violation (which is not admitted, but considered solely for purposes of this affirmative 2 defense), Plaintiff and the alleged aggrieved employees unreasonably failed to avoid or reduce harm. 3 This includes an obligation that if Plaintiff and the alleged aggrieved employees felt that they were not 4 paid wages for all hours worked and/or were not paid minimum wage and/or were not paid overtime 5 and/or were not paid wages at discharge and/or were not provided with accurate wage statements, 6 Plaintiff and the alleged aggrieved employees had an obligation to utilize any and all internal complaint 7 procedures and timely bring that to the attention of Defendant and/or their supervisors so that if there 8 was any violation, it would be promptly corrected and remedied and would not be allowed to repeat and 9 recur. Plaintiff and the alleged aggrieved employees are therefore barred from any recover based on any 10 harm that could have been reasonably avoided. 11 FIFTEENTH DEFENSE 12 (No Wages Owed) 13 15. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s claims for unpaid regular and overtime wages, and 14 those of the alleged aggrieved employees, are barred because Defendant timely paid all wages owed to 15 them. 16 SIXTEENTH DEFENSE 17 (Minimum Wage) 18 16. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s claims for unpaid minimum wage, and those of the 19 alleged aggrieved employees, are barred because Defendant paid all minimum wages as required by 20 applicable law in relation to the work performed as alleged in the First Amended Complaint. 21 SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE 22 (Not Intentional or Willful Conduct) 23 17. Defendant alleges that even if Defendant engaged in the conduct alleged by Plaintiff, 24 which Defendant denies, such actions or failure to act were not intentional or not willful. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 5 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. CV-20-002386 67216178v.3 1 EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE 2 (Derivative Wage Statement Claims) 3 18. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s derivate wage statement allegations, and those made on 4 behalf of the alleged aggrieved employees, are barred pursuant to Maldonado v. Epsilon Plastics, Inc., 5 Cal. App. 5th 1308, 1337 (2018). 6 NINETEENTH DEFENSE 7 (Penalties) 8 19. Defendant alleges that the First Amended Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to 9 establish a claim for penalties. 10 TWENTIETH DEFENSE 11 (Unconstitutionality of PAGA Penalties) 12 20. The penalties claimed in the First Amended Complaint are excessive and violate the 13 California and United States’ Constitutions. Although Defendant denies that it had committed or had 14 responsibility for any act that could support the recovery of civil penalties in this lawsuit, if and to the 15 extent any such act or responsibility is found, recovery of civil penalties against Defendants is 16 unconstitutional under numerous provisions of the United States Constitution and the California 17 Constitution, including the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment, the due process clause of 18 the Fifth Amendment and Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the self-incrimination clause of the 19 Fifth Amendment, and other provisions of the United States Constitution, and the excessive fines clause 20 of Section 17 of Article I, the due process clause of Section 7 of Article I, the self-incrimination clause 21 of Section 15 of Article I, and other provisions of the California Constitution. 22 TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE 23 (No Penalties Beyond “Initial” Violation) 24 21. Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred to the extent Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees seek 25 penalties beyond the “initial” violation as described in California Labor Code section 2699(f)(2). 26 /// 27 /// 28 6 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. CV-20-002386 67216178v.3 1 TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE 2 (De Minimis Damages) 3 22. Defendant alleges that if, in fact, it has failed to pay Plaintiff or the alleged aggrieved 4 employees for all time worked, the time is de minimis and therefore not compensable. 5 TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE 6 (Offset) 7 23. To the extent that Plaintiff or the alleged aggrieved employees are entitled to restitution, 8 damages, or penalties, Defendant is entitled to an offset for any overpayments of wages or other 9 consideration previously provided to them. 10 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 11 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows: 12 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by reason of the First Amended Complaint; 13 2. That judgment be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on all causes of 14 action; 15 3. That Defendants be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees according to proof; 16 4. That Defendants be awarded the costs of suit incurred herein; and 17 5. That Defendants be awarded such other and further relief as the County may deem 18 appropriate 19 20 DATED: January 12, 2021 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 21 22 By: Aaron R. Lubeley 23 Peter J. Choi Attorneys for Defendant 24 RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC. 25 26 27 28 7 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. CV-20-002386 67216178v.3 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS 3 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) 4 I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300, Los Angeles, California 5 90017-5793. On January 12, 2021, I served the within document(s): 6 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 7 by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California, addressed as set forth below. 8 by placing the document(s) listed above, together with an unsigned copy of this declaration, in a 9 sealed envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier with postage paid on account and deposited for collection with the overnight carrier at Los Angeles, California, 10 addressed as set forth below. 11 by transmitting the document(s) listed above, electronically, via the e-mail addresses set forth below. 12 Larry W. Lee Dennis S. Hyun 13 Max Gavron HYUN LEGAL, APC DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 14 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 15 Los Angeles, CA 90071 dhyun@hyunlegal.com lwlee@diversitylaw.com 16 mgavron@diversitylaw.com 17 William L. Marder 18 POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 19 Hollister, CA 95023 bill@polarislawgroup.com 20 I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for 21 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. I am aware that on motion of the party 22 served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and 24 correct. Executed on January 12, 2021, at Los Angeles, California. 25 26 Kassandra Cutler 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE 65841084v.1