arrow left
arrow right
  • ANGELA JENKINS VS. STARBUCKS CORPORATION ET AL CIVIL RIGHTS document preview
  • ANGELA JENKINS VS. STARBUCKS CORPORATION ET AL CIVIL RIGHTS document preview
  • ANGELA JENKINS VS. STARBUCKS CORPORATION ET AL CIVIL RIGHTS document preview
  • ANGELA JENKINS VS. STARBUCKS CORPORATION ET AL CIVIL RIGHTS document preview
  • ANGELA JENKINS VS. STARBUCKS CORPORATION ET AL CIVIL RIGHTS document preview
  • ANGELA JENKINS VS. STARBUCKS CORPORATION ET AL CIVIL RIGHTS document preview
  • ANGELA JENKINS VS. STARBUCKS CORPORATION ET AL CIVIL RIGHTS document preview
  • ANGELA JENKINS VS. STARBUCKS CORPORATION ET AL CIVIL RIGHTS document preview
						
                                

Preview

1 CONSTANCE E. NORTON, Bar No. 146365 cnorton@littler.com 2 COURTNEY CHAMBERS, Bar No. 312011 cchambers@littler.com ELECTRONICALLY 3 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. F I L E D 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor Superior Court of California, 4 San Francisco, CA 94104 County of San Francisco Telephone: (415) 433-1940 02/18/2021 5 Clerk of the Court Attorneys for Defendant BY: EDWARD SANTOS 6 STARBUCKS CORPORATION Deputy Clerk 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 11 ANGELA JENKINS, an individual; CASE NO. CGC-20-582905 12 DEFENDANT STARBUCKS Plaintiff, CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO 13 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT vs. 14 STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a 15 Washington Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L I T T L ER ME N DE LS ON, P.C . 333 B us h S t reet CASE NO. CGC-20-582905 34th F l oor S a n F r a n c i s co , CA 9 4 1 0 4 415.433.1940 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 1 Defendant STARBUCKS CORPORATION (“Starbucks”) by and through its 2 undersigned counsel hereby answers the unverified Complaint filed by Plaintiff ANGELA JENKINS 3 (“Plaintiff”) in the above-captioned matter as follows: 4 GENERAL DENIAL 5 Pursuant to section 431.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Starbucks 6 answers Plaintiff’s Complaint by generally and specifically denying each and every allegation 7 contained therein, and denying that Plaintiff has been damaged or has sustained any damages as a 8 result of the conduct alleged therein. 9 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 10 As separate and distinct defenses to the Complaint, and each purported cause of action 11 therein, Starbucks alleges the following defenses. In asserting these defenses, Starbucks does not 12 assume the burden of proof as to matters that, as a matter of law, are Plaintiff’s burden to prove. 13 Further, Starbucks does not presently know all the facts concerning the conduct of Plaintiff to state all 14 affirmative defenses at this time. Accordingly, Starbucks will seek leave of this Court to amend this 15 Answer should it later discover facts demonstrating the existence of additional affirmative defenses. 16 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (Failure to State a Cause of Action) 18 The Complaint and each claim and cause of action set forth therein fail to state facts 19 sufficient to constitute a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. 20 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 (Waiver) 22 The Complaint and each claim and cause of action set forth therein are barred, in whole 23 or in part, by the equitable doctrine of waiver. 24 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (Estoppel) 26 The Complaint and each claim and cause of action set forth therein are barred, in whole 27 or in part, by the equitable doctrine of estoppel. 28 L I T T L ER ME N DE LS ON, P.C . 333 B us h S t reet 34th F l oor 2. CASE NO. CGC-20-582905 S a n F r a n c i s co , CA 9 4 1 0 4 415.433.1940 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 1 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Laches) 3 The Complaint and each claim and cause of action set forth therein, are barred by the 4 equitable doctrine of laches. 5 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (Unclean Hands) 7 The Complaint and each claim and cause of action set forth therein are barred, in whole 8 or in part, by the equitable doctrine of unclean hands. 9 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 (Consent) 11 The Complaint and each claim and cause of action set forth therein are barred, in whole 12 or in part, by the equitable doctrine of consent. 13 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (Res Judicata) 15 The Complaint and each claim and cause of action set forth therein are barred, in whole 16 or in part, by the doctrine of res judicata. 17 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (Statutes of Limitation) 19 The Complaint, each claim and cause of action set forth therein are barred, in whole or 20 in part, by the applicable statutes of limitation including, without limitation, those set forth in 21 California Civil Code §§ 51, et seq. and the Unruh Civil Rights Act and California Code of Civil 22 Procedure § 335.1 . 23 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 (Same Conduct) 25 The Complaint, and each cause of action set forth therein, are barred because 26 Starbucks’ employees act in a like manner towards all persons. 27 28 L I T T L ER ME N DE LS ON, P.C . 333 B us h S t reet 34th F l oor 3. CASE NO. CGC-20-582905 S a n F r a n c i s co , CA 9 4 1 0 4 415.433.1940 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 1 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Lack of Proximate Cause) 3 Starbucks cannot be held liable for injuries and damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiff 4 because its conduct was not the proximate cause of the injuries and damages allegedly suffered. 5 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (Prompt and Corrective Action) 7 The Complaint and each claim and cause of action set forth therein cannot be 8 maintained against Starbucks because, at all relevant times, it took prompt and appropriate corrective 9 action in response to Plaintiff’s concerns. 10 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 (Full and Equal Access) 12 As required by California law, Starbucks allowed Plaintiff full and equal access to 13 goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations. 14 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 (Same Access) 16 Plaintiff’s purported claims for relief alleged in the Complaint are barred because 17 Plaintiff has and had the same access to goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or 18 accommodations offered by Starbucks as persons of all races and protected categories. 19 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 (Damages Do Not Arise From Provision of Goods, Services or Facilities) 21 Any alleged damages suffered by Plaintiff do not arise from Starbucks’ provision of 22 goods, services, or facilities and, thus, any alleged conduct was not in violation of the Unruh Civil 23 Rights Act. 24 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (No Notice) 26 The Complaint and each claim and cause of action set forth therein cannot be 27 maintained against Starbucks because Starbucks had no constructive or actual notice of any violations. 28 L I T T L ER ME N DE LS ON, P.C . 333 B us h S t reet 34th F l oor 4. CASE NO. CGC-20-582905 S a n F r a n c i s co , CA 9 4 1 0 4 415.433.1940 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 1 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (No Costs of Suit or Attorneys’ Fees) 3 At all times, all actions taken with regard to Plaintiff, if any, were just, fair, honest, in 4 good faith, privileged, without discrimination, based on legitimate business reasons, were reasonably 5 related to a valid business purpose, and based upon all relevant facts and circumstances known by 6 Starbucks at the time of action. 7 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 (Starbucks Acted in Good Faith and with Good Cause) 9 The Complaint and each claim and cause of action set forth therein are barred because 10 Starbucks acted reasonably and in good faith, honestly and without malice at all times, based upon all 11 relevant facts and circumstances known by Starbucks when it acted, and Starbucks did not violate any 12 rights Plaintiff may have under federal, state or local laws, regulations or guidelines. 13 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (No Unlawful Policy) 15 Plaintiff’s alleged damages were not proximately caused by any unlawful policy, 16 custom, practice and/or procedure promulgated and/or tolerated by Starbucks. 17 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (No Standing—No Purchase) 19 Plaintiff did not tender the purchase price for Starbucks’ services or products, and thus 20 has no standing to sue Starbucks for alleged discriminatory practices. Surrey v. True Beginnings 21 (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 414, 419. 22 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (No Breach) 24 Starbucks did not breach any alleged legal duty it allegedly owed to Plaintiff. 25 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 (Unjust Enrichment) 27 Plaintiff would be unjustly enriched if allowed to recover anything from Starbucks. 28 L I T T L ER ME N DE LS ON, P.C . 333 B us h S t reet 34th F l oor 5. CASE NO. CGC-20-582905 S a n F r a n c i s co , CA 9 4 1 0 4 415.433.1940 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 1 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (No Ratification) 3 The Complaint and each claim and cause of action set forth therein cannot be 4 maintained against Starbucks because Starbucks did not ratify any of the alleged unlawful conduct 5 alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint. 6 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 (Failure to Mitigate Damages) 8 Plaintiff is barred from obtaining any recovery against Starbucks by her failure to 9 mitigate her alleged damages, if any, or, alternatively, any damages or other relief awarded to Plaintiff 10 must be reduced or limited to the extent of such failure to mitigate. 11 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 (Misconduct of Other Parties) 13 If Plaintiff suffered any damages, which Starbucks denies, such damages were 14 proximately or legally caused by the breach of duties and/or misconduct of Plaintiff and/or parties 15 other than Starbucks and, any award of damages is several and must be reduced in whole or in part, or 16 apportioned in proportion to the percentage of comparative fault of Plaintiff, other parties and/or 17 unauthorized individuals. 18 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 (Damages Too Speculative) 20 The Complaint and each cause of action and claim for relief set forth therein are barred 21 because the damages Plaintiff alleges are too speculative to be recoverable at law. 22 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (No Entitlement to General and/ or Special Damages) 24 Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to state a claim for general and/or 25 compensatory damages. 26 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27 (Bad Faith and/or Frivolous Claims) 28 Plaintiff’s claims are unreasonable, were filed in bad faith, and/or are frivolous and L I T T L ER ME N DE LS ON, P.C . 333 B us h S t reet 34th F l oor 6. CASE NO. CGC-20-582905 S a n F r a n c i s co , CA 9 4 1 0 4 415.433.1940 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 1 justify an award of attorneys’ fees and costs against Plaintiff and her attorneys under California law. 2 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3 (No Damages) 4 Plaintiff’s purported claims for relief alleged in the Complaint are barred because 5 Plaintiff did not experience any difficulty, discomfort, or embarrassment due to any alleged conduct 6 actually encountered and/or set forth in the Complaint. 7 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 (No Injunctive Relief) 9 Plaintiff’s purported claim for injunctive relief, as alleged in the Complaint, is barred 10 because Plaintiff has adequate legal remedies and has not and will not suffer irreparable harm or injury. 11 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS 12 The Complaint does not describe the claims or facts alleged by Plaintiff with sufficient 13 particularity to permit Starbucks to ascertain what other defenses may exist. Starbucks, therefore, 14 reserves the right to amend this Answer should it later discover facts demonstrating the existence of 15 new and/or additional affirmative defenses, and/or should a change in the law support the inclusion of 16 new and/or additional affirmative defenses. 17 \\\ 18 \\\ 19 \\\ 20 \\\ 21 \\\ 22 \\\ 23 \\\ 24 \\\ 25 \\\ 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 \\\ L I T T L ER ME N DE LS ON, P.C . 333 B us h S t reet 34th F l oor 7. CASE NO. CGC-20-582905 S a n F r a n c i s co , CA 9 4 1 0 4 415.433.1940 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 2 WHEREFORE, Starbucks prays for judgment as follows: 3 1. That Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed in itsentirety with prejudice; 4 2. That Plaintiff take nothing by this action; 5 3. That Starbucks be awarded its costs of suit and attorneys’ fees incurred herein; 6 and 7 4. That Starbucks be awarded such other and further relief as the Court deems 8 just and proper. 9 DATED: February 18, 2021 10 11 CONSTANCE E. NORTON 12 COURTNEY O. CHAMBERS LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 13 Attorneys for Defendant 14 STARBUCKS CORPORATION 15 16 4829-4303-6614.4 055187.1149 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L I T T L ER ME N DE LS ON, P.C . 333 B us h S t reet 34th F l oor 8. CASE NO. CGC-20-582905 S a n F r a n c i s co , CA 9 4 1 0 4 415.433.1940 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT