Preview
1 JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
PETER P. WOO (SBN 306083)
2 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Electronically Filed
Irvine, CA 92618 7/20/2021 1:53 PM
3 Telephone: (949) 885-1360 Superior Court of California
Facsimile: (949) 885-1380 County of Stanislaus
4
Email: Peter.Woo@jacksonlewis.com Clerk of the Court
5 By: Maleia Juan, Deputy
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
6 CHRISTOPHER J. TRUXLER (SBN 282354)
NOLAN W. KESSLER (SBN 327178)
7 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600
Sacramento, California 95814
8 Telephone: (916) 341-0404
Facsimile: (916) 341-0141
9 Email: Christopher.Truxler@jacksonlewis.com $435 PAID
Nolan.kessler@jacksonlewis.com
$1000 COMPLEX FEES PAID
10 Attorneys for Defendant
COMPASS FOODS, INC.
11
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
14 BLANCA CATANO, individually, and on CASE NO. CV-21-001610
behalf of all others similarly situated,
15 CLASS ACTION
Plaintiff,
16 HON. J. FREELAND
vs. DEPT. 23
17
COMPASS FOODS, INC., a corporation; DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO
18 AVITEK RECRIT, INC., a corporation; PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION
HUMAN BEES, INC., a corporation; and COMPLAINT
19 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Complaint Filed: 03/25/2021
20 Defendants. Trial Date: Not Set
21
22 Defendant COMPASS FOODS, INC. (“Defendant”) hereby answers the unverified Class
23 Action Complaint For Damages (“Complaint”) filed by Plaintiff BLANCA CATANO,
24 individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, (“Plaintiff”)
25 as follows:
26 GENERAL DENIAL
27 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, subdivision (d), Defendant denies
28 generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each
1
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 cause of action of said Complaint, and further denies that Plaintiff or the putative class members
2 she purports to represent have suffered any injury or damages of any kind attributable in any way
3 to an act or omission by Defendant.
4 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
5 As separate and distinct affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint and the purported
6 causes of action alleged therein, under information and belief and without conceding that it bears
7 the burden of proof or persuasion as to any one of them, Defendant alleges as follows:
8 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 (Failure to State Claim)
10 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint as a whole, and/or each purported cause of action alleged
11 therein, fail to state any cause of action upon which relief can be granted, including with respect
12 to any general damages, compensatory damages, special damages, injunctive relief, declaratory
13 relief, interest, costs, attorney’s fees, minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated damages,
14 penalties, and/or treble or punitive damages.
15 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 (Statute of Limitations)
17 2. Any recovery on Plaintiff’s Complaint, and/or each purported cause of action
18 alleged therein, is barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, including but not limited to
19 California Code of Civil Procedure sections 338(a), 340(a), and Business and Professions Code
20 section 17208.
21 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 (Prior Payment/Settlement)
23 3. Plaintiff’s Complaint as a whole, and each purported cause of action alleged
24 therein, is barred, settled and/or released in whole or in part, and/or recovery is precluded in
25 whole or in part, to the extent there are settlements, judgments and/or resolutions in other legal or
26 administrative actions brought against Defendant by or on behalf of Plaintiff and/or any putative
27 class members or to the extent there have been voluntary payments by Defendant with respect to
28 some or all of the claims asserted in Plaintiff’s Complaint, or to the extent there are releases of
2
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 claims in exchange for severance packages or other consideration provided by Defendant to
2 Plaintiff, and/or any putative class members. Moreover, Plaintiff’s Complaint as a whole, and
3 each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred by the doctrine of payment, or the
4 doctrine of payment limits and reduces the alleged damages, to the extent Plaintiff, putative class
5 members, and/or any alleged aggrieved employees accepted payment in full discharge of
6 Defendant’s obligations. Without limiting the generality of this affirmative defense, Defendant
7 alleges that to the extent Plaintiff and/or any putative class members have voluntarily settled and
8 released all or portions of their purported claims, they are barred from pursuing these claims, or
9 portions of claims subject to settlements entered into with Defendant.
10 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 (Failure to Mitigate)
12 4. Any recovery on Plaintiff’s Complaint as a whole, and/or each purported cause of
13 action alleged therein, is barred in whole or in part, or any recovery must be reduced, by virtue of
14 Plaintiff’s and/or putative class members’ failure to exercise reasonable diligence to mitigate their
15 alleged damages.
16 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (Avoidable Consequences)
18 5. The Complaint as a whole, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is
19 barred under the avoidable consequences doctrine. Defendant had procedures in place for
20 reporting work-related issues, including, but not limited to, payment of wages issues. Plaintiff
21 and/or any putative class members failed to utilize Defendant’s preventive and corrective
22 measures. Reasonable use of Defendant’s preventive and corrective measures would have
23 prevented at least some of the harm Plaintiff and/or any putative class members allegedly
24 suffered.
25 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 (Failure To Comply With Reasonable Directions)
27 6. Plaintiff’s Complaint as a whole, and/or each purported cause of action alleged
28 therein, is barred in whole or in part by California Labor Code Sections 2854 and 2856 in that,
3
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 based on Plaintiff’s generic and vague allegations that Plaintiff and/or any putative class members
2 allegedly were not paid minimum wages, allegedly were not paid for rest and recovery periods,
3 and allegedly were not paid for nonproductive time, Plaintiff and/or any putative class members
4 failed to use ordinary care and diligence in the performance of their duties, including failing to
5 record all hours worked, failing to record rest and recovery periods, and failing to comply
6 substantially with the reasonable directions of their employer to record all hours worked and to
7 record rest and recovery periods, and had Plaintiff and/or putative class members followed
8 Defendant’s policies with regard to the performance of their duties they would not have sustained
9 any of the alleged damages.
10 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 (All Wages Properly Paid)
12 7. Plaintiff’s Complaint as a whole, and/or each purported cause of action alleged
13 therein, is barred in whole or in part because, Plaintiff and/or any putative class members, have
14 received all wages, income, compensation, and pay to which they have ever been entitled and are
15 therefore not entitled to any wages, expenses, compensation, or penalties under the Labor Code,
16 the applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission and/or any other law.
17 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 (Offset)
19 8. Defendant is entitled to an offset for amounts Plaintiff and/or any putative class
20 members owe Defendant for receipt of any wages and other benefits to which they are not entitled
21 or did not earn.
22 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 (No Willfulness)
24 9. Plaintiff’s Complaint as a whole, and/or each purported cause of action alleged
25 therein, that seeks statutory penalties for alleged willful failure to comply with the requirements
26 of the Labor Code, is barred, in whole or in part, because Defendant did not willfully violate the
27 requirements of the Labor Code, and a good faith dispute exists concerning such alleged
28 violations.
4
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Off-the-Clock Work Prohibited)
3 10. Without admitting the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint, but rather expressly
4 denying them, to the extent Plaintiff’s Complaint as a whole, and/or any purported cause of action
5 alleged therein, asserts claims based on alleged off-the-clock work, such claims are barred, in
6 whole or in part, because off-the-clock work was prohibited by Defendant, and any such work
7 was not reported by Plaintiff and/or any putative class members to Defendant.
8 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 (Failure to Record Time Worked)
10 11. Any recovery on Plaintiff’s Complaint with respect to the allegations for failure to
11 pay wages is barred to the extent Plaintiff and/or any putative class members failed to work
12 and/or to appropriately record all time worked as reasonably expected and required by Defendant.
13 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (Minimum Wages – Good Faith)
15 12. To the extent Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks damages under California Labor Code
16 §§ 1194, et seq. or 1197, et seq., such damages are barred or must be reduced because the alleged
17 acts or omissions giving rise to Defendant’s alleged failure to pay Plaintiff and/or any putative
18 class members wages, including minimum wage, was in good faith and Defendant had reasonable
19 grounds for believing that the acts and omissions were not a violation of any provision of the
20 Labor Code relating to minimum wage, or an order of the commission.
21 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 (Voluntary Waiver – Rest Break)
23 13. Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action is barred to the extent Plaintiff and/or the
24 putative class members failed to take rest breaks, as reasonably expected and permitted by
25 Defendant. At all times, Defendant authorized and permitted employees, including Plaintiff and
26 the putative class members, to take rest breaks as required by law. Plaintiff’s Third Cause of
27 Action is barred to the extent Plaintiff and/or the putative class members voluntarily waived
28 and/or chose to forego or otherwise limit their right to take the rest breaks as permitted.
5
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Voluntary Waiver – Meal Break)
3 14. Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action is barred to the extent that Defendant provided
4 Plaintiff and the alleged putative class members with meal breaks as required by law on a timely
5 basis and without interruption, paid Plaintiff and the alleged putative class members one hour of
6 premium pay at their regular rate of pay if they did not take a timely meal break, and to the
7 further extent Plaintiff and the alleged putative class members did not take a provided meal break,
8 Plaintiff and the alleged putative class members freely chose to do so without any employer
9 coercion or encouragement to forgo or waive the meal break.
10 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 (Itemized Wage Statements)
12 15. Plaintiff’s Seventh Cause of Action, which seeks damages under California Labor
13 Code § 226, is barred, in whole or in part, because at all times mentioned in the Complaint,
14 Defendant alleges that, Defendant provided Plaintiff and/or putative class members with itemized
15 statements in compliance with the requirements of Labor Code section 226. Defendants further
16 allege that, even assuming arguendo Plaintiff and/or putative class members were not provided
17 with a proper itemized statement of wages and deductions, which Defendant denies, Plaintiff
18 and/or putative class members are not entitled to recover damages because Defendant’s alleged
19 failure to comply with California Labor Code Section 226(a) was not a “knowing and intentional
20 failure” and because Plaintiff and/or putative class members did not suffer injury as a result of
21 Defendant’s alleged noncompliance.
22 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 (No Willful or Intentional Failure to Pay Wages)
24 16. Plaintiff’s Fifth Cause of Action for waiting time penalties under Labor Code
25 sections 201 through 202 is barred, in whole or in part, because even assuming, arguendo, that
26 Plaintiff and/or any putative class members are entitled to additional compensation, which
27 Defendant denies, Defendant has not willfully or intentionally failed to pay any such additional
28 ///
6
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 compensation to Plaintiff and/or any putative class members and Plaintiff and/or any putative
2 class members never made a demand for such additional compensation.
3 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 (No Unfair Competition)
5 17. Plaintiff’s Tenth Cause of Action for Unfair Business Practices under California
6 Business and Profession Code Section 17200, et seq. is barred, in whole or in part, because
7 Defendant’s business practices are not and were not “unlawful” in that Defendant complied with
8 all applicable statutes and regulations in payment of wages to Plaintiff and any putative class
9 members. Additionally, the cause of action is barred because the alleged practices are not unfair,
10 the public is not likely to be deceived by any alleged practices, Defendant gained no competitive
11 advantage by such practices, and the benefits of the alleged practices outweigh any harm or other
12 impact they may cause.
13 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (Lack of Standing)
15 18. Plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent Plaintiff lacks standing to bring the
16 instant action on behalf of Plaintiff and/or other unnamed putative class members.
17 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 (No Right to Duplicative Recovery)
19 19. Plaintiff and/or any putative class members are not entitled to duplicative recovery
20 under the purported causes of action alleged in the Complaint.
21 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 (Not Employer)
23 20. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because she seeks relief from
24 entitles that were not her employer.
25 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 (Arbitration)
27 21. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the Parties’ arbitration
28 agreement.
7
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Contribution/Indemnification)
3 22. Defendant denies that it is liable to Plaintiff on any cause of action; however,
4 should a verdict be returned that Defendant is liable to Plaintiff, Defendant is entitled to
5 contribution and/or indemnification from Defendant Human Bees, Inc.
6 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
7 Because Plaintiff’s Complaint is couched in conclusory terms, Defendant cannot fully
8 anticipate all defenses that may be applicable to this action. Accordingly, the right to assert
9 additional defenses, if and to the extent that such defenses are applicable, is hereby reserved.
10 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows:
11 1. That Plaintiff takes nothing by her Complaint;
12 2. That the Complaint be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice;
13 3. That Plaintiff be denied each and every demand and prayer for relief contained in
14 the Complaint;
15 4. For cost of suits incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, including
16 but not limited to, reasonable attorneys’ fees under California Labor Code section 218.5; and
17 5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
18 Dated: July 19, 2021 JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
19
20 By:
PETER J. WOO
21 CHRISTOPHER J. TRUXLER
NOLAN W. KESSLER
22
Attorneys for Defendants
23 COMPASS FOODS, INC.
24
25
26
27
28
8
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I am employed in the County of Sacramento, State of California. I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is Jackson Lewis P.C.,
3 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600, Sacramento, California 95814.
4 On July 19, 2021, I served the within:
5 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
6 on all interested parties in said action, through their attorneys of record as listed below, by placing
a true and correct copy thereof, addressed as shown below, by the following means:
7
8 PERSONAL SERVICE - by causing personal delivery of a true and correct copy thereof
to the person at the address set forth below, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure
section 1011(a).
9
10 MAIL - by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed
postage thereon fully prepaid for deposit in the United States Post Office mail box, at my
envelope with
business address shown above, following Jackson Lewis P.C.’s ordinary business
11 practices for the collection and processing of mail, of which I am readily familiar, and
addressed as set forth below. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection
12 and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States
Postal Service.
13
14 OVERNIGHT DELIVERY - by depositing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a
sealed envelope with delivery fees thereon fully prepaid in a box or other facility
regularly maintained by Norco Delivery Services or delivering to an authorized courier or
15 driver authorized by Norco Delivery Services to receive documents, addressed as set forth
below.
16
17 E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION - Based on a Court
agreement by the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused
order or on an
the document(s) described above to be sent from e-mail address
18 Kelly.asano@jacksonlewis.com to the persons at the e-mail address(es) listed below. I
did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or
19 other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
20 Kane Moon (213) 232-3128 phone
Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan (213) 232-3125 facsimile
21 MOON & YANG, APC kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
1055 W. Seventh Street, Suite 1880 lilit@moonyanglaw.com
22 Los Angeles, CA 90017
23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on July 19, 2021 at Roseville,
24 California.
25
26 Kelly Asano
4849-1310-7186, v. 1
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
1 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. PETER P. WOO (SBN 306083) 2 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Electronically Filed Irvine, CA 92618 7/20/2021 1:53 PM 3 Telephone: (949) 885-1360 Superior Court of California Facsimile: (949) 885-1380 County of Stanislaus 4 Email: Peter.Woo@jacksonlewis.com Clerk of the Court 5 By: Maleia Juan, Deputy JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 6 CHRISTOPHER J. TRUXLER (SBN 282354) NOLAN W. KESSLER (SBN 327178) 7 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 Sacramento, California 95814 8 Telephone: (916) 341-0404 Facsimile: (916) 341-0141 9 Email: Christopher.Truxler@jacksonlewis.com $435 PAID Nolan.kessler@jacksonlewis.com $1000 COMPLEX FEES PAID 10 Attorneys for Defendant COMPASS FOODS, INC. 11 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS 14 BLANCA CATANO, individually, and on CASE NO. CV-21-001610 behalf of all others similarly situated, 15 CLASS ACTION Plaintiff, 16 HON. J. FREELAND vs. DEPT. 23 17 COMPASS FOODS, INC., a corporation; DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO 18 AVITEK RECRIT, INC., a corporation; PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION HUMAN BEES, INC., a corporation; and COMPLAINT 19 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Complaint Filed: 03/25/2021 20 Defendants. Trial Date: Not Set 21 22 Defendant COMPASS FOODS, INC. (“Defendant”) hereby answers the unverified Class 23 Action Complaint For Damages (“Complaint”) filed by Plaintiff BLANCA CATANO, 24 individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, (“Plaintiff”) 25 as follows: 26 GENERAL DENIAL 27 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, subdivision (d), Defendant denies 28 generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each 1 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 cause of action of said Complaint, and further denies that Plaintiff or the putative class members 2 she purports to represent have suffered any injury or damages of any kind attributable in any way 3 to an act or omission by Defendant. 4 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 5 As separate and distinct affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint and the purported 6 causes of action alleged therein, under information and belief and without conceding that it bears 7 the burden of proof or persuasion as to any one of them, Defendant alleges as follows: 8 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 (Failure to State Claim) 10 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint as a whole, and/or each purported cause of action alleged 11 therein, fail to state any cause of action upon which relief can be granted, including with respect 12 to any general damages, compensatory damages, special damages, injunctive relief, declaratory 13 relief, interest, costs, attorney’s fees, minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated damages, 14 penalties, and/or treble or punitive damages. 15 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 (Statute of Limitations) 17 2. Any recovery on Plaintiff’s Complaint, and/or each purported cause of action 18 alleged therein, is barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, including but not limited to 19 California Code of Civil Procedure sections 338(a), 340(a), and Business and Professions Code 20 section 17208. 21 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 (Prior Payment/Settlement) 23 3. Plaintiff’s Complaint as a whole, and each purported cause of action alleged 24 therein, is barred, settled and/or released in whole or in part, and/or recovery is precluded in 25 whole or in part, to the extent there are settlements, judgments and/or resolutions in other legal or 26 administrative actions brought against Defendant by or on behalf of Plaintiff and/or any putative 27 class members or to the extent there have been voluntary payments by Defendant with respect to 28 some or all of the claims asserted in Plaintiff’s Complaint, or to the extent there are releases of 2 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 claims in exchange for severance packages or other consideration provided by Defendant to 2 Plaintiff, and/or any putative class members. Moreover, Plaintiff’s Complaint as a whole, and 3 each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred by the doctrine of payment, or the 4 doctrine of payment limits and reduces the alleged damages, to the extent Plaintiff, putative class 5 members, and/or any alleged aggrieved employees accepted payment in full discharge of 6 Defendant’s obligations. Without limiting the generality of this affirmative defense, Defendant 7 alleges that to the extent Plaintiff and/or any putative class members have voluntarily settled and 8 released all or portions of their purported claims, they are barred from pursuing these claims, or 9 portions of claims subject to settlements entered into with Defendant. 10 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 (Failure to Mitigate) 12 4. Any recovery on Plaintiff’s Complaint as a whole, and/or each purported cause of 13 action alleged therein, is barred in whole or in part, or any recovery must be reduced, by virtue of 14 Plaintiff’s and/or putative class members’ failure to exercise reasonable diligence to mitigate their 15 alleged damages. 16 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (Avoidable Consequences) 18 5. The Complaint as a whole, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is 19 barred under the avoidable consequences doctrine. Defendant had procedures in place for 20 reporting work-related issues, including, but not limited to, payment of wages issues. Plaintiff 21 and/or any putative class members failed to utilize Defendant’s preventive and corrective 22 measures. Reasonable use of Defendant’s preventive and corrective measures would have 23 prevented at least some of the harm Plaintiff and/or any putative class members allegedly 24 suffered. 25 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 (Failure To Comply With Reasonable Directions) 27 6. Plaintiff’s Complaint as a whole, and/or each purported cause of action alleged 28 therein, is barred in whole or in part by California Labor Code Sections 2854 and 2856 in that, 3 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 based on Plaintiff’s generic and vague allegations that Plaintiff and/or any putative class members 2 allegedly were not paid minimum wages, allegedly were not paid for rest and recovery periods, 3 and allegedly were not paid for nonproductive time, Plaintiff and/or any putative class members 4 failed to use ordinary care and diligence in the performance of their duties, including failing to 5 record all hours worked, failing to record rest and recovery periods, and failing to comply 6 substantially with the reasonable directions of their employer to record all hours worked and to 7 record rest and recovery periods, and had Plaintiff and/or putative class members followed 8 Defendant’s policies with regard to the performance of their duties they would not have sustained 9 any of the alleged damages. 10 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 (All Wages Properly Paid) 12 7. Plaintiff’s Complaint as a whole, and/or each purported cause of action alleged 13 therein, is barred in whole or in part because, Plaintiff and/or any putative class members, have 14 received all wages, income, compensation, and pay to which they have ever been entitled and are 15 therefore not entitled to any wages, expenses, compensation, or penalties under the Labor Code, 16 the applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission and/or any other law. 17 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (Offset) 19 8. Defendant is entitled to an offset for amounts Plaintiff and/or any putative class 20 members owe Defendant for receipt of any wages and other benefits to which they are not entitled 21 or did not earn. 22 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (No Willfulness) 24 9. Plaintiff’s Complaint as a whole, and/or each purported cause of action alleged 25 therein, that seeks statutory penalties for alleged willful failure to comply with the requirements 26 of the Labor Code, is barred, in whole or in part, because Defendant did not willfully violate the 27 requirements of the Labor Code, and a good faith dispute exists concerning such alleged 28 violations. 4 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Off-the-Clock Work Prohibited) 3 10. Without admitting the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint, but rather expressly 4 denying them, to the extent Plaintiff’s Complaint as a whole, and/or any purported cause of action 5 alleged therein, asserts claims based on alleged off-the-clock work, such claims are barred, in 6 whole or in part, because off-the-clock work was prohibited by Defendant, and any such work 7 was not reported by Plaintiff and/or any putative class members to Defendant. 8 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 (Failure to Record Time Worked) 10 11. Any recovery on Plaintiff’s Complaint with respect to the allegations for failure to 11 pay wages is barred to the extent Plaintiff and/or any putative class members failed to work 12 and/or to appropriately record all time worked as reasonably expected and required by Defendant. 13 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (Minimum Wages – Good Faith) 15 12. To the extent Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks damages under California Labor Code 16 §§ 1194, et seq. or 1197, et seq., such damages are barred or must be reduced because the alleged 17 acts or omissions giving rise to Defendant’s alleged failure to pay Plaintiff and/or any putative 18 class members wages, including minimum wage, was in good faith and Defendant had reasonable 19 grounds for believing that the acts and omissions were not a violation of any provision of the 20 Labor Code relating to minimum wage, or an order of the commission. 21 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 (Voluntary Waiver – Rest Break) 23 13. Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action is barred to the extent Plaintiff and/or the 24 putative class members failed to take rest breaks, as reasonably expected and permitted by 25 Defendant. At all times, Defendant authorized and permitted employees, including Plaintiff and 26 the putative class members, to take rest breaks as required by law. Plaintiff’s Third Cause of 27 Action is barred to the extent Plaintiff and/or the putative class members voluntarily waived 28 and/or chose to forego or otherwise limit their right to take the rest breaks as permitted. 5 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Voluntary Waiver – Meal Break) 3 14. Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action is barred to the extent that Defendant provided 4 Plaintiff and the alleged putative class members with meal breaks as required by law on a timely 5 basis and without interruption, paid Plaintiff and the alleged putative class members one hour of 6 premium pay at their regular rate of pay if they did not take a timely meal break, and to the 7 further extent Plaintiff and the alleged putative class members did not take a provided meal break, 8 Plaintiff and the alleged putative class members freely chose to do so without any employer 9 coercion or encouragement to forgo or waive the meal break. 10 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 (Itemized Wage Statements) 12 15. Plaintiff’s Seventh Cause of Action, which seeks damages under California Labor 13 Code § 226, is barred, in whole or in part, because at all times mentioned in the Complaint, 14 Defendant alleges that, Defendant provided Plaintiff and/or putative class members with itemized 15 statements in compliance with the requirements of Labor Code section 226. Defendants further 16 allege that, even assuming arguendo Plaintiff and/or putative class members were not provided 17 with a proper itemized statement of wages and deductions, which Defendant denies, Plaintiff 18 and/or putative class members are not entitled to recover damages because Defendant’s alleged 19 failure to comply with California Labor Code Section 226(a) was not a “knowing and intentional 20 failure” and because Plaintiff and/or putative class members did not suffer injury as a result of 21 Defendant’s alleged noncompliance. 22 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (No Willful or Intentional Failure to Pay Wages) 24 16. Plaintiff’s Fifth Cause of Action for waiting time penalties under Labor Code 25 sections 201 through 202 is barred, in whole or in part, because even assuming, arguendo, that 26 Plaintiff and/or any putative class members are entitled to additional compensation, which 27 Defendant denies, Defendant has not willfully or intentionally failed to pay any such additional 28 /// 6 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 compensation to Plaintiff and/or any putative class members and Plaintiff and/or any putative 2 class members never made a demand for such additional compensation. 3 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 (No Unfair Competition) 5 17. Plaintiff’s Tenth Cause of Action for Unfair Business Practices under California 6 Business and Profession Code Section 17200, et seq. is barred, in whole or in part, because 7 Defendant’s business practices are not and were not “unlawful” in that Defendant complied with 8 all applicable statutes and regulations in payment of wages to Plaintiff and any putative class 9 members. Additionally, the cause of action is barred because the alleged practices are not unfair, 10 the public is not likely to be deceived by any alleged practices, Defendant gained no competitive 11 advantage by such practices, and the benefits of the alleged practices outweigh any harm or other 12 impact they may cause. 13 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (Lack of Standing) 15 18. Plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent Plaintiff lacks standing to bring the 16 instant action on behalf of Plaintiff and/or other unnamed putative class members. 17 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (No Right to Duplicative Recovery) 19 19. Plaintiff and/or any putative class members are not entitled to duplicative recovery 20 under the purported causes of action alleged in the Complaint. 21 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 (Not Employer) 23 20. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because she seeks relief from 24 entitles that were not her employer. 25 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 (Arbitration) 27 21. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the Parties’ arbitration 28 agreement. 7 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Contribution/Indemnification) 3 22. Defendant denies that it is liable to Plaintiff on any cause of action; however, 4 should a verdict be returned that Defendant is liable to Plaintiff, Defendant is entitled to 5 contribution and/or indemnification from Defendant Human Bees, Inc. 6 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS 7 Because Plaintiff’s Complaint is couched in conclusory terms, Defendant cannot fully 8 anticipate all defenses that may be applicable to this action. Accordingly, the right to assert 9 additional defenses, if and to the extent that such defenses are applicable, is hereby reserved. 10 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows: 11 1. That Plaintiff takes nothing by her Complaint; 12 2. That the Complaint be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice; 13 3. That Plaintiff be denied each and every demand and prayer for relief contained in 14 the Complaint; 15 4. For cost of suits incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, including 16 but not limited to, reasonable attorneys’ fees under California Labor Code section 218.5; and 17 5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. 18 Dated: July 19, 2021 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 19 20 By: PETER J. WOO 21 CHRISTOPHER J. TRUXLER NOLAN W. KESSLER 22 Attorneys for Defendants 23 COMPASS FOODS, INC. 24 25 26 27 28 8 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I am employed in the County of Sacramento, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is Jackson Lewis P.C., 3 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600, Sacramento, California 95814. 4 On July 19, 2021, I served the within: 5 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 6 on all interested parties in said action, through their attorneys of record as listed below, by placing a true and correct copy thereof, addressed as shown below, by the following means: 7 8 PERSONAL SERVICE - by causing personal delivery of a true and correct copy thereof to the person at the address set forth below, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1011(a). 9 10 MAIL - by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed postage thereon fully prepaid for deposit in the United States Post Office mail box, at my envelope with business address shown above, following Jackson Lewis P.C.’s ordinary business 11 practices for the collection and processing of mail, of which I am readily familiar, and addressed as set forth below. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection 12 and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service. 13 14 OVERNIGHT DELIVERY - by depositing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with delivery fees thereon fully prepaid in a box or other facility regularly maintained by Norco Delivery Services or delivering to an authorized courier or 15 driver authorized by Norco Delivery Services to receive documents, addressed as set forth below. 16 17 E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION - Based on a Court agreement by the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused order or on an the document(s) described above to be sent from e-mail address 18 Kelly.asano@jacksonlewis.com to the persons at the e-mail address(es) listed below. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or 19 other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 20 Kane Moon (213) 232-3128 phone Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan (213) 232-3125 facsimile 21 MOON & YANG, APC kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com 1055 W. Seventh Street, Suite 1880 lilit@moonyanglaw.com 22 Los Angeles, CA 90017 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on July 19, 2021 at Roseville, 24 California. 25 26 Kelly Asano 4849-1310-7186, v. 1 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE