Preview
1 HARMEET K. DHILLON (SBN: 207873)
harmeet@dhillonlaw.com 1/21/2021
2 JOHN-PAUL S. DEOL (SBN:284893)
3 jpdeol@dhillonlaw.com
MICHAEL R. FLEMING (SBN: 322356)
4 mfleming@dhillonlaw.com
DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
5
177 Post Street, Suite 700
6 San Francisco, California 94108
Telephone: (415) 433-1700
7 Facsimile: (415) 520-6593
8
Attorneys for Defendants Lee’s Gardening Service, Inc.
9 and Librado Fernandez
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
12
13 EDGAR MONTUFAR, an individual, Case Number: 20-CIV-05537
14
Plaintiff, ANSWER OF DEFENDANT LEE’S
15 GARDENING SERVICE, INC. AND
v. DEFENDANT LIBRADO FERNANDEZ
16
17 LEE’S GARDENING SERVICE, INC., a
California corporation; LIBRADO
18 FERNANDEZ, an individual; and DOES 1
through 35, inclusive,
19
20 Defendants.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Defendants’ Answer Case Number: 20-CIV-05537
1 Defendants Lee’s Gardening Service, Inc. and Librado Fernandez (collectively “Defendants”),
2 for themselves and no other defendant(s), hereby answer Plaintiff Edgar Montufar’s (“Plaintiff”)’s
3 unverified Complaint for Damages (“Complaint”) filed on or about December 9, 2020 as follows:
4 GENERAL DENIAL
5 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30(d), Defendants deny, generally and
6 specifically, each and every allegation, paragraph, and cause of action in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
7 Defendants further deny, generally and specifically, that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief
8 requested, or that Plaintiff has been damaged or will be damaged in any sum, or at all, by reason of
9 any act or omission on the part of Defendants, or any of their past or present agents, representatives,
10 or employees.
11 Without admitting any of the facts alleged by Plaintiff in the Complaint, Defendants plead the
12 following affirmative defenses to the Complaint:
13 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
14 Defendants further allege the following affirmative defenses to the purported causes of action
15 in the Complaint, without conceding that they bear the burden of proof or persuasion as to any one of
16 them, as follows:
17 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 Plaintiff’s Complaint as a whole, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, fails
19 to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendants upon which relief may be
20 granted.
21 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 Plaintiff’s Complaint as a whole, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is
23 barred in whole or in part by the applicable statutes of limitations.
24 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred because
26 Plaintiff is estopped by his own conduct to claim any right to damages or any relief against
27 Defendants.
28
2
Defendants’ Answer Case Number: 20-CIV-05537
1 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred by the doctrine of
3 laches, because Plaintiff delayed inexcusably and unreasonably in pursuing any alleged claims,
4 causing substantial prejudice to Defendants.
5 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred by the
7 doctrine of waiver.
8 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred by the
10 doctrine of unclean hands.
11 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred by the
13 doctrine of in pari delicto.
14 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred by the
16 doctrine of consent.
17 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred to the
19 extent that Plaintiff has pursued the same claim in any court, administrative, or other adjudicative
20 forum.
21 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred by the
23 doctrine of justification.
24 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred by the
26 doctrine of after-acquired evidence.
27
28
3
Defendants’ Answer Case Number: 20-CIV-05537
1
2 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, cannot be maintained against
4 Defendants because any alleged liability and/or damages were the result of failure by Plaintiff to
5 follow Defendants’ reasonable instructions.
6 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred by the exclusive
8 remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act, California Labor Code section 3200, et seq.
9 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred because the actions
11 complained of were taken and would still have been taken, notwithstanding any of Plaintiff’s factual
12 allegations, for legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons.
13 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred because
15 Defendants’ alleged acts or omissions, if any, were in good faith and with reasonable belief that the
16 alleged acts or omissions, if any, were not a violation of any applicable law.
17 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred by California Labor
19 Code § 2922.
20 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred because
22 any conduct complained of against Defendants and their agents, if any, was a just and proper exercise
23 of management discretion undertaken for a fair and honest reason regulated by good faith under the
24 circumstances then existing.
25 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against
27 Defendants that would support an award of penalties and/or punitive damages.
28
4
Defendants’ Answer Case Number: 20-CIV-05537
1
2 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3 Defendants deny that they unlawfully discriminated or retaliated against or harassed Plaintiff.
4 Assuming that Plaintiff proves Defendants relied upon an illegal motivation, Defendants would have
5 taken the same action even if they had not relied upon the allegedly illegal ground.
6 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred by Plaintiff’s
8 failure to mitigate his damages.
9 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred by
11 Plaintiff’s breach of his statutory obligations under the California Labor Code.
12 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred due to
14 Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the administrative and internal remedies available to him.
15 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 Defendants exercised reasonable care to prevent and to correct any allegedly unlawful
17 harassing, discriminatory, and/or retaliatory workplace conduct allegedly experienced by Plaintiff.
18 Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided
19 by Defendants or to avoid harm otherwise, and thus Plaintiff’s claims are barred.
20 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred because it
22 is subject to setoff, offset, and/or recoupment.
23 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages is unconstitutional because it violates the excessive
25 fines clause of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and/or Section 17 of
26 Article I of the Constitution of the State of California.
27 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
28
5
Defendants’ Answer Case Number: 20-CIV-05537
1 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred because
2 Plaintiff was not an employee of Defendants.
3 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages is unconstitutional because it violates the due process
5 clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and/or Section 7 of
6 Article I of the Constitution of the State of California. Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages violates
7 the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.
8 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred by the doctrine of
10 business necessity.
11 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred by the doctrine of
13 avoidable consequences.
14 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 Defendants are informed and believe and based thereon allege, that if Plaintiff was damaged in
16 any manner whatsoever, such damage, if any, was a direct and proximate and/or legal result of the
17 intervening, superseding actions on the part of other persons or entities, and not the actions of
18 Defendants.
19 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred by
21 California Labor Code § 2856 to the extent that Plaintiff failed substantially to comply with all the
22 directions of the employer.
23 THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 To the extent Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties for alleged willful failure to comply with the
25 requirements of the California Labor Code, such penalties are barred or must be reduced because
26 Defendants did not willfully violate the requirements of the California Labor Code, and a good faith
27 dispute exists concerning such alleged violations.
28
6
Defendants’ Answer Case Number: 20-CIV-05537
1
2
3 THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 Without admitting the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint, but rather expressly denying them,
5 Defendants maintain that any recovery for unpaid wages are barred because the allegedly unpaid
6 wages (if any) are de minimis.
7 THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged
9 therein, is barred, in whole or in part, because provisions of the California Labor Code and the IWC
10 Wage Orders that Plaintiff relies upon are superseded, abrogated, and/or preempted, under the
11 Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, the
12 Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and/or other federal laws.
13 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged
15 therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendants that would
16 support an award of penalties and/or punitive damages and/or attorneys’ fees.
17 THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because
19 Plaintiff did not suffer injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by his claimed and
20 alleged employer(s) to comply with California Labor Code § 226.
21 THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, fails to state a valid
23 claim for attorneys’ fees against Defendants.
24 THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 Defendants are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that there exists/existed a bona fide
26 dispute as to whether any additional compensation is/was actually due to Plaintiff, and if so, the
27 amount thereof.
28
7
Defendants’ Answer Case Number: 20-CIV-05537
1
2
3 THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 Plaintiff’s Complaint as a whole, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred
5 or reduced to the extent that Plaintiff entered into an accord satisfaction of any claim asserted in this
6 lawsuit.
7 FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 Plaintiff is not entitled to any equitable or injunctive relief as prayed for in the Complaint
9 because Plaintiff has suffered no irreparable injury based on any alleged conduct of Defendants, and
10 Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law for any such alleged conduct.
11 FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 To the extent Defendants were required to provide Plaintiff with meal and rest periods, which
13 Defendants expressly deny, Plaintiff’s claims are barred because Defendants provided them with meal
14 and rest periods, and he voluntarily waived his right to take the meal and rest periods as provided.
15 FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 To the extent Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties for alleged failure to comply with the
17 requirements of the California Labor Code, such penalties are barred or must be reduced because
18 Defendants did not willfully violate the requirements of California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, and 203,
19 or any other applicable California Labor Code section, and a good faith dispute exists concerning such
20 alleged violations.
21 FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 Upon information and belief, Defendants allege that Plaintiff did not accurately report the
23 hours for which he seeks damages, penalties, and other sums, and therefore, he is barred from seeking
24 to recover any such amounts from Defendants.
25 FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 Defendants allege that any recovery on Plaintiff’s Complaint, or any cause of action contained
27 therein, is barred by Defendants’ compliance or substantial compliance with all applicable laws
28 underlying Plaintiff’s claims of violation of the California Labor Code and violation of the California
8
Defendants’ Answer Case Number: 20-CIV-05537
1 Business & Professions Code. Additionally, for this reason, Plaintiff cannot allege a claim that
2 Defendants’ business practices violated California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.
3 FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 Plaintiff’s cause of action pursuant to California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.
5 fails to the extent that it seeks anything but restitution for alleged violations of the California Labor
6 Code that form the basis of the claim under the UCL.
7 ADDITIONAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
8 Because Plaintiff’s Complaint is couched in vague and conclusory terms, Defendants cannot
9 fully anticipate all defenses that may be applicable to this action. Accordingly, Defendants reserve the
10 right to assert additional affirmative defenses, if and to the extent such defenses are later found or
11 determined to be applicable.
12 PRAYER
13 WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment as follows:
14 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by way of his Complaint;
15 2. That the Complaint and each cause of action therein be dismissed in its entirety with
16 prejudice;
17 3. That Plaintiff be denied each and every demand and prayer for relief contained in the
18 Complaint;
19 4. That judgment be entered in favor of Defendants;
20 5. For costs of suit incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, as allowed by
21 applicable law and/or contract; and
22 6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
9
Defendants’ Answer Case Number: 20-CIV-05537
1 Date: January 21, 2021 DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
2
3
4
5 By: __________________________________
Harmeet K. Dhillon
6 John-Paul S. Deol
Michael R. Fleming
7 Dante G. Quilici
8 Attorneys for Defendants Lee’s Gardening
Service, Inc. and Librado Fernandez
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
Defendants’ Answer Case Number: 20-CIV-05537
Preview
1 HARMEET K. DHILLON (SBN: 207873) harmeet@dhillonlaw.com 1/21/2021 2 JOHN-PAUL S. DEOL (SBN:284893) 3 jpdeol@dhillonlaw.com MICHAEL R. FLEMING (SBN: 322356) 4 mfleming@dhillonlaw.com DHILLON LAW GROUP INC. 5 177 Post Street, Suite 700 6 San Francisco, California 94108 Telephone: (415) 433-1700 7 Facsimile: (415) 520-6593 8 Attorneys for Defendants Lee’s Gardening Service, Inc. 9 and Librado Fernandez 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 12 13 EDGAR MONTUFAR, an individual, Case Number: 20-CIV-05537 14 Plaintiff, ANSWER OF DEFENDANT LEE’S 15 GARDENING SERVICE, INC. AND v. DEFENDANT LIBRADO FERNANDEZ 16 17 LEE’S GARDENING SERVICE, INC., a California corporation; LIBRADO 18 FERNANDEZ, an individual; and DOES 1 through 35, inclusive, 19 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Defendants’ Answer Case Number: 20-CIV-05537 1 Defendants Lee’s Gardening Service, Inc. and Librado Fernandez (collectively “Defendants”), 2 for themselves and no other defendant(s), hereby answer Plaintiff Edgar Montufar’s (“Plaintiff”)’s 3 unverified Complaint for Damages (“Complaint”) filed on or about December 9, 2020 as follows: 4 GENERAL DENIAL 5 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30(d), Defendants deny, generally and 6 specifically, each and every allegation, paragraph, and cause of action in Plaintiff’s Complaint. 7 Defendants further deny, generally and specifically, that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief 8 requested, or that Plaintiff has been damaged or will be damaged in any sum, or at all, by reason of 9 any act or omission on the part of Defendants, or any of their past or present agents, representatives, 10 or employees. 11 Without admitting any of the facts alleged by Plaintiff in the Complaint, Defendants plead the 12 following affirmative defenses to the Complaint: 13 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 14 Defendants further allege the following affirmative defenses to the purported causes of action 15 in the Complaint, without conceding that they bear the burden of proof or persuasion as to any one of 16 them, as follows: 17 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 Plaintiff’s Complaint as a whole, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, fails 19 to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendants upon which relief may be 20 granted. 21 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 Plaintiff’s Complaint as a whole, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is 23 barred in whole or in part by the applicable statutes of limitations. 24 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred because 26 Plaintiff is estopped by his own conduct to claim any right to damages or any relief against 27 Defendants. 28 2 Defendants’ Answer Case Number: 20-CIV-05537 1 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred by the doctrine of 3 laches, because Plaintiff delayed inexcusably and unreasonably in pursuing any alleged claims, 4 causing substantial prejudice to Defendants. 5 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred by the 7 doctrine of waiver. 8 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred by the 10 doctrine of unclean hands. 11 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred by the 13 doctrine of in pari delicto. 14 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred by the 16 doctrine of consent. 17 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred to the 19 extent that Plaintiff has pursued the same claim in any court, administrative, or other adjudicative 20 forum. 21 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred by the 23 doctrine of justification. 24 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred by the 26 doctrine of after-acquired evidence. 27 28 3 Defendants’ Answer Case Number: 20-CIV-05537 1 2 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, cannot be maintained against 4 Defendants because any alleged liability and/or damages were the result of failure by Plaintiff to 5 follow Defendants’ reasonable instructions. 6 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred by the exclusive 8 remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act, California Labor Code section 3200, et seq. 9 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred because the actions 11 complained of were taken and would still have been taken, notwithstanding any of Plaintiff’s factual 12 allegations, for legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons. 13 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred because 15 Defendants’ alleged acts or omissions, if any, were in good faith and with reasonable belief that the 16 alleged acts or omissions, if any, were not a violation of any applicable law. 17 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred by California Labor 19 Code § 2922. 20 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred because 22 any conduct complained of against Defendants and their agents, if any, was a just and proper exercise 23 of management discretion undertaken for a fair and honest reason regulated by good faith under the 24 circumstances then existing. 25 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against 27 Defendants that would support an award of penalties and/or punitive damages. 28 4 Defendants’ Answer Case Number: 20-CIV-05537 1 2 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3 Defendants deny that they unlawfully discriminated or retaliated against or harassed Plaintiff. 4 Assuming that Plaintiff proves Defendants relied upon an illegal motivation, Defendants would have 5 taken the same action even if they had not relied upon the allegedly illegal ground. 6 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred by Plaintiff’s 8 failure to mitigate his damages. 9 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred by 11 Plaintiff’s breach of his statutory obligations under the California Labor Code. 12 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred due to 14 Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the administrative and internal remedies available to him. 15 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 Defendants exercised reasonable care to prevent and to correct any allegedly unlawful 17 harassing, discriminatory, and/or retaliatory workplace conduct allegedly experienced by Plaintiff. 18 Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided 19 by Defendants or to avoid harm otherwise, and thus Plaintiff’s claims are barred. 20 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred because it 22 is subject to setoff, offset, and/or recoupment. 23 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages is unconstitutional because it violates the excessive 25 fines clause of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and/or Section 17 of 26 Article I of the Constitution of the State of California. 27 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 28 5 Defendants’ Answer Case Number: 20-CIV-05537 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred because 2 Plaintiff was not an employee of Defendants. 3 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages is unconstitutional because it violates the due process 5 clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and/or Section 7 of 6 Article I of the Constitution of the State of California. Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages violates 7 the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. 8 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred by the doctrine of 10 business necessity. 11 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred by the doctrine of 13 avoidable consequences. 14 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 Defendants are informed and believe and based thereon allege, that if Plaintiff was damaged in 16 any manner whatsoever, such damage, if any, was a direct and proximate and/or legal result of the 17 intervening, superseding actions on the part of other persons or entities, and not the actions of 18 Defendants. 19 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred by 21 California Labor Code § 2856 to the extent that Plaintiff failed substantially to comply with all the 22 directions of the employer. 23 THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 To the extent Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties for alleged willful failure to comply with the 25 requirements of the California Labor Code, such penalties are barred or must be reduced because 26 Defendants did not willfully violate the requirements of the California Labor Code, and a good faith 27 dispute exists concerning such alleged violations. 28 6 Defendants’ Answer Case Number: 20-CIV-05537 1 2 3 THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 Without admitting the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint, but rather expressly denying them, 5 Defendants maintain that any recovery for unpaid wages are barred because the allegedly unpaid 6 wages (if any) are de minimis. 7 THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged 9 therein, is barred, in whole or in part, because provisions of the California Labor Code and the IWC 10 Wage Orders that Plaintiff relies upon are superseded, abrogated, and/or preempted, under the 11 Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, the 12 Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and/or other federal laws. 13 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged 15 therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendants that would 16 support an award of penalties and/or punitive damages and/or attorneys’ fees. 17 THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because 19 Plaintiff did not suffer injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by his claimed and 20 alleged employer(s) to comply with California Labor Code § 226. 21 THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, fails to state a valid 23 claim for attorneys’ fees against Defendants. 24 THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 Defendants are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that there exists/existed a bona fide 26 dispute as to whether any additional compensation is/was actually due to Plaintiff, and if so, the 27 amount thereof. 28 7 Defendants’ Answer Case Number: 20-CIV-05537 1 2 3 THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 Plaintiff’s Complaint as a whole, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred 5 or reduced to the extent that Plaintiff entered into an accord satisfaction of any claim asserted in this 6 lawsuit. 7 FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 Plaintiff is not entitled to any equitable or injunctive relief as prayed for in the Complaint 9 because Plaintiff has suffered no irreparable injury based on any alleged conduct of Defendants, and 10 Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law for any such alleged conduct. 11 FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 To the extent Defendants were required to provide Plaintiff with meal and rest periods, which 13 Defendants expressly deny, Plaintiff’s claims are barred because Defendants provided them with meal 14 and rest periods, and he voluntarily waived his right to take the meal and rest periods as provided. 15 FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 To the extent Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties for alleged failure to comply with the 17 requirements of the California Labor Code, such penalties are barred or must be reduced because 18 Defendants did not willfully violate the requirements of California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, and 203, 19 or any other applicable California Labor Code section, and a good faith dispute exists concerning such 20 alleged violations. 21 FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 Upon information and belief, Defendants allege that Plaintiff did not accurately report the 23 hours for which he seeks damages, penalties, and other sums, and therefore, he is barred from seeking 24 to recover any such amounts from Defendants. 25 FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 Defendants allege that any recovery on Plaintiff’s Complaint, or any cause of action contained 27 therein, is barred by Defendants’ compliance or substantial compliance with all applicable laws 28 underlying Plaintiff’s claims of violation of the California Labor Code and violation of the California 8 Defendants’ Answer Case Number: 20-CIV-05537 1 Business & Professions Code. Additionally, for this reason, Plaintiff cannot allege a claim that 2 Defendants’ business practices violated California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq. 3 FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 Plaintiff’s cause of action pursuant to California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq. 5 fails to the extent that it seeks anything but restitution for alleged violations of the California Labor 6 Code that form the basis of the claim under the UCL. 7 ADDITIONAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 8 Because Plaintiff’s Complaint is couched in vague and conclusory terms, Defendants cannot 9 fully anticipate all defenses that may be applicable to this action. Accordingly, Defendants reserve the 10 right to assert additional affirmative defenses, if and to the extent such defenses are later found or 11 determined to be applicable. 12 PRAYER 13 WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment as follows: 14 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by way of his Complaint; 15 2. That the Complaint and each cause of action therein be dismissed in its entirety with 16 prejudice; 17 3. That Plaintiff be denied each and every demand and prayer for relief contained in the 18 Complaint; 19 4. That judgment be entered in favor of Defendants; 20 5. For costs of suit incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, as allowed by 21 applicable law and/or contract; and 22 6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 9 Defendants’ Answer Case Number: 20-CIV-05537 1 Date: January 21, 2021 DHILLON LAW GROUP INC. 2 3 4 5 By: __________________________________ Harmeet K. Dhillon 6 John-Paul S. Deol Michael R. Fleming 7 Dante G. Quilici 8 Attorneys for Defendants Lee’s Gardening Service, Inc. and Librado Fernandez 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 Defendants’ Answer Case Number: 20-CIV-05537