Preview
1 Fraser A. McAlpine (State Bar No. 248554)
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
2 50 California Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-4615
3 Telephone: (415) 394-9400 12/17/2020
Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
4 E-mail: Fraser.McAlpine@jacksonlewis.com
5 Attorneys for Defendants
RR FRANCHISING, INC. and BUDDHA
6 CAPITAL CORPORATION
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10
11 ALIDA MAZARIEGOS, PAULA Case No. 20-CIV-04267
GONZALEZ, and JAIME AMAYA
12 Class Action - Complex Designation
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and
13 all others similarly situated, Assigned for All Purposes to
Hon. Nancy L. Fineman, Dept. 4
14 v.
DEFENDANT BUDDHA CAPITAL
15 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS, INC.; CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO
RR FRANCHISING, INC., D/B/A PLAINTIFFS’ UNVERIFIED
16 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF COMPLAINT
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND D/B/A
17 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; BUDDHA Complaint Filed: 10/01/2020
18 CAPITAL CORPORATION, D/B/A Trial Date: Not Set
VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF
19 SACRAMENTO, D/B/A VANGUARD
CLEANING SYSTEMS OF THE CENTRAL
20 VALLEY, AND D/B/A VANGUARD
CLEANING SYSTEMS OF THE CENTRAL
21 COAST; AND WINE COUNTRY
VENTURES, INC. D/B/A VANGUARD
22 CLEANING SYSTEMS OF THE NORTH
BAY, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10,
23 INCLUSIVE,
24 Defendants.
25
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
1
Defendant Buddha Capital Corporation’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Unverified Complaint Case No. 20-C1V-04267
1 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND ALL ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 Defendant BUDDHA CAPITAL CORPORATION (“Defendant”) answers the unverified
3 Complaint (“Complaint”) of Plaintiffs ALIDA MAZARIEGOS, PAULA GONZALEZ, and
4 JAIME AMAYA (“Plaintiffs”) as follows:
5 GENERAL DENIAL
6 1. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), Defendant answers the
7 Complaint by generally denying each and every allegation of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, by denying
8 that Plaintiffs have been damaged or sustained any damages as a result of the conduct alleged
9 therein, and by asserting the affirmative defenses set forth below.
10 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
11 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 2. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred on the grounds of preemption;
13 specifically, preemption of California’s “ABC” worker-classification test by the Federal Trade
14 Commission’s Franchise Rule, 16 C.F.R. §§ 436.1-437.3, the Federal Trade Commission’s
15 Franchise Rule Guide, and the Lanham Act. There is an inherent, irreconcilable conflict between
16 the Federal law that regulates franchising and the trademark license underlying all franchised
17 businesses and California’s ABC test. The ABC Test impermissibly impinges on the essential
18 feature of the franchise model—control over brand-specific systems and business models. The
19 ABC Test, if interpreted to apply to a franchisor franchisee relationship, would have the perverse
20 effect of converting all franchise relationships, which necessarily require some element of
21 control as defined by the FTC Franchise Rule, into employment relationships despite those
22 relationships being arms’ length and governed by contract. Further, by definition all franchisees
23 are granted the right to operate a business that is identified or associated with the franchisor’s
24 trademark.” 16 C.F.R. 436.1(h). If operating a business identified or associated with the
25 franchisor’s trademark (or offering, selling, or distributing goods, services, or commodities that
26 are identified or associated with the franchisor’s trademark) is considered performing work that
27 is within the usual course of the franchisor’s business, and the ABC test otherwise applies to
28 franchisees, then franchisees (under federal law) would be employees in California under the
2
Defendant Buddha Capital Corporation’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Unverified Complaint Case No. 20-C1V-04267
1 ABC Test. As such those laws governing franchise relationships preempt the application of the
2 ABC test to the relationship between Defendant and each Plaintiff (and putative class member)
3 and, therefore, prohibit use of the ABC test to determine the nature of these relationships. To the
4 extent Plaintiffs’ claims are based on an alleged employment relationship between Plaintiffs and
5 Defendant arising from application of California’s ABC test, Plaintiffs’ claims fail as a matter of
6 law.
7 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 3. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred on the grounds that Plaintiffs’
9 interpretation of California’s ABC worker-classification test is violative of, and barred by, the by
10 the Federal Trade Commission’s Franchise Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 436.1 et seq., the Federal Trade
11 Commission’s Franchise Rule Guide, and the Lanham Act, as well as California state laws,
12 including the California Franchise Investment Law (Cal. Corp. Code §§ 31000-31516) and the
13 California Franchise Relations Act (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 20000-200043). Defendant has
14 acted in compliance with California and federal laws governing franchisor-franchisee
15 relationships in its operations, and given this compliance pursuant to directly applicable
16 legislative standards, and the (indirect) nature of the parties’ relationships, the ABC test does not
17 apply and may not be applied to determine the nature of Defendant’s relationship with Plaintiffs
18 or the putative class members.
19 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 4. Defendant alleges that the claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, in whole
21 or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations, including, but not limited to, California Code
22 of Civil Procedure sections 335.1, 338, 339, 340 and 343, the California Labor Code, and
23 California Business and Professions Code section 17208.
24 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 5. Defendant alleges that all or portions of the claims asserted in the Complaint are
26 barred by the doctrine of unclean hands or the non-waivable conflict of interest created by each
27 Plaintiff’s ownership and management of the commercial cleaning business for which they
28 directly work/worked, which businesses are necessary parties/defendants to this action. Each
3
Defendant Buddha Capital Corporation’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Unverified Complaint Case No. 20-C1V-04267
1 Plaintiff owns/owned (in whole or substantial part) and is/was responsible for managing the
2 commercial cleaning franchise for which they perform/performed the work on which their claims
3 are based. In each instance, as an owner and manager of the respective commercial cleaning
4 franchise, each Plaintiff (along with any other owners/managers of the franchise) had exclusive
5 control over all personnel the franchise used to perform cleaning services, including control over
6 the selection, hiring, and firing of all workers, as well as the exclusive right and obligation to
7 determine worker classifications, compensation rates, scheduling, timing of meal and rest
8 periods, responsibility for timely payment, issuance of wage statements, timekeeping,
9 recordkeeping, and compliance with all other legal, contractual, and actual obligations related to
10 personnel working for Plaintiff’s cleaning franchise. As with all other personnel, to the extent a
11 Plaintiff personally performs/performed cleaning or other work for the Plaintiff’s cleaning
12 business, Plaintiff (along with any other owners and managers) is/was responsible for
13 determining the capacity in which Plaintiff performed the work (e.g. as a non-exempt employee,
14 an exempt employee under the executive or administrative exemption (or a combination thereof),
15 or as a subcontracted independent contractor). As the owners and persons responsible for
16 managing and operating their respective businesses, Plaintiffs and putative class members
17 are/were individually responsible for ensuring compliance with all legal requirements and
18 obligations with respect to the work they personally performed for their businesses. As such,
19 Plaintiffs are barred from bringing claims against Defendant (and the other currently named
20 defendants) by the doctrine of unclean hands. Plaintiff cannot recover damages from Defendant
21 for alleged statutory violations Plaintiff him/herself committed (even if Defendant is found to be
22 a joint employer, which it disputes). Moreover, Plaintiffs are barred from asserting the claims
23 alleged in their Complaint by the direct, non-waivable conflict created by their concurrent status
24 as plaintiffs and owners and managing directors/managers of their respective cleaning
25 businesses, which are necessary defendants/parties to this litigation. Plaintiffs are further
26 conflicted due to their potential personal liability for the damages Plaintiffs seek due to their
27 direct control over their respective businesses’ wage payments, worker classification decisions,
28 and compliance with other employment laws for which individual liability can arise. More
4
Defendant Buddha Capital Corporation’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Unverified Complaint Case No. 20-C1V-04267
1 simply, Plaintiffs cannot sue their own businesses nor bring claims for legal violations they
2 committed and for which they may be individually liable. They likewise cannot bring claims
3 against alleged joint-employers to recover from them damages owed by dint of Plaintiffs’
4 violations.
5 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 6. Defendant alleges that all or portions of the claims asserted in the Complaint are
7 barred by the doctrines of consent or estoppel.
8 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 7. Defendant alleges that the claims asserted in the Complaint fail, in whole or in
10 part, for lack of standing.
11 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 8. Defendant alleges that all or portions of the claims asserted in the Complaint are
13 barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment.
14 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 9. Defendant alleges that all or portions of the claims asserted in the Complaint are
16 barred by the doctrine of laches.
17 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 10. Defendant alleges that all or portions of the claims asserted in the Complaint, in
19 whole or in part, are barred by the doctrine of waiver and release.
20 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 11. Defendant alleges that some or all of the causes of action or claims alleged in the
22 Complaint are barred by the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel.
23 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 12. Defendant alleges that some or all of the causes of action or claims alleged in the
25 Complaint are barred by the doctrine of accord, satisfaction, or release.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
5
Defendant Buddha Capital Corporation’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Unverified Complaint Case No. 20-C1V-04267
1 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 13. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs lack a private right of action to bring claims in
3 court for penalties or any other remedy pursuant to the applicable provisions of the California
4 Labor Code, including without limitation section 226.7.
5 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 14. Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails, in whole or in part, to state a claim for
7 declaratory relief.
8 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 15. Defendant alleges that the Complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state a claim for
10 equitable relief insofar as there are adequate remedies at law.
11 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 16. Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails, in whole or in part, to state a claim for
13 penalties under California Labor Code section 203 because Defendant’s alleged failure to pay
14 any wages found to be due was not willful because there is a bona fide, good faith dispute as to
15 Defendant’s obligation to pay any wages which may be found to be due.
16 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 17. Defendant alleges that prosecution of this action by Plaintiffs as representatives of
18 the general public under California Business and Professions Code section 17200, as applied to
19 the facts and circumstances of this case, would constitute a denial of Defendant’s substantive and
20 procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution
21 and under the California Constitution.
22 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 18. Defendant alleges that certification of a class, as applied to the facts and
24 circumstances of this case, would constitute a denial of Defendant’s procedural and substantive
25 rights to trial by jury or to substantive or procedural due process, in violation of the Fourteenth
26 Amendment of the United States Constitution or the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of
27 the California Constitution.
28 ///
6
Defendant Buddha Capital Corporation’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Unverified Complaint Case No. 20-C1V-04267
1 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 19. Defendant alleges that the adjudication of the claims of the putative class through
3 generalized class-wide proof violates Defendant’s rights to trial by jury under the United States
4 Constitution and the California Constitution.
5 NINTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 20. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ prosecution of their cause(s) of action under the
7 Private Attorneys’ General Act (“PAGA”), Cal. Labor Code § 2699, et seq., violates the
8 California Constitution and the separation of powers proscribed therein.
9 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 21. Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which
11 prejudgment interest may be granted, as the damages claimed are not sufficiently certain to allow
12 an award of prejudgment interest.
13 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 22. Defendant alleges that, to the extent Plaintiffs seek statutory or other penalties,
15 such claim(s) must comport with the due process requirements of State Farm v. Campbell (2003)
16 538 U.S. 408.
17 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 23. Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails, in whole or in part, to state a claim for
19 recovery of consequential damages based upon wages due and owing, restitution, disgorgement,
20 or any other basis.
21 TWENTY- THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 24. Defendant alleges that, if Plaintiffs are adjudged to be entitled to any recovery
23 based on the Complaint, Defendant is entitled to a set off for past overpayments to Plaintiffs for
24 unearned wages and misappropriation of company property.
25 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 25. Defendant is informed and believes that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust all
27 administrative remedies prior to filing suit, including without limitation by failing to provide
28 requisite notice pursuant to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and the
7
Defendant Buddha Capital Corporation’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Unverified Complaint Case No. 20-C1V-04267
1 California Labor Commissioner. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part to the extent
2 that itexceeds the scope of the charges made by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and other
3 allegedly aggrieved employees before the LWDA. Plaintiffs’ notice to the LWDA consists of
4 recitations of the law, but contains insufficient facts to support the allegations of violations of the
5 law, among other deficiencies.
6 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 26. Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to state a claim for attorneys’ fees
8 under California Labor Code sections 203, 218.5, 226(e), 1194, or 2802, or, California Civil
9 Code section 52.1, California Civil Procedure Code section 1021.5, or any other basis.
10 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 27. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their alleged damages.
12 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 28. Defendant alleges that any incidents and alleged damages were caused by the
14 negligence or fault of other persons or entities, entitling Defendant to an offset.
15 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 29. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ recovery under the Private Attorneys General
17 Act (“PAGA”) is limited to civil penalties for the alleged Labor Code violations and may not be
18 utilized where other remedies are sought.
19 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 30. Defendant alleges that any award of penalties that Plaintiffs seek under PAGA is
21 discretionary, and an award of the maximum penalties authorized by statute in favor Plaintiffs
22 and against Defendant would be unjust, arbitrary, oppressive and confiscatory under California
23 Labor Code section 2699(e)(2).
24 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 31. Defendant alleges that, for all relevant and applicable periods of time, Defendant
26 has not been subject to the requirements embodied by, but not limited to, the California Labor
27 Code, the California Code of Regulations, California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
28 Orders, and any other laws predicated on an actual or potential employer-employee relationship
8
Defendant Buddha Capital Corporation’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Unverified Complaint Case No. 20-C1V-04267
1 with respect to Plaintiffs on the grounds that Defendant never employed Plaintiffs (directly,
2 jointly or otherwise).
3 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 32. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the terms of their respective
5 franchise agreements.
6 THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 33. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the criteria for class certification,
8 as this lawsuit and any individual claims may not properly be maintained as a representative or
9 class action because: (a) Plaintiffs cannot establish the necessary procedural elements for
10 representative/class treatment; (b) considerations of necessity, convenience and justice do not
11 augur in favor of representative/class treatment; (c) individual issues are predominant; (d)
12 proceeding on a representative/class basis would be unmanageable, and (e) because of the
13 inherent conflict between the Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent, Plaintiffs are
14 inadequate class representatives.
15 THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 34. Defendant alleges that the claims asserted in the Complaint are, in whole or in
17 part, governed and preempted by federal and state law, including without limitation the Federal
18 Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
19 THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 35. Defendant alleges that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the putative class action,
21 in whole or in part, because Plaintiffs’ and the putative class members’ claims are subject to
22 mandatory and binding arbitration on an individual basis, pursuant to arbitration agreements they
23 entered into.
24 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 36. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs have failed to join or otherwise include all of the
26 potentially responsible parties necessary for a full and just adjudication of the purported claims
27 asserted in the Complaint.
28 ///
9
Defendant Buddha Capital Corporation’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Unverified Complaint Case No. 20-C1V-04267
1 THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 37. Defendant alleges that the Complaint, and each cause of action set forth therein,
3 or some of them, are barred to the extent Plaintiffs or members of the putative class Plaintiffs
4 purport to represent have released claims he/she/they/it may otherwise have been able to assert
5 against Defendant.
6 THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 38. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims for penalties are barred, in whole or in
8 part, on the grounds that, at all times alleged herein, Defendant acted in good faith, with a
9 reasonable basis for so acting, and never willfully violated any laws.
10 THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 39. Defendant alleges that, even assuming, arguendo, Defendant failed to comply
12 with any provision of the Labor Code, Defendant substantially complied with the Labor Code,
13 thus rendering an award of penalties inappropriate under the circumstances. For the same
14 reason, should the Court find a violation of the Labor Code occurred, and such violation gives
15 rise to potential penalties, the Court must exercise its discretion and significantly discount or
16 eliminate any potential penalties owed by Defendant due to Defendant’s good faith efforts to
17 comply with the Labor Code or substantial compliance with the Labor Code.
18 RESERVATION OF ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
19 40. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
20 whether it has other, as yet unstated, defenses. Defendant reserves the right to assert, and hereby
21 gives notice that it intends to rely upon, any other defense that may become available or appear
22 during discovery or otherwise, and reserve the right to amend its Answer to assert any such
23 defense.
24 WHEREFORE Defendant prays that:
25 1. The Complaint be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice;
26 2. Plaintiffs take nothing by this action;
27 3. Defendant be awarded its costs and attorneys’ fees;
28 ///
10
Defendant Buddha Capital Corporation’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Unverified Complaint Case No. 20-C1V-04267
1 4. Judgment be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs on Representing
all of Man
Jackson Lewis P.C.Ii
A
2 Plaintiffs’ causes of action; and 50 California Street
3 5. Defendant be awarded
Jackson
such other and further
lewis
relief as the Court deems just
915 Floor
and
S
A
San Francisco, California 94111
/JA
Tel 415 394-9400 B
Far 415 3949401 BO
4 proper. www.jacksonlewis.cornCH
GI
5 Dated: December 17, 2020 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. DA
D
6 DE
/E
MY DIRECT DIAL Is: (415) 796-5422 GR
7 MYBy:
EMAIL ADDRESS IS: TYLER.BROWN@JACKSONLEWIS.COM
Fraser A. McAlpine th
8 Attorneys for Defendant
RR FRANCHISING, INC. and BUDDHA Augus
9 CAPITAL CORPORATION
10
VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
11
Stephen Jaffe MY
12 7 White Sun Way MY
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
13
Se
14 Re: George Kanakis v. G
As
15 Dear Stephen: La
82
16
Enclosed are the following in settlement of this ma Sa
17 E-
• Goodwill Industries of the Greater Ea
18 Jaffe Law Firm, for $15,000.00; Re
19 • A copy for your files of Goodwill In
De
20 #09006, payable to George Kanakis, for
W
21 • A copy of the fully executed Confidenti
21
22 Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in res Th
23 Very Vet
24 JA
JACK
25
26
Tyler
Ty
27
TAB/ln
28 Enclosures
11
4838-3258-3584, v. 1
Defendant Buddha Capital Corporation’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Unverified Complaint Case No. 20-C1V-04267
TA
En
1 PROOF OF SERVICE [CCP § 1010.6(b), CRC Rule 2.253(a) and Local Rule 2.1.5]
2 I, Belinda Vega, declare that I am employed with the law firm of Jackson Lewis P.C.,
3 whose address is 50 California Street, 9th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4615; I am over
4 the age of eighteen (18) years and am not a party to this action.
5 On December 17, 2020, I caused to be e-served the attached DEFENDANT BUDDHA
6 CAPITAL CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ UNVERIFIED
7 COMPLAINT in this action by uploading a true and correct copy thereof, in PDF format, for
8 electronic filing and service by First Legal (a court-approved Electronic Filing Service Provider),
9 pursuant to Local Rule 2.1.5. Said document to be filed with the Court and e-served on the
10 parties’ counsel of record and assigned civil judge, whose contact information is as follows:
11 Jessica L. Riggin, Esq. Damon M. Ott, Esq.
Valerie J. Brender, Esq. Littler Mendelson PC
12 Rukin Hyland & Riggin LLP 333 Bush St., 34th Fl.
1939 Harrison St., Ste. 290 San Francisco, CA 94104-2874
13 Oakland, CA 94612-4713 Tel.: (415) 677-3173
Tel.: (415) 421-1800 Fax: (415) 707-2072
14 Fax: (415) 421-1700 E-mail: dott@littler.com
E-mails: jriggin@rukinhyland.com
15 vbrender@rukinhyland.com Attorneys for Defendant
VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS, INC.
16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ALIDA MAZARIEGOS, PAULA
17 GONZALEZ, and JAIME AMAYA
Ronald D. Arena, Esq.
18 Matthew C Helland, Esq. Michael B. Moore, Esq.
Daniel S. Brome, Esq. Arena Hoffman LLP
19 Nichols Kaster, LLP 220 Montgomery St., Ste. 905
235 Montgomery St., Ste. 810 San Francisco, CA 94104-3471
20 San Francisco, CA 94104-2906 Tel.: (415) 433-1414
Tel.: (415) 277-7235 Fax: (415) 520-0446
21 Fax: (415) 277-7238 E-mails: rarena@arenahoffman.com
E-mails: helland@nka.com mmoore@arenahoffman.com
22 dbrome@nka.com
Attorneys for Defendant
23 Attorneys for Plaintiffs WINE COUNTRY VENTURES, INC.
ALIDA MAZARIEGOS, PAULA
24 GONZALEZ, and JAIME AMAYA
25 Hon. Nancy L. Fineman
Assigned Civil Judge
26 San Mateo County Superior Court
Hall of Justice & Records
27 Dept. 4, Ctrm. 8B | 400 County Center
Redwood City, CA 94063
28 Dept. 4: (650) 261-5104
E-mail: Dept4@sanmateocourt.org
1
Proof of Service [CCP § 1010.6(b), CRC Rule 2.253(a) and Local Rule 2.1.5] Case No. 20-C1V-04267
VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
1
Stephen Jaffe
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the
7 White Sun Way
2 above is true and correct. Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
3 Executed on December 17, 2020, at San Francisco, California.
4
Re:
5 Stephen:
Dear
6
Belinda Vega
Enclosed are the following in
7
8 • Goodwill Industrie
9 Jaffe Law Firm, fo
10
• A copy for your f
11 #09006, payable to
12
• A copy of the fully
13
14 Thank you for your courtesy a
15
16
17
18
19
20
TAB/ln
21
Preview
1 Fraser A. McAlpine (State Bar No. 248554) JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 2 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4615 3 Telephone: (415) 394-9400 12/17/2020 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 4 E-mail: Fraser.McAlpine@jacksonlewis.com 5 Attorneys for Defendants RR FRANCHISING, INC. and BUDDHA 6 CAPITAL CORPORATION 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 11 ALIDA MAZARIEGOS, PAULA Case No. 20-CIV-04267 GONZALEZ, and JAIME AMAYA 12 Class Action - Complex Designation Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and 13 all others similarly situated, Assigned for All Purposes to Hon. Nancy L. Fineman, Dept. 4 14 v. DEFENDANT BUDDHA CAPITAL 15 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS, INC.; CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO RR FRANCHISING, INC., D/B/A PLAINTIFFS’ UNVERIFIED 16 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF COMPLAINT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND D/B/A 17 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; BUDDHA Complaint Filed: 10/01/2020 18 CAPITAL CORPORATION, D/B/A Trial Date: Not Set VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF 19 SACRAMENTO, D/B/A VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF THE CENTRAL 20 VALLEY, AND D/B/A VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF THE CENTRAL 21 COAST; AND WINE COUNTRY VENTURES, INC. D/B/A VANGUARD 22 CLEANING SYSTEMS OF THE NORTH BAY, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, 23 INCLUSIVE, 24 Defendants. 25 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Defendant Buddha Capital Corporation’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Unverified Complaint Case No. 20-C1V-04267 1 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND ALL ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 Defendant BUDDHA CAPITAL CORPORATION (“Defendant”) answers the unverified 3 Complaint (“Complaint”) of Plaintiffs ALIDA MAZARIEGOS, PAULA GONZALEZ, and 4 JAIME AMAYA (“Plaintiffs”) as follows: 5 GENERAL DENIAL 6 1. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), Defendant answers the 7 Complaint by generally denying each and every allegation of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, by denying 8 that Plaintiffs have been damaged or sustained any damages as a result of the conduct alleged 9 therein, and by asserting the affirmative defenses set forth below. 10 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 11 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 2. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred on the grounds of preemption; 13 specifically, preemption of California’s “ABC” worker-classification test by the Federal Trade 14 Commission’s Franchise Rule, 16 C.F.R. §§ 436.1-437.3, the Federal Trade Commission’s 15 Franchise Rule Guide, and the Lanham Act. There is an inherent, irreconcilable conflict between 16 the Federal law that regulates franchising and the trademark license underlying all franchised 17 businesses and California’s ABC test. The ABC Test impermissibly impinges on the essential 18 feature of the franchise model—control over brand-specific systems and business models. The 19 ABC Test, if interpreted to apply to a franchisor franchisee relationship, would have the perverse 20 effect of converting all franchise relationships, which necessarily require some element of 21 control as defined by the FTC Franchise Rule, into employment relationships despite those 22 relationships being arms’ length and governed by contract. Further, by definition all franchisees 23 are granted the right to operate a business that is identified or associated with the franchisor’s 24 trademark.” 16 C.F.R. 436.1(h). If operating a business identified or associated with the 25 franchisor’s trademark (or offering, selling, or distributing goods, services, or commodities that 26 are identified or associated with the franchisor’s trademark) is considered performing work that 27 is within the usual course of the franchisor’s business, and the ABC test otherwise applies to 28 franchisees, then franchisees (under federal law) would be employees in California under the 2 Defendant Buddha Capital Corporation’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Unverified Complaint Case No. 20-C1V-04267 1 ABC Test. As such those laws governing franchise relationships preempt the application of the 2 ABC test to the relationship between Defendant and each Plaintiff (and putative class member) 3 and, therefore, prohibit use of the ABC test to determine the nature of these relationships. To the 4 extent Plaintiffs’ claims are based on an alleged employment relationship between Plaintiffs and 5 Defendant arising from application of California’s ABC test, Plaintiffs’ claims fail as a matter of 6 law. 7 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 3. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ 9 interpretation of California’s ABC worker-classification test is violative of, and barred by, the by 10 the Federal Trade Commission’s Franchise Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 436.1 et seq., the Federal Trade 11 Commission’s Franchise Rule Guide, and the Lanham Act, as well as California state laws, 12 including the California Franchise Investment Law (Cal. Corp. Code §§ 31000-31516) and the 13 California Franchise Relations Act (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 20000-200043). Defendant has 14 acted in compliance with California and federal laws governing franchisor-franchisee 15 relationships in its operations, and given this compliance pursuant to directly applicable 16 legislative standards, and the (indirect) nature of the parties’ relationships, the ABC test does not 17 apply and may not be applied to determine the nature of Defendant’s relationship with Plaintiffs 18 or the putative class members. 19 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 4. Defendant alleges that the claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, in whole 21 or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations, including, but not limited to, California Code 22 of Civil Procedure sections 335.1, 338, 339, 340 and 343, the California Labor Code, and 23 California Business and Professions Code section 17208. 24 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 5. Defendant alleges that all or portions of the claims asserted in the Complaint are 26 barred by the doctrine of unclean hands or the non-waivable conflict of interest created by each 27 Plaintiff’s ownership and management of the commercial cleaning business for which they 28 directly work/worked, which businesses are necessary parties/defendants to this action. Each 3 Defendant Buddha Capital Corporation’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Unverified Complaint Case No. 20-C1V-04267 1 Plaintiff owns/owned (in whole or substantial part) and is/was responsible for managing the 2 commercial cleaning franchise for which they perform/performed the work on which their claims 3 are based. In each instance, as an owner and manager of the respective commercial cleaning 4 franchise, each Plaintiff (along with any other owners/managers of the franchise) had exclusive 5 control over all personnel the franchise used to perform cleaning services, including control over 6 the selection, hiring, and firing of all workers, as well as the exclusive right and obligation to 7 determine worker classifications, compensation rates, scheduling, timing of meal and rest 8 periods, responsibility for timely payment, issuance of wage statements, timekeeping, 9 recordkeeping, and compliance with all other legal, contractual, and actual obligations related to 10 personnel working for Plaintiff’s cleaning franchise. As with all other personnel, to the extent a 11 Plaintiff personally performs/performed cleaning or other work for the Plaintiff’s cleaning 12 business, Plaintiff (along with any other owners and managers) is/was responsible for 13 determining the capacity in which Plaintiff performed the work (e.g. as a non-exempt employee, 14 an exempt employee under the executive or administrative exemption (or a combination thereof), 15 or as a subcontracted independent contractor). As the owners and persons responsible for 16 managing and operating their respective businesses, Plaintiffs and putative class members 17 are/were individually responsible for ensuring compliance with all legal requirements and 18 obligations with respect to the work they personally performed for their businesses. As such, 19 Plaintiffs are barred from bringing claims against Defendant (and the other currently named 20 defendants) by the doctrine of unclean hands. Plaintiff cannot recover damages from Defendant 21 for alleged statutory violations Plaintiff him/herself committed (even if Defendant is found to be 22 a joint employer, which it disputes). Moreover, Plaintiffs are barred from asserting the claims 23 alleged in their Complaint by the direct, non-waivable conflict created by their concurrent status 24 as plaintiffs and owners and managing directors/managers of their respective cleaning 25 businesses, which are necessary defendants/parties to this litigation. Plaintiffs are further 26 conflicted due to their potential personal liability for the damages Plaintiffs seek due to their 27 direct control over their respective businesses’ wage payments, worker classification decisions, 28 and compliance with other employment laws for which individual liability can arise. More 4 Defendant Buddha Capital Corporation’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Unverified Complaint Case No. 20-C1V-04267 1 simply, Plaintiffs cannot sue their own businesses nor bring claims for legal violations they 2 committed and for which they may be individually liable. They likewise cannot bring claims 3 against alleged joint-employers to recover from them damages owed by dint of Plaintiffs’ 4 violations. 5 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 6. Defendant alleges that all or portions of the claims asserted in the Complaint are 7 barred by the doctrines of consent or estoppel. 8 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 7. Defendant alleges that the claims asserted in the Complaint fail, in whole or in 10 part, for lack of standing. 11 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 8. Defendant alleges that all or portions of the claims asserted in the Complaint are 13 barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. 14 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 9. Defendant alleges that all or portions of the claims asserted in the Complaint are 16 barred by the doctrine of laches. 17 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 10. Defendant alleges that all or portions of the claims asserted in the Complaint, in 19 whole or in part, are barred by the doctrine of waiver and release. 20 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 11. Defendant alleges that some or all of the causes of action or claims alleged in the 22 Complaint are barred by the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel. 23 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 12. Defendant alleges that some or all of the causes of action or claims alleged in the 25 Complaint are barred by the doctrine of accord, satisfaction, or release. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 5 Defendant Buddha Capital Corporation’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Unverified Complaint Case No. 20-C1V-04267 1 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 13. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs lack a private right of action to bring claims in 3 court for penalties or any other remedy pursuant to the applicable provisions of the California 4 Labor Code, including without limitation section 226.7. 5 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 14. Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails, in whole or in part, to state a claim for 7 declaratory relief. 8 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 15. Defendant alleges that the Complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state a claim for 10 equitable relief insofar as there are adequate remedies at law. 11 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 16. Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails, in whole or in part, to state a claim for 13 penalties under California Labor Code section 203 because Defendant’s alleged failure to pay 14 any wages found to be due was not willful because there is a bona fide, good faith dispute as to 15 Defendant’s obligation to pay any wages which may be found to be due. 16 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 17. Defendant alleges that prosecution of this action by Plaintiffs as representatives of 18 the general public under California Business and Professions Code section 17200, as applied to 19 the facts and circumstances of this case, would constitute a denial of Defendant’s substantive and 20 procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution 21 and under the California Constitution. 22 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 18. Defendant alleges that certification of a class, as applied to the facts and 24 circumstances of this case, would constitute a denial of Defendant’s procedural and substantive 25 rights to trial by jury or to substantive or procedural due process, in violation of the Fourteenth 26 Amendment of the United States Constitution or the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of 27 the California Constitution. 28 /// 6 Defendant Buddha Capital Corporation’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Unverified Complaint Case No. 20-C1V-04267 1 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 19. Defendant alleges that the adjudication of the claims of the putative class through 3 generalized class-wide proof violates Defendant’s rights to trial by jury under the United States 4 Constitution and the California Constitution. 5 NINTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 20. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ prosecution of their cause(s) of action under the 7 Private Attorneys’ General Act (“PAGA”), Cal. Labor Code § 2699, et seq., violates the 8 California Constitution and the separation of powers proscribed therein. 9 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 21. Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which 11 prejudgment interest may be granted, as the damages claimed are not sufficiently certain to allow 12 an award of prejudgment interest. 13 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 22. Defendant alleges that, to the extent Plaintiffs seek statutory or other penalties, 15 such claim(s) must comport with the due process requirements of State Farm v. Campbell (2003) 16 538 U.S. 408. 17 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 23. Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails, in whole or in part, to state a claim for 19 recovery of consequential damages based upon wages due and owing, restitution, disgorgement, 20 or any other basis. 21 TWENTY- THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 24. Defendant alleges that, if Plaintiffs are adjudged to be entitled to any recovery 23 based on the Complaint, Defendant is entitled to a set off for past overpayments to Plaintiffs for 24 unearned wages and misappropriation of company property. 25 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 25. Defendant is informed and believes that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust all 27 administrative remedies prior to filing suit, including without limitation by failing to provide 28 requisite notice pursuant to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and the 7 Defendant Buddha Capital Corporation’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Unverified Complaint Case No. 20-C1V-04267 1 California Labor Commissioner. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part to the extent 2 that itexceeds the scope of the charges made by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and other 3 allegedly aggrieved employees before the LWDA. Plaintiffs’ notice to the LWDA consists of 4 recitations of the law, but contains insufficient facts to support the allegations of violations of the 5 law, among other deficiencies. 6 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 26. Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to state a claim for attorneys’ fees 8 under California Labor Code sections 203, 218.5, 226(e), 1194, or 2802, or, California Civil 9 Code section 52.1, California Civil Procedure Code section 1021.5, or any other basis. 10 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 27. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their alleged damages. 12 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 28. Defendant alleges that any incidents and alleged damages were caused by the 14 negligence or fault of other persons or entities, entitling Defendant to an offset. 15 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 29. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ recovery under the Private Attorneys General 17 Act (“PAGA”) is limited to civil penalties for the alleged Labor Code violations and may not be 18 utilized where other remedies are sought. 19 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 30. Defendant alleges that any award of penalties that Plaintiffs seek under PAGA is 21 discretionary, and an award of the maximum penalties authorized by statute in favor Plaintiffs 22 and against Defendant would be unjust, arbitrary, oppressive and confiscatory under California 23 Labor Code section 2699(e)(2). 24 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 31. Defendant alleges that, for all relevant and applicable periods of time, Defendant 26 has not been subject to the requirements embodied by, but not limited to, the California Labor 27 Code, the California Code of Regulations, California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage 28 Orders, and any other laws predicated on an actual or potential employer-employee relationship 8 Defendant Buddha Capital Corporation’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Unverified Complaint Case No. 20-C1V-04267 1 with respect to Plaintiffs on the grounds that Defendant never employed Plaintiffs (directly, 2 jointly or otherwise). 3 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 32. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the terms of their respective 5 franchise agreements. 6 THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 33. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the criteria for class certification, 8 as this lawsuit and any individual claims may not properly be maintained as a representative or 9 class action because: (a) Plaintiffs cannot establish the necessary procedural elements for 10 representative/class treatment; (b) considerations of necessity, convenience and justice do not 11 augur in favor of representative/class treatment; (c) individual issues are predominant; (d) 12 proceeding on a representative/class basis would be unmanageable, and (e) because of the 13 inherent conflict between the Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent, Plaintiffs are 14 inadequate class representatives. 15 THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 34. Defendant alleges that the claims asserted in the Complaint are, in whole or in 17 part, governed and preempted by federal and state law, including without limitation the Federal 18 Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq. 19 THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 35. Defendant alleges that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the putative class action, 21 in whole or in part, because Plaintiffs’ and the putative class members’ claims are subject to 22 mandatory and binding arbitration on an individual basis, pursuant to arbitration agreements they 23 entered into. 24 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 36. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs have failed to join or otherwise include all of the 26 potentially responsible parties necessary for a full and just adjudication of the purported claims 27 asserted in the Complaint. 28 /// 9 Defendant Buddha Capital Corporation’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Unverified Complaint Case No. 20-C1V-04267 1 THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 37. Defendant alleges that the Complaint, and each cause of action set forth therein, 3 or some of them, are barred to the extent Plaintiffs or members of the putative class Plaintiffs 4 purport to represent have released claims he/she/they/it may otherwise have been able to assert 5 against Defendant. 6 THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 38. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims for penalties are barred, in whole or in 8 part, on the grounds that, at all times alleged herein, Defendant acted in good faith, with a 9 reasonable basis for so acting, and never willfully violated any laws. 10 THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 39. Defendant alleges that, even assuming, arguendo, Defendant failed to comply 12 with any provision of the Labor Code, Defendant substantially complied with the Labor Code, 13 thus rendering an award of penalties inappropriate under the circumstances. For the same 14 reason, should the Court find a violation of the Labor Code occurred, and such violation gives 15 rise to potential penalties, the Court must exercise its discretion and significantly discount or 16 eliminate any potential penalties owed by Defendant due to Defendant’s good faith efforts to 17 comply with the Labor Code or substantial compliance with the Labor Code. 18 RESERVATION OF ADDITIONAL DEFENSES 19 40. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 20 whether it has other, as yet unstated, defenses. Defendant reserves the right to assert, and hereby 21 gives notice that it intends to rely upon, any other defense that may become available or appear 22 during discovery or otherwise, and reserve the right to amend its Answer to assert any such 23 defense. 24 WHEREFORE Defendant prays that: 25 1. The Complaint be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice; 26 2. Plaintiffs take nothing by this action; 27 3. Defendant be awarded its costs and attorneys’ fees; 28 /// 10 Defendant Buddha Capital Corporation’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Unverified Complaint Case No. 20-C1V-04267 1 4. Judgment be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs on Representing all of Man Jackson Lewis P.C.Ii A 2 Plaintiffs’ causes of action; and 50 California Street 3 5. Defendant be awarded Jackson such other and further lewis relief as the Court deems just 915 Floor and S A San Francisco, California 94111 /JA Tel 415 394-9400 B Far 415 3949401 BO 4 proper. www.jacksonlewis.cornCH GI 5 Dated: December 17, 2020 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. DA D 6 DE /E MY DIRECT DIAL Is: (415) 796-5422 GR 7 MYBy: EMAIL ADDRESS IS: TYLER.BROWN@JACKSONLEWIS.COM Fraser A. McAlpine th 8 Attorneys for Defendant RR FRANCHISING, INC. and BUDDHA Augus 9 CAPITAL CORPORATION 10 VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY 11 Stephen Jaffe MY 12 7 White Sun Way MY Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 13 Se 14 Re: George Kanakis v. G As 15 Dear Stephen: La 82 16 Enclosed are the following in settlement of this ma Sa 17 E- • Goodwill Industries of the Greater Ea 18 Jaffe Law Firm, for $15,000.00; Re 19 • A copy for your files of Goodwill In De 20 #09006, payable to George Kanakis, for W 21 • A copy of the fully executed Confidenti 21 22 Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in res Th 23 Very Vet 24 JA JACK 25 26 Tyler Ty 27 TAB/ln 28 Enclosures 11 4838-3258-3584, v. 1 Defendant Buddha Capital Corporation’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Unverified Complaint Case No. 20-C1V-04267 TA En 1 PROOF OF SERVICE [CCP § 1010.6(b), CRC Rule 2.253(a) and Local Rule 2.1.5] 2 I, Belinda Vega, declare that I am employed with the law firm of Jackson Lewis P.C., 3 whose address is 50 California Street, 9th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4615; I am over 4 the age of eighteen (18) years and am not a party to this action. 5 On December 17, 2020, I caused to be e-served the attached DEFENDANT BUDDHA 6 CAPITAL CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ UNVERIFIED 7 COMPLAINT in this action by uploading a true and correct copy thereof, in PDF format, for 8 electronic filing and service by First Legal (a court-approved Electronic Filing Service Provider), 9 pursuant to Local Rule 2.1.5. Said document to be filed with the Court and e-served on the 10 parties’ counsel of record and assigned civil judge, whose contact information is as follows: 11 Jessica L. Riggin, Esq. Damon M. Ott, Esq. Valerie J. Brender, Esq. Littler Mendelson PC 12 Rukin Hyland & Riggin LLP 333 Bush St., 34th Fl. 1939 Harrison St., Ste. 290 San Francisco, CA 94104-2874 13 Oakland, CA 94612-4713 Tel.: (415) 677-3173 Tel.: (415) 421-1800 Fax: (415) 707-2072 14 Fax: (415) 421-1700 E-mail: dott@littler.com E-mails: jriggin@rukinhyland.com 15 vbrender@rukinhyland.com Attorneys for Defendant VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS, INC. 16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs ALIDA MAZARIEGOS, PAULA 17 GONZALEZ, and JAIME AMAYA Ronald D. Arena, Esq. 18 Matthew C Helland, Esq. Michael B. Moore, Esq. Daniel S. Brome, Esq. Arena Hoffman LLP 19 Nichols Kaster, LLP 220 Montgomery St., Ste. 905 235 Montgomery St., Ste. 810 San Francisco, CA 94104-3471 20 San Francisco, CA 94104-2906 Tel.: (415) 433-1414 Tel.: (415) 277-7235 Fax: (415) 520-0446 21 Fax: (415) 277-7238 E-mails: rarena@arenahoffman.com E-mails: helland@nka.com mmoore@arenahoffman.com 22 dbrome@nka.com Attorneys for Defendant 23 Attorneys for Plaintiffs WINE COUNTRY VENTURES, INC. ALIDA MAZARIEGOS, PAULA 24 GONZALEZ, and JAIME AMAYA 25 Hon. Nancy L. Fineman Assigned Civil Judge 26 San Mateo County Superior Court Hall of Justice & Records 27 Dept. 4, Ctrm. 8B | 400 County Center Redwood City, CA 94063 28 Dept. 4: (650) 261-5104 E-mail: Dept4@sanmateocourt.org 1 Proof of Service [CCP § 1010.6(b), CRC Rule 2.253(a) and Local Rule 2.1.5] Case No. 20-C1V-04267 VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY 1 Stephen Jaffe I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the 7 White Sun Way 2 above is true and correct. Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 3 Executed on December 17, 2020, at San Francisco, California. 4 Re: 5 Stephen: Dear 6 Belinda Vega Enclosed are the following in 7 8 • Goodwill Industrie 9 Jaffe Law Firm, fo 10 • A copy for your f 11 #09006, payable to 12 • A copy of the fully 13 14 Thank you for your courtesy a 15 16 17 18 19 20 TAB/ln 21