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