Preview
1 | ELIZABETH STAGGS WILSON, Bar No. 183160
SHANNON R. BOYCE, Bar No. 229041
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
633 West Sth Street
63rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213.443.4300
Facsimile: 213.443.4299
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
50 W. San Fernando, 15th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113,2303
Telephone: 408.998.4150
2
3
4
5
6 | JOSE MACIAS, JR., Bar No. 265033
7
8
9 || Facsimile: 408.288.5686
Attorneys for Defendants
11 | DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.;
AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF
12 |) MANTECA, TENET HEALTHCARE
CORPORATION; TENET HEALTH
13 | INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, STOCKTON BRANCH
REGINALD LYLE, on behalf of himself Case No, STK-CV-UOE-2016-6523
17 || and others similarly situated,,
DEFENDANTS DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF
18 Plaintiff, MANTECA, INC., AUXILIARY OF
. DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA,
19 vy. INC., AND TENET HEALTH
INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.’S
20 | DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED
INC.; AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION
21 | HOSPITAL OF MANTECA; DRS HOSP COMPLAINT
OF MANTECA INC; SP OF MANTECA
22 | INC; TENET HEALTHCARE ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO JUDGE
CORPORATION; TENET HEALTH CARTER P. HOLLY, DEPT. 41
23 | INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC,; TENET
HEALTH; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Complaint Filed: July 5, 2016
24
Defendants.
25 4 AO
% we &
27 SF w
28
Bx Wasi Sh Stoel
can DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT28
LITTLER WENDELSON, Fc,
GRA West SH Soak
6d Foor
LosAngale, CA S007
11am
Defendants DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC., AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS
HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC., and TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.
(collectively, “Defendants”) hereby submit their Answer to the First Amended Class Action
Complaint (“Complaint”) filed by Plaintiff REGINALD LYLE (‘Plaintiff’), for themselves alone
and for no other defendant: :
GENERAL DENIAL
Defendants generally and specifically deny each and every allegation of the Complaint, and
the whole thereof, pursuant to section 431.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and further
deny that Plaintiff or any class or group of aggrieved employees that he purports to represent has
been damaged in any sum or at all.
Defendants’ general denial is based on the factual contentions which include, but are not
limited to, the following: (1) Defendants Auxiliary of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Tenet
Healthcare Corporation (erroneously named herein under separate name of Tenet Health, an
unknown corporate entity), and Tenet Health Integrated Services, Inc. did not employ Plaintiff or the
alleged members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff seeks to
represent; (2) Defendant DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC. (“DHOM”) (erroneously
named herein under separate names of Drs Hosp of Manteca Inc. and/or SP of Manteca Inc.,
unknown corporate entities) properly and timely paid employees, including Plaintiff, for all wages
owed, including but not limited to overtime calculated at the proper regular rate of pay; (3) DHOM
provided employees, including Plaintiff, with legally-compliant meal and rest breaks; (4) DHOM
properly paid employees, including Plaintiff, meal and/or rest period premiums; (5) DHOM provided
employees, including Plaintiff, with complete and accurate wage statements; (6) DHOM timely paid
all wages‘ due on termination of employment to terminated employees, including Plaintiff;
(7) Defendants and DHOM did not engage in unlawful business acts or practices in violation of
California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seg.; (8) DHOM’s alleged misconduct
did not injure or otherwise damage employees, including Plaintiff (9) Plaintiff and the class and/or
aggrieved employees he secks to represent, or some of them, are exempt from overtime as they are
subject to a valid collective bargaining agreement; (10) Plaintiff's definitions of the proposed class
1.
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTome WD mH Pw
UITLER MENDELSON PC.
Wasi 5h Suet
88d Foot
bee Angaiea,A 90071
mA
and aggrieved employee group are unreasonably broad and over-reaching; (11) Plaintiff will be
unable to establish the prerequisites for class certification, including, but not limited to: standing,
numerosity, commonality (questions of law or fact common to the class), typicality (Plaintiff's
claims are typical of the class), superiority (of the class action mechanism), and class action
manageability (of the trial plan); and (12) Plaintiff cannot establish liability or damage across all
non-exempt employees such that an individual inquiry is not necessary to prove that the group of
aggrieved employees was actually damaged.
Defendants reserve their due process rights to receive a determination regarding class
certification and whether this lawsuit can proceed as a representative action, and contend that class
certification and a representative action are not appropriate in this instance for the reasons set forth
herein as well as for public policy reasons. /
Given the conclusory nature of the Complaint, Defendants hereby reserve their right to
amend or supplement this Answer upon further investigation and discovery of facts supporting their
defenses.
DEFENSES
Without waiving or excusing the burden of proof of Plaintiff, or admitting that Defendants
have any burden of proof, and incorporating herein by reference each and every allegation made in
the General Denial, Defendants assert the following defenses and affirmative defenses:
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Erroneously Named Parties)
1. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants are informed and believe that a
reasonable opportunity for investigation and discovery will reveal, and on that basis allege, that
during the time period alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendants Auxiliary of Doctors Hospital of
Manteca, Tenet Healthcare Corporation, Tenet Health Integrated Services, Inc., and unknown
corporate entities SP of Manteca, Inc., Tenet Health, and Drs Hosp of Manteca, Inc, did not employ
Plaintiff or the alleged members of the putative class or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff
seeks to represent, nor did they control his/their employment, and Defendants Auxiliary of Doctors
Hospital of Manteca, Tenet Healthcare Corporation, and Tenet Health Integrated Services, Inc., as
2.
DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINToo YN DH FF WN
Ro me
PNRRRBBRBSSSERWABREERE S
LUTTLER MENDELSON FC,
6a West Stoel,
Ed Floor
Lon angina. cA BOOT
TARO
well as unknown corporate entities SP of Manteca, Inc., Tenet Health, and Drs Hosp of Manteca,
Inc., are erroneously named as defendants in this lawsuit. As Plaintiff provides factual background
for his Complaint, Defendants reserve the right to further amend this affirmative defense.
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Waiver)
2. As a separate and distinct defense, assuming arguendo that Defendants are joint
employers, which Defendants do not concede, Defendants allege that all or portions of the claims of
Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff
purports to represent are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of waiver. During the relevant
time period, Defendant DHOM maintained legally-compliant policies which included, but were not
limited to, policies regarding overtime, wage statements, meal periods, rest periods, and rounding
practices. Without limiting Defendants’ reliance on this affirmative defense, to the extent that
Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff
purports to represent failed to take meal and rest periods that were provided and/or authorized and
permitted by his/her employer of record, he/she waived his/her right to take them. As Plaintiff
provides factual background for his Complaint, Defendants reserve the right to further amend this
affirmative defense.
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Laches)
3. As a separate and distinct defense, assuming arguendo that Defendants are joint
employers, which Defendants do not concede, Defendants allege that all or portions of the claims of
Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff
purports to represent are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches. During the relevant
time period, Defendant DHOM maintained legally-compliant policies which included, but were not
limited to, policies regarding overtime, wage statements, meal periods, rest periods, and rounding
practices. Without limiting Defendants’ reliance on this affirmative defense, to the extent that
Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff
purports to represent failed to take meal and rest periods that were provided and/or authorized and
3.
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT28
ERNENDELSON, PC.
Gua Westsn Sree}
ad oo
LeuAngeiss.CA 80071
24144430
permitted by his/her employer of record, his/her claim is now barred by the doctrine of laches. As
Plaintiff provides factual background for his Complaint, Defendants reserve the right to further
amend this affirmative defense. :
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Unclean Hands)
4, As a separate and distinct defense, assuming arguendo that Defendants are joint
employers, which Defendants do not concede, Defendants allege that all or portions of the claims of
Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff
purports to represent are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands. During the
relevant time period, Defendant DHOM maintained legally-compliant policies which included, but
were not limited to, policies regarding overtime, wage statements, meal periods, rest periods, and
rounding practices, Without limiting Defendants’ reliance on this affirmative defense, to the extent
that Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff
purports to represent failed to complain during their employment about alleged violations of the law
(as alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint), that person is now barred from seeking relief based on the
doctrine of unclean hands. As Plaintiff provides factual background for his Complaint, Defendants
reserve the right to further amend this affirmative defense,
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Consent)
5. As a separate and distinct defense, assuming arguendo that Defendants are joint
employers, which Defendants do not concede, Defendants allege that all or portions of the claims of
Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff
purports to represent are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of consent. During the relevant
time period, Defendant DHOM maintained Jegally-compliant policies which included, but were not
Limited to, policies regarding overtime, wage statements, meal periods, rest periods, and rounding
practices, Without limiting Defendants’ reliance on this affirmative defense, to the extent that
California law allows employees to take meal and rest breaks at varying times, Plaintiff and/or
members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff purports to represent
4,
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTwo Oo NT KD A KR YH YP
Bee i
ow nw FR WY = OD
LITTER NEKDELSON, PC
Yd Sn Seas
Sd Fos
teshngty, CA M0071
2a
consented to taking his/her meal and rest breaks at varying times, and/or waived his/her right to meal
breaks. As Plaintiff provides factual background for his Complaint, Defendants reserve the right to
further amend this affirmative defense,
SEPARATE DEFENS:
(Estoppel)
6. As a separate and distinct defense, assuming arguendo that Defendants are joint
employers, which Defendants do not concede, Defendants allege that all or portions of the claims of
Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff
purports to represent are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of estoppel. During the relevant
time period, Defendant DHOM maintained legally-compliant policies which included, but were not
limited to, policies regarding overtime, wage statements, meal periods, rest periods, and rounding
practices. To the extent that California law allows employees to take meal and rest breaks at varying
time and only requires that meals be provided and rest breaks authorized and permitted, Plaintiff
and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff purports to
represent are estopped from now claiming they were not afforded timely meals or did not take rest
periods. Furthermore, Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved
employees Plaintiff purports to represent are estopped from now claiming they were not afforded
timely meals periods to the extent he/they waived his/their right to meal breaks, As Plaintiff provides
factual background for his Complaint, Defendants reserve the right to further amend this affirmative
defense.
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Unjust Enrichment)
7. As a separate and distinct defense, assuming arguendo that Defendants are joint
employers, which Defendants do not concede, Defendants allege that all or portions of the claims of
Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff
purports to represent would be unjustly enriched if allowed to recover on the Complaint. During the
relevant time period, Defendant DHOM maintained legally-compliant policies which included, but
were not limited to, policies regarding overtime, wage statements, meal periods, rest periods, and
5.
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTwoo nt A Hh FF WN
Boe eee ee
NRPRRBBEBS SBS AABEBHRAS
28
LUTER VENDA SON. PC.
‘6S West h Seat
Los Angelsr,CA 0071
TAME
rounding practices. Without limiting Defendants’ reliance on this affirmative defense, to the extent
that Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff
purports to represent, inter alia, received overtime for hours worked and were provided meal periods
and permitted to take rest periods (and/or paid premiums for any missed meal/rest periods), for that
person to receive additional monies for the same would result in unjust enrichment. As Plaintiff
provides factual background for his Complaint, Defendants reserve the right to further amend this
affirmative defense.
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Release)
8. As a separate and distinct defense, assuming arguendo that Defendants are joint
employers, which Defendants do not concede, Defendants allege that the Complaint, and each cause
of action set forth therein, or some of them, is barred to the extent Plaintiff and/or members of the
putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees he purports to represent have released
Defendants from any claims he/she/they may have against Defendants and acknowledged that
he/she/they have been paid all wages owed and were permitted to take all legally required meal and
rest breaks (unless voluntarily waived as provided by the California Labor Code and the applicable
Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission).
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Claims Discharged)
9. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that the Complaint, and each
cause of action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred because all or a portion of the wages,
premium pay, interest, attorneys’ fees, penalties and/or other relief sought by Plaintiff on his own
behalf and/or on behalf of the putative class members and/or group of aggrieved employces were, or
will be before the conclusion of this action, paid or collected, and therefore, Plaintiffs claims and/or
the claims of the members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees have been
partially or completely discharged. i
6.
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT *LTTLER WENDEL GOH PC.
B30 WeRSh Steel
Gort oor
Los Angee, CA 20771
mea
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Accord and Satisfaction)
10. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that the Complaint, and each
cause of action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred by the doctrine of accord and
satisfaction, to the extent that some, or all, members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved
employees Plaintiff seeks to represent have received, or will receive, compensation for any
outstanding wages, premium pay, penalties, and/or damages purportedly due.
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Collateral Estoppel)
11. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that the Complaint, and each
cause of action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel
insofar as individual putative class members and or aggrieved employees Plaintiff seeks to represent
have litigated or will litigate issues raised by the Complaint prior to adjudication of those issues in
the instant action.
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Class Action — Standing)
12. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff lacks standing to
assert the legal rights or interests of others. To the extent that Plaintiff and his counsel seek to
represent all current and former non-exempt employees during the four year period prior to the filing
of this action (regardless of position, title, or job duties), Defendants contend that Plaintiff and his
counsel cannot adequately do so because: (a) Plaintiff worked for a different department, under a
different supervisor, and in a different position from almost all of those he seeks to represent; and
(b) Plaintiff's employment was not subject to a collective bargaining agreement while the
employment of some members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees were
subject to collective bargaining agreements. Plaintiffs definition of the class and aggrieved
employees he seeks to represent is ambiguous and thus, Defendants reserve the right to further
amend this affirmative defense as Plaintiff provides factual background for his Complaint or
clarification of his allegations.
7.
* DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTw Oo TN AH BF WN
ee
NBPRRBBEE SSRI AKDEBER AS
28
UmR UEDA SON, PC
Bas Wer San Steei
Bd Floor
es Ange, CA 90071
2140
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Statute of Limitations)
13. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that the claims of Plaintiff
and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees he seeks to represent are
barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, including but not limited to, California Code of Civil
Procedure sections 338 and 340 and/or California Business & Professions Code section 17208.
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Collective Bargaining Agreement Preemption)
14, As a separate and distinct defense to the Complaint and each cause of action set forth
therein, or some of them, assuming arguendo that Defendants are joint employers, which Defendants
do not concede, Defendants allege that the hours of work and working conditions of Plaintiff and/or
members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff purports to represent, or
some of them, are subject to a collective bargaining agreement and, as such, Plaintiff and putative
class members, or some of them, are exempt from the overtime requirements provided under the
California Labor Code and applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, See Labor
Code section 514. Plaintiff's definition of the class and aggrieved employees he seeks to represent is
ambiguous and thus, Defendants reserve the right to further amend this affirmative defense as
Plaintiff provides factual background for his Complaint or clarification of his allegations.
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(No Knowledge of Work)
15. As a separate and distinct defense, assuming arguendo that Defendants are joint
employers, which Defendants do not concede, Defendants allege that if either Plaintiff or any
putative class member or alleged aggrieved employee “worked” hours for which compensation was
not paid, Defendants had no knowledge, or reason to know, of such “work,” such “work” was not
suffered or permitted by Defendants, and such “work” was undertaken without the consent or
permission of Defendants.
8.
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTCo ma DH HW PF WHY
Ra a ie
NRPRRPRBBRBRBSSE BST ABDBEBBES
28
UTTER END 50N, PC.
BE WestSh Greet
‘1d Pear
Len Angela, CA 60071
21400
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Failure to Take Breaks Provided Under the Law)
16. Asa separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff and/or members of
the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff purports to represent has no right to
a premium payment under Califomia Labor Code section 226.7 because, to the extent, if any, that
person did not take breaks, it was because he/she: (1) failed to take breaks that were provided to
him/her in compliance with California law; (2) chose not to take rest breaks that were authorized and
permitted; or (3) waived his/her right to meal breaks under California Labor Code section 512(a) and
applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission.
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Bona Fide Dispute)
17. As a separate and distinct defense, assuming arguendo that Defendants are joint
employers, which Defendants do not concede, Defendants allege that the Complaint fails to state a
claim for penalties under the Califomia Labor Code in that (1) there was a bona fide, good faith
dispute as to Defendants’ obligations under any applicable Labor Code provisions and/or Wage
Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, including, without limitation, Labor Code section 203,
and (2) Defendants did not willfully violate Labor Code section 203.
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Good Faith)
18. As a separate and distinct defense, assuming arguendo that Defendants are joint
employers, which Defendants do not concede, Defendants allege that the Complaint and each cause
of action set forth therein cannot be maintained because, without admitting that any violation took
place, Defendants allege that any violation of the California Labor Code or of a Wage Order of the
Industrial Welfare Commission was an act or omission made in good faith, and that in any
participation in such acts, Defendants had reasonable grounds for believing that the act or omission
was not a Violation of the California Labor Code or any Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare
Commission.
9.
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT28
UTTER MENDELSON, PS.
Welsh Sbee,
aed oct
or Angas, CA 80071
mie
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Avoidable Consequences)
19. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants are informed and believe that further
investigation and discovery will reveal, and on that basis allege, that the damages and/or penalties, if
any, are barred and/or limited pursuant to the doctrine of avoidable consequences. Defendants will
amend their Answer to assert further facts in support of this affirmative defense as they become
known in discovery. See Department of Health Services v. Superior Court, 31 Cal. 4th 1026 (2003).
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Multiple Penalties Unconstitutional)
20, Asa separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that the claims in the Complaint
that seek the imposition of multiple penalties and/or exemplary damages for the same basic wrongs
are unconstitutional in that such relief violates the Due Process clauses of the Constitutions of both
the United States and the State of California,
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Constitutional Violations)
21. Asa separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that the claims in the Complaint
for exemplary or punitive damages cannot be sustained becduse an award of exemplary or punitive
damages under California law without the same protections that are accorded to all penal defendants,
including protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, double jeopardy, self-incrimination,
the rights to confront adverse witnesses, a speedy trial, and the effective assistance of counsel would
violate Defendants’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments as incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, and
Defendants’ rights under analogous provisions of the California Constitution.
10.
DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTBoe ee ee ee
RBPRRRBRBREBE SETA BDEBHK AS
28
LTTLER WENDEL SON, C,
60 Wast 5 Steel
Gad Foot
‘Low Angaies, CA 90071
TCO
wo ew tA HW BF WN
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Adequate Remedy at Law)
22. Asa separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff and the purported
class members and/or group of aggrieved employees are not entitled to equitable relief insofar as
they have an adequate remedy at law.
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Actions by Agents outside the Scope of Authority)
23. As a separate and distinct defense, assuming arguendo that Defendants are joint
employers, which Defendants do not concede, Defendants allege that claims in the Complaint cannot
be maintained against Defendants because if employees of Defendants (including Plaintiff) took the
actions alleged, such actions were committed outside the course and scope of such employees’
employment, were not authorized, adopted or ratified by Defendants, and Defendants did not know
of nor should they have known of such conduct.
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Credit and Offset)
24. As a separate and distinct defense, assuming arguendo that Defendants are joint
employers, which Defendants do not concede, Defendants allege that they are entitled to an offset
against any relief due Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved
employees Plaintiff purports to represent, based upon their respective wrongful conduct and/or
monies owed to Defendants, including, but not limited to, any overpayments made to such person
and any contractual damages and/or indemnity owed by such person as the result of his/her failure to
perform his contractual obligations or overpayment for hours worked.
ll.
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTwo we NA Hh fF WN
woe ee ee
NRRRBBE SSB AR AAREN AS
28
UTR MEI SON PC.
eMWete Sree
‘Sed Foor
Lorangres,CA S007!
7
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Claims Subject to Arbitration)
25. As aseparate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff's claims are barred
in whole or in part because some or all of the alleged members of the putative class and/or group of
aggrieved employees Plaintiff seeks to represent entered into an agreement to submit all
employment-related claims to final and binding arbitration on an individual basis. Defendants do
not waive the right to enforce the signed arbitration agreements of alleged members of the putative
class and/or group of aggrieved employees.
SEPARATE DEFENS.
(Claims Subject to Arbitration on Individual Basis)
26, Asa separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff's claims are barred
in whole or in part because some or all of the alleged members of the putative class and/or group of
aggrieved employees Plaintiff seeks to represent entered into an agreement to submit all individual
employment related claims to binding arbitration on an individual basis. See AT&T Mobility, LLC v.
Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), Defendants do not waive the right to enforce the signed
arbitration agreements of alleged members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved
employees.
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(LMRA Preemption)
27, Asa separate and distinct defense, Defendants are informed and believe that further
investigation and discovery will reveal, and on that basis allege, that the Complaint and each cause
of action alleged therein, or some of them, are barred to the extent that they are preempted by section
301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act. Plaintiffs definition of the class and aggrieved
employees he seeks to represent is ambiguous and thus, Defendants reserve the right to further
amend this affirmative defense as Plaintiff provides factual background for his Complaint or
clarification of his allegations.
12.
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTwo oN DAH BF WN
Nw ee
PRR RRBB ES SRA AKER E BSS
UTTLER WERDELEOR, PC,
883 Wee Sh Brest
xd Fox
os Angels, CA S007!
2a
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(De Minimis)
28. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred because
some or all of the disputed time for which Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or
group of aggrieved employees seek to recover wages purportedly owed, including but not limited to
time donning and doffing scrubs, is not compensable pursuant to the de minimis doctrine.
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Preliminary or Postliminary Activities)
29. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, are barred in
whole or in part as to all hours during which Plaintiff and/or members of the putative cless and/or
group of aggrieved employees were engaged in activities which were preliminary or postliminary to
his/their principal activities, including but not limited to, time spent donning and doffing scrubs.
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Not Required to be Performed at Work)
30. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, are barred in
whole or in part as to all time during which Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or
group of aggrieved employees that Plaintiff seeks to represent were donning or doffing scrubs
because such activity is not required to be performed at work.
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Failure to Comply with Collective Bargaining Agreement)
31. Asa separate and distinct defense, Defendants are informed and believe that further
investigation and discovery will reveal, and on that basis allege, that the claims of members of the
putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff seeks to represent, or some of them, are
barred as a result of the failure of members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved
employees to exhaust their administrative remedies under any applicable collective bargaining
agreement. Plaintiffs definition of the class and aggrieved employees he seeks to represent is
ambiguous and thus, Defendants reserve the right to further amend this affirmative defense as
Plaintiff provides factual background for his Complaint or clarification of his allegations.
13.
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTSEPARATE DEFENSE
(PAGA ~ Failure to Provide LWDA Adequate Notice)
32, As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff failed to provide
the Labor Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) proper notification of the claims and/or the
names of the “aggrieved employees” on whose behalf he intends to seek penalties, pursuant to the
Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), Labor Code sections 2698 ef seq.
SEPARATE DEFENSE
@laintiff Not a PAGA Aggrieved Employee)
33. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff lacks standing to
bring claims for civil penalties on behalf of others because he is not an “aggrieved employee,”
pursuant to PAGA, ,
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(PAGA - Failure to Identify Aggrieved Employees)
34. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff has failed to
identify any other allegedly “aggrieved employees,” as provided in the Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act, Labor Code sections 2698, et seq.
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(PAGA - Inability to Proceed as a Representative Action Due to Individual Inquiry)
35. Asa separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff's PAGA claim
fails because the type and degree of alleged harm requires an individualized inquiry, making it
impossible to resolve the claim on a representative basis for all “aggrieved employees.”
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies)
36. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff is not entitled to
recovery of civil penalties under PAGA because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
pursuant to Labor Code section 2699.3.
14,
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTCome tN DA Hh PR WN
a a il
ou AA RF YBN | Oo
AIMLER PC.
Sa
wie
ov Argues, CA S007!
2140
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(PAGA ~ Unconstitutional Violation of the Separation of Powers)
37, As a separate and distinctive defense, Defendants allege that any cause of action
based upon PAGA is unconstitutional on the basis that it violates the separation of powers doctrine
by empowering private attommeys to prosecute public claims, thereby impairing the judiciary’s
inherent power to regulate attorney conduct.
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(PAGA - Unconstitutionally Vague)
38. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that the Complaint and each
cause of action are barred because PAGA is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad as applied to the
facts, circumstances of this case.
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(PAGA - Statutory Penalties)
39, As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff cannot recover
statutory penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 226(e) on behalf of other “aggrieved employees”
pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code sections 2698, ef seg.
SEPARATE DEFENSE
(Duplicative Civil Penalties)
40. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff is not entitled to
recovery of civil penalties under PAGA because to the extent that such penalties are sought in
addition to penalties for the same claims, such penalties are barred.
SEPARATE DEFENSE
{Initial Violation)
41. Asa separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that, insofar as Defendants have
never been cited by the Labor Commissioner, or received a judgment against it in a court of law,
with respect to any of Plaintiff's Labor Code claims, any civil penalties awarded in this action under
PAGA must be limited to those penalties applicable to an initial violation.
15.
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT1 SEPARATE DEFENSE
2 {Additional Affirmative Defenses)
3 42, Defendants reserve their right to assert additional defenses or claims which may
4 | become known during the course of discovery.
5
6 WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that:
7 1. Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice;
8 2. Plaintiff and the members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees
9 Plaintiff seeks to represent take nothing by this action;
10 3 Judgment be entered in Defendants’ favor and against Plaintiff and the members of
I] the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff seeks to represent
12 4, Defendants be awarded their costs of suit and attomeys’ fees incurred herein; and
13 5 Defendants be awarded such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
14 proper,
15
6 Dated: October A , 2016
ELJXABETH STAGGS WILSON
17 s ON R. BOYCE
J MACIAS, JR.
18 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendants
19 DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA,
INC.; AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS
20 HOSPITAL OF MANTECA; TENET
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET
21 HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Tamer 16.
cone a DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTwo on ou FW MH
ree ees
NRBRRERR SRE SU aGERERE SE
28
UTILER MENDELSON
mi
PROOF OF SERVICE
Tam a resident of the State of California, over the age of elghteen years, and not a
Party to the within action. My business address is 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor, Los Angeles,
California 90067.3107, On October 19, 2016, I served the within document(s):
DEFENDANT DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC., AUXILIARY OF DOCTOR'S
HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC. AND TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.'S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
by placing a true copy of the document(s) listed above for collection and mailing
xl following the firm’s ordinary business practice in a sealed envelope with postage
thereon fully prepaid for deposit in the United States mail at Los Angeles,
California addressed as set forth below.
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Boulevard
Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: 310.432.0000
Facsimile: 310.432.0001
Attorneys for Plaintiff Reginald Lyle
I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing
correspondence for mailing and for shipping via overnight delivery service. Under that practice it
would be deposited with the U.S, Postal Service or If an overnight delivery service shipment,
deposited In an overnight delivery service pick-up box or office on the same day with postage or
fees thereon fully prepaid In the ordinary course of business.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct. Executed on October 19, 2016, at Los Angeles, Callfornia.
Lk LLEA
O Mary Ann Gerard
Firmwide:142979786.1 052845.1344
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
1 | ELIZABETH STAGGS WILSON, Bar No. 183160 SHANNON R. BOYCE, Bar No. 229041 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West Sth Street 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213.443.4300 Facsimile: 213.443.4299 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 50 W. San Fernando, 15th Floor San Jose, CA 95113,2303 Telephone: 408.998.4150 2 3 4 5 6 | JOSE MACIAS, JR., Bar No. 265033 7 8 9 || Facsimile: 408.288.5686 Attorneys for Defendants 11 | DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF 12 |) MANTECA, TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET HEALTH 13 | INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, STOCKTON BRANCH REGINALD LYLE, on behalf of himself Case No, STK-CV-UOE-2016-6523 17 || and others similarly situated,, DEFENDANTS DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF 18 Plaintiff, MANTECA, INC., AUXILIARY OF . DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, 19 vy. INC., AND TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.’S 20 | DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED INC.; AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION 21 | HOSPITAL OF MANTECA; DRS HOSP COMPLAINT OF MANTECA INC; SP OF MANTECA 22 | INC; TENET HEALTHCARE ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO JUDGE CORPORATION; TENET HEALTH CARTER P. HOLLY, DEPT. 41 23 | INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC,; TENET HEALTH; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Complaint Filed: July 5, 2016 24 Defendants. 25 4 AO % we & 27 SF w 28 Bx Wasi Sh Stoel can DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT28 LITTLER WENDELSON, Fc, GRA West SH Soak 6d Foor LosAngale, CA S007 11am Defendants DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC., AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC., and TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC. (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby submit their Answer to the First Amended Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”) filed by Plaintiff REGINALD LYLE (‘Plaintiff’), for themselves alone and for no other defendant: : GENERAL DENIAL Defendants generally and specifically deny each and every allegation of the Complaint, and the whole thereof, pursuant to section 431.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and further deny that Plaintiff or any class or group of aggrieved employees that he purports to represent has been damaged in any sum or at all. Defendants’ general denial is based on the factual contentions which include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Defendants Auxiliary of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Tenet Healthcare Corporation (erroneously named herein under separate name of Tenet Health, an unknown corporate entity), and Tenet Health Integrated Services, Inc. did not employ Plaintiff or the alleged members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff seeks to represent; (2) Defendant DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC. (“DHOM”) (erroneously named herein under separate names of Drs Hosp of Manteca Inc. and/or SP of Manteca Inc., unknown corporate entities) properly and timely paid employees, including Plaintiff, for all wages owed, including but not limited to overtime calculated at the proper regular rate of pay; (3) DHOM provided employees, including Plaintiff, with legally-compliant meal and rest breaks; (4) DHOM properly paid employees, including Plaintiff, meal and/or rest period premiums; (5) DHOM provided employees, including Plaintiff, with complete and accurate wage statements; (6) DHOM timely paid all wages‘ due on termination of employment to terminated employees, including Plaintiff; (7) Defendants and DHOM did not engage in unlawful business acts or practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seg.; (8) DHOM’s alleged misconduct did not injure or otherwise damage employees, including Plaintiff (9) Plaintiff and the class and/or aggrieved employees he secks to represent, or some of them, are exempt from overtime as they are subject to a valid collective bargaining agreement; (10) Plaintiff's definitions of the proposed class 1. DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTome WD mH Pw UITLER MENDELSON PC. Wasi 5h Suet 88d Foot bee Angaiea,A 90071 mA and aggrieved employee group are unreasonably broad and over-reaching; (11) Plaintiff will be unable to establish the prerequisites for class certification, including, but not limited to: standing, numerosity, commonality (questions of law or fact common to the class), typicality (Plaintiff's claims are typical of the class), superiority (of the class action mechanism), and class action manageability (of the trial plan); and (12) Plaintiff cannot establish liability or damage across all non-exempt employees such that an individual inquiry is not necessary to prove that the group of aggrieved employees was actually damaged. Defendants reserve their due process rights to receive a determination regarding class certification and whether this lawsuit can proceed as a representative action, and contend that class certification and a representative action are not appropriate in this instance for the reasons set forth herein as well as for public policy reasons. / Given the conclusory nature of the Complaint, Defendants hereby reserve their right to amend or supplement this Answer upon further investigation and discovery of facts supporting their defenses. DEFENSES Without waiving or excusing the burden of proof of Plaintiff, or admitting that Defendants have any burden of proof, and incorporating herein by reference each and every allegation made in the General Denial, Defendants assert the following defenses and affirmative defenses: SEPARATE DEFENSE (Erroneously Named Parties) 1. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants are informed and believe that a reasonable opportunity for investigation and discovery will reveal, and on that basis allege, that during the time period alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendants Auxiliary of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Tenet Healthcare Corporation, Tenet Health Integrated Services, Inc., and unknown corporate entities SP of Manteca, Inc., Tenet Health, and Drs Hosp of Manteca, Inc, did not employ Plaintiff or the alleged members of the putative class or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff seeks to represent, nor did they control his/their employment, and Defendants Auxiliary of Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Tenet Healthcare Corporation, and Tenet Health Integrated Services, Inc., as 2. DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINToo YN DH FF WN Ro me PNRRRBBRBSSSERWABREERE S LUTTLER MENDELSON FC, 6a West Stoel, Ed Floor Lon angina. cA BOOT TARO well as unknown corporate entities SP of Manteca, Inc., Tenet Health, and Drs Hosp of Manteca, Inc., are erroneously named as defendants in this lawsuit. As Plaintiff provides factual background for his Complaint, Defendants reserve the right to further amend this affirmative defense. SEPARATE DEFENSE (Waiver) 2. As a separate and distinct defense, assuming arguendo that Defendants are joint employers, which Defendants do not concede, Defendants allege that all or portions of the claims of Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff purports to represent are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of waiver. During the relevant time period, Defendant DHOM maintained legally-compliant policies which included, but were not limited to, policies regarding overtime, wage statements, meal periods, rest periods, and rounding practices. Without limiting Defendants’ reliance on this affirmative defense, to the extent that Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff purports to represent failed to take meal and rest periods that were provided and/or authorized and permitted by his/her employer of record, he/she waived his/her right to take them. As Plaintiff provides factual background for his Complaint, Defendants reserve the right to further amend this affirmative defense. SEPARATE DEFENSE (Laches) 3. As a separate and distinct defense, assuming arguendo that Defendants are joint employers, which Defendants do not concede, Defendants allege that all or portions of the claims of Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff purports to represent are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches. During the relevant time period, Defendant DHOM maintained legally-compliant policies which included, but were not limited to, policies regarding overtime, wage statements, meal periods, rest periods, and rounding practices. Without limiting Defendants’ reliance on this affirmative defense, to the extent that Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff purports to represent failed to take meal and rest periods that were provided and/or authorized and 3. DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT28 ERNENDELSON, PC. Gua Westsn Sree} ad oo LeuAngeiss.CA 80071 24144430 permitted by his/her employer of record, his/her claim is now barred by the doctrine of laches. As Plaintiff provides factual background for his Complaint, Defendants reserve the right to further amend this affirmative defense. : SEPARATE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) 4, As a separate and distinct defense, assuming arguendo that Defendants are joint employers, which Defendants do not concede, Defendants allege that all or portions of the claims of Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff purports to represent are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands. During the relevant time period, Defendant DHOM maintained legally-compliant policies which included, but were not limited to, policies regarding overtime, wage statements, meal periods, rest periods, and rounding practices, Without limiting Defendants’ reliance on this affirmative defense, to the extent that Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff purports to represent failed to complain during their employment about alleged violations of the law (as alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint), that person is now barred from seeking relief based on the doctrine of unclean hands. As Plaintiff provides factual background for his Complaint, Defendants reserve the right to further amend this affirmative defense, SEPARATE DEFENSE (Consent) 5. As a separate and distinct defense, assuming arguendo that Defendants are joint employers, which Defendants do not concede, Defendants allege that all or portions of the claims of Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff purports to represent are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of consent. During the relevant time period, Defendant DHOM maintained Jegally-compliant policies which included, but were not Limited to, policies regarding overtime, wage statements, meal periods, rest periods, and rounding practices, Without limiting Defendants’ reliance on this affirmative defense, to the extent that California law allows employees to take meal and rest breaks at varying times, Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff purports to represent 4, DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTwo Oo NT KD A KR YH YP Bee i ow nw FR WY = OD LITTER NEKDELSON, PC Yd Sn Seas Sd Fos teshngty, CA M0071 2a consented to taking his/her meal and rest breaks at varying times, and/or waived his/her right to meal breaks. As Plaintiff provides factual background for his Complaint, Defendants reserve the right to further amend this affirmative defense, SEPARATE DEFENS: (Estoppel) 6. As a separate and distinct defense, assuming arguendo that Defendants are joint employers, which Defendants do not concede, Defendants allege that all or portions of the claims of Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff purports to represent are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of estoppel. During the relevant time period, Defendant DHOM maintained legally-compliant policies which included, but were not limited to, policies regarding overtime, wage statements, meal periods, rest periods, and rounding practices. To the extent that California law allows employees to take meal and rest breaks at varying time and only requires that meals be provided and rest breaks authorized and permitted, Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff purports to represent are estopped from now claiming they were not afforded timely meals or did not take rest periods. Furthermore, Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff purports to represent are estopped from now claiming they were not afforded timely meals periods to the extent he/they waived his/their right to meal breaks, As Plaintiff provides factual background for his Complaint, Defendants reserve the right to further amend this affirmative defense. SEPARATE DEFENSE (Unjust Enrichment) 7. As a separate and distinct defense, assuming arguendo that Defendants are joint employers, which Defendants do not concede, Defendants allege that all or portions of the claims of Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff purports to represent would be unjustly enriched if allowed to recover on the Complaint. During the relevant time period, Defendant DHOM maintained legally-compliant policies which included, but were not limited to, policies regarding overtime, wage statements, meal periods, rest periods, and 5. DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTwoo nt A Hh FF WN Boe eee ee NRPRRBBEBS SBS AABEBHRAS 28 LUTER VENDA SON. PC. ‘6S West h Seat Los Angelsr,CA 0071 TAME rounding practices. Without limiting Defendants’ reliance on this affirmative defense, to the extent that Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff purports to represent, inter alia, received overtime for hours worked and were provided meal periods and permitted to take rest periods (and/or paid premiums for any missed meal/rest periods), for that person to receive additional monies for the same would result in unjust enrichment. As Plaintiff provides factual background for his Complaint, Defendants reserve the right to further amend this affirmative defense. SEPARATE DEFENSE (Release) 8. As a separate and distinct defense, assuming arguendo that Defendants are joint employers, which Defendants do not concede, Defendants allege that the Complaint, and each cause of action set forth therein, or some of them, is barred to the extent Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees he purports to represent have released Defendants from any claims he/she/they may have against Defendants and acknowledged that he/she/they have been paid all wages owed and were permitted to take all legally required meal and rest breaks (unless voluntarily waived as provided by the California Labor Code and the applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission). SEPARATE DEFENSE (Claims Discharged) 9. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that the Complaint, and each cause of action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred because all or a portion of the wages, premium pay, interest, attorneys’ fees, penalties and/or other relief sought by Plaintiff on his own behalf and/or on behalf of the putative class members and/or group of aggrieved employces were, or will be before the conclusion of this action, paid or collected, and therefore, Plaintiffs claims and/or the claims of the members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees have been partially or completely discharged. i 6. DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT *LTTLER WENDEL GOH PC. B30 WeRSh Steel Gort oor Los Angee, CA 20771 mea SEPARATE DEFENSE (Accord and Satisfaction) 10. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that the Complaint, and each cause of action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction, to the extent that some, or all, members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff seeks to represent have received, or will receive, compensation for any outstanding wages, premium pay, penalties, and/or damages purportedly due. SEPARATE DEFENSE (Collateral Estoppel) 11. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that the Complaint, and each cause of action set forth therein, or some of them, are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel insofar as individual putative class members and or aggrieved employees Plaintiff seeks to represent have litigated or will litigate issues raised by the Complaint prior to adjudication of those issues in the instant action. SEPARATE DEFENSE (Class Action — Standing) 12. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff lacks standing to assert the legal rights or interests of others. To the extent that Plaintiff and his counsel seek to represent all current and former non-exempt employees during the four year period prior to the filing of this action (regardless of position, title, or job duties), Defendants contend that Plaintiff and his counsel cannot adequately do so because: (a) Plaintiff worked for a different department, under a different supervisor, and in a different position from almost all of those he seeks to represent; and (b) Plaintiff's employment was not subject to a collective bargaining agreement while the employment of some members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees were subject to collective bargaining agreements. Plaintiffs definition of the class and aggrieved employees he seeks to represent is ambiguous and thus, Defendants reserve the right to further amend this affirmative defense as Plaintiff provides factual background for his Complaint or clarification of his allegations. 7. * DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTw Oo TN AH BF WN ee NBPRRBBEE SSRI AKDEBER AS 28 UmR UEDA SON, PC Bas Wer San Steei Bd Floor es Ange, CA 90071 2140 SEPARATE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) 13. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that the claims of Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees he seeks to represent are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, including but not limited to, California Code of Civil Procedure sections 338 and 340 and/or California Business & Professions Code section 17208. SEPARATE DEFENSE (Collective Bargaining Agreement Preemption) 14, As a separate and distinct defense to the Complaint and each cause of action set forth therein, or some of them, assuming arguendo that Defendants are joint employers, which Defendants do not concede, Defendants allege that the hours of work and working conditions of Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff purports to represent, or some of them, are subject to a collective bargaining agreement and, as such, Plaintiff and putative class members, or some of them, are exempt from the overtime requirements provided under the California Labor Code and applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, See Labor Code section 514. Plaintiff's definition of the class and aggrieved employees he seeks to represent is ambiguous and thus, Defendants reserve the right to further amend this affirmative defense as Plaintiff provides factual background for his Complaint or clarification of his allegations. SEPARATE DEFENSE (No Knowledge of Work) 15. As a separate and distinct defense, assuming arguendo that Defendants are joint employers, which Defendants do not concede, Defendants allege that if either Plaintiff or any putative class member or alleged aggrieved employee “worked” hours for which compensation was not paid, Defendants had no knowledge, or reason to know, of such “work,” such “work” was not suffered or permitted by Defendants, and such “work” was undertaken without the consent or permission of Defendants. 8. DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTCo ma DH HW PF WHY Ra a ie NRPRRPRBBRBRBSSE BST ABDBEBBES 28 UTTER END 50N, PC. BE WestSh Greet ‘1d Pear Len Angela, CA 60071 21400 SEPARATE DEFENSE (Failure to Take Breaks Provided Under the Law) 16. Asa separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff purports to represent has no right to a premium payment under Califomia Labor Code section 226.7 because, to the extent, if any, that person did not take breaks, it was because he/she: (1) failed to take breaks that were provided to him/her in compliance with California law; (2) chose not to take rest breaks that were authorized and permitted; or (3) waived his/her right to meal breaks under California Labor Code section 512(a) and applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission. SEPARATE DEFENSE (Bona Fide Dispute) 17. As a separate and distinct defense, assuming arguendo that Defendants are joint employers, which Defendants do not concede, Defendants allege that the Complaint fails to state a claim for penalties under the Califomia Labor Code in that (1) there was a bona fide, good faith dispute as to Defendants’ obligations under any applicable Labor Code provisions and/or Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, including, without limitation, Labor Code section 203, and (2) Defendants did not willfully violate Labor Code section 203. SEPARATE DEFENSE (Good Faith) 18. As a separate and distinct defense, assuming arguendo that Defendants are joint employers, which Defendants do not concede, Defendants allege that the Complaint and each cause of action set forth therein cannot be maintained because, without admitting that any violation took place, Defendants allege that any violation of the California Labor Code or of a Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission was an act or omission made in good faith, and that in any participation in such acts, Defendants had reasonable grounds for believing that the act or omission was not a Violation of the California Labor Code or any Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission. 9. DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT28 UTTER MENDELSON, PS. Welsh Sbee, aed oct or Angas, CA 80071 mie SEPARATE DEFENSE (Avoidable Consequences) 19. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants are informed and believe that further investigation and discovery will reveal, and on that basis allege, that the damages and/or penalties, if any, are barred and/or limited pursuant to the doctrine of avoidable consequences. Defendants will amend their Answer to assert further facts in support of this affirmative defense as they become known in discovery. See Department of Health Services v. Superior Court, 31 Cal. 4th 1026 (2003). SEPARATE DEFENSE (Multiple Penalties Unconstitutional) 20, Asa separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that the claims in the Complaint that seek the imposition of multiple penalties and/or exemplary damages for the same basic wrongs are unconstitutional in that such relief violates the Due Process clauses of the Constitutions of both the United States and the State of California, SEPARATE DEFENSE (Constitutional Violations) 21. Asa separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that the claims in the Complaint for exemplary or punitive damages cannot be sustained becduse an award of exemplary or punitive damages under California law without the same protections that are accorded to all penal defendants, including protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, the rights to confront adverse witnesses, a speedy trial, and the effective assistance of counsel would violate Defendants’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments as incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, and Defendants’ rights under analogous provisions of the California Constitution. 10. DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTBoe ee ee ee RBPRRRBRBREBE SETA BDEBHK AS 28 LTTLER WENDEL SON, C, 60 Wast 5 Steel Gad Foot ‘Low Angaies, CA 90071 TCO wo ew tA HW BF WN SEPARATE DEFENSE (Adequate Remedy at Law) 22. Asa separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff and the purported class members and/or group of aggrieved employees are not entitled to equitable relief insofar as they have an adequate remedy at law. SEPARATE DEFENSE (Actions by Agents outside the Scope of Authority) 23. As a separate and distinct defense, assuming arguendo that Defendants are joint employers, which Defendants do not concede, Defendants allege that claims in the Complaint cannot be maintained against Defendants because if employees of Defendants (including Plaintiff) took the actions alleged, such actions were committed outside the course and scope of such employees’ employment, were not authorized, adopted or ratified by Defendants, and Defendants did not know of nor should they have known of such conduct. SEPARATE DEFENSE (Credit and Offset) 24. As a separate and distinct defense, assuming arguendo that Defendants are joint employers, which Defendants do not concede, Defendants allege that they are entitled to an offset against any relief due Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff purports to represent, based upon their respective wrongful conduct and/or monies owed to Defendants, including, but not limited to, any overpayments made to such person and any contractual damages and/or indemnity owed by such person as the result of his/her failure to perform his contractual obligations or overpayment for hours worked. ll. DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTwo we NA Hh fF WN woe ee ee NRRRBBE SSB AR AAREN AS 28 UTR MEI SON PC. eMWete Sree ‘Sed Foor Lorangres,CA S007! 7 SEPARATE DEFENSE (Claims Subject to Arbitration) 25. As aseparate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part because some or all of the alleged members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff seeks to represent entered into an agreement to submit all employment-related claims to final and binding arbitration on an individual basis. Defendants do not waive the right to enforce the signed arbitration agreements of alleged members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees. SEPARATE DEFENS. (Claims Subject to Arbitration on Individual Basis) 26, Asa separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part because some or all of the alleged members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff seeks to represent entered into an agreement to submit all individual employment related claims to binding arbitration on an individual basis. See AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), Defendants do not waive the right to enforce the signed arbitration agreements of alleged members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees. SEPARATE DEFENSE (LMRA Preemption) 27, Asa separate and distinct defense, Defendants are informed and believe that further investigation and discovery will reveal, and on that basis allege, that the Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein, or some of them, are barred to the extent that they are preempted by section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act. Plaintiffs definition of the class and aggrieved employees he seeks to represent is ambiguous and thus, Defendants reserve the right to further amend this affirmative defense as Plaintiff provides factual background for his Complaint or clarification of his allegations. 12. DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTwo oN DAH BF WN Nw ee PRR RRBB ES SRA AKER E BSS UTTLER WERDELEOR, PC, 883 Wee Sh Brest xd Fox os Angels, CA S007! 2a SEPARATE DEFENSE (De Minimis) 28. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred because some or all of the disputed time for which Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees seek to recover wages purportedly owed, including but not limited to time donning and doffing scrubs, is not compensable pursuant to the de minimis doctrine. SEPARATE DEFENSE (Preliminary or Postliminary Activities) 29. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, are barred in whole or in part as to all hours during which Plaintiff and/or members of the putative cless and/or group of aggrieved employees were engaged in activities which were preliminary or postliminary to his/their principal activities, including but not limited to, time spent donning and doffing scrubs. SEPARATE DEFENSE (Not Required to be Performed at Work) 30. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, are barred in whole or in part as to all time during which Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees that Plaintiff seeks to represent were donning or doffing scrubs because such activity is not required to be performed at work. SEPARATE DEFENSE (Failure to Comply with Collective Bargaining Agreement) 31. Asa separate and distinct defense, Defendants are informed and believe that further investigation and discovery will reveal, and on that basis allege, that the claims of members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff seeks to represent, or some of them, are barred as a result of the failure of members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees to exhaust their administrative remedies under any applicable collective bargaining agreement. Plaintiffs definition of the class and aggrieved employees he seeks to represent is ambiguous and thus, Defendants reserve the right to further amend this affirmative defense as Plaintiff provides factual background for his Complaint or clarification of his allegations. 13. DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTSEPARATE DEFENSE (PAGA ~ Failure to Provide LWDA Adequate Notice) 32, As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff failed to provide the Labor Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) proper notification of the claims and/or the names of the “aggrieved employees” on whose behalf he intends to seek penalties, pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), Labor Code sections 2698 ef seq. SEPARATE DEFENSE @laintiff Not a PAGA Aggrieved Employee) 33. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring claims for civil penalties on behalf of others because he is not an “aggrieved employee,” pursuant to PAGA, , SEPARATE DEFENSE (PAGA - Failure to Identify Aggrieved Employees) 34. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff has failed to identify any other allegedly “aggrieved employees,” as provided in the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code sections 2698, et seq. SEPARATE DEFENSE (PAGA - Inability to Proceed as a Representative Action Due to Individual Inquiry) 35. Asa separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff's PAGA claim fails because the type and degree of alleged harm requires an individualized inquiry, making it impossible to resolve the claim on a representative basis for all “aggrieved employees.” SEPARATE DEFENSE (Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies) 36. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff is not entitled to recovery of civil penalties under PAGA because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies pursuant to Labor Code section 2699.3. 14, DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTCome tN DA Hh PR WN a a il ou AA RF YBN | Oo AIMLER PC. Sa wie ov Argues, CA S007! 2140 SEPARATE DEFENSE (PAGA ~ Unconstitutional Violation of the Separation of Powers) 37, As a separate and distinctive defense, Defendants allege that any cause of action based upon PAGA is unconstitutional on the basis that it violates the separation of powers doctrine by empowering private attommeys to prosecute public claims, thereby impairing the judiciary’s inherent power to regulate attorney conduct. SEPARATE DEFENSE (PAGA - Unconstitutionally Vague) 38. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that the Complaint and each cause of action are barred because PAGA is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad as applied to the facts, circumstances of this case. SEPARATE DEFENSE (PAGA - Statutory Penalties) 39, As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff cannot recover statutory penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 226(e) on behalf of other “aggrieved employees” pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code sections 2698, ef seg. SEPARATE DEFENSE (Duplicative Civil Penalties) 40. As a separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff is not entitled to recovery of civil penalties under PAGA because to the extent that such penalties are sought in addition to penalties for the same claims, such penalties are barred. SEPARATE DEFENSE {Initial Violation) 41. Asa separate and distinct defense, Defendants allege that, insofar as Defendants have never been cited by the Labor Commissioner, or received a judgment against it in a court of law, with respect to any of Plaintiff's Labor Code claims, any civil penalties awarded in this action under PAGA must be limited to those penalties applicable to an initial violation. 15. DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT1 SEPARATE DEFENSE 2 {Additional Affirmative Defenses) 3 42, Defendants reserve their right to assert additional defenses or claims which may 4 | become known during the course of discovery. 5 6 WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that: 7 1. Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice; 8 2. Plaintiff and the members of the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees 9 Plaintiff seeks to represent take nothing by this action; 10 3 Judgment be entered in Defendants’ favor and against Plaintiff and the members of I] the putative class and/or group of aggrieved employees Plaintiff seeks to represent 12 4, Defendants be awarded their costs of suit and attomeys’ fees incurred herein; and 13 5 Defendants be awarded such other and further relief as the Court deems just and 14 proper, 15 6 Dated: October A , 2016 ELJXABETH STAGGS WILSON 17 s ON R. BOYCE J MACIAS, JR. 18 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants 19 DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS 20 HOSPITAL OF MANTECA; TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET 21 HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Tamer 16. cone a DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTwo on ou FW MH ree ees NRBRRERR SRE SU aGERERE SE 28 UTILER MENDELSON mi PROOF OF SERVICE Tam a resident of the State of California, over the age of elghteen years, and not a Party to the within action. My business address is 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067.3107, On October 19, 2016, I served the within document(s): DEFENDANT DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC., AUXILIARY OF DOCTOR'S HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC. AND TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT by placing a true copy of the document(s) listed above for collection and mailing xl following the firm’s ordinary business practice in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid for deposit in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California addressed as set forth below. Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: 310.432.0000 Facsimile: 310.432.0001 Attorneys for Plaintiff Reginald Lyle I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing and for shipping via overnight delivery service. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S, Postal Service or If an overnight delivery service shipment, deposited In an overnight delivery service pick-up box or office on the same day with postage or fees thereon fully prepaid In the ordinary course of business. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on October 19, 2016, at Los Angeles, Callfornia. Lk LLEA O Mary Ann Gerard Firmwide:142979786.1 052845.1344 PROOF OF SERVICE