Preview
1 Robins Kaplan LLP
Michael A. Geibelson, (SBN 179970)
2 MGeibelson@RobinsKaplan.com
Daniel L. Allender (SBN 264651)
3 DAllender@RobinsKaplan.com
Jessica M. Pettit (SBN 320482)
4 JPettit@RobinsKaplan.com
2049 Century Park East, Suite 3400
5 Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 552-0130
6 Facsimile: (310) 229-5800
7 Attorneys for Defendants
INSTITUTO ESPAÑOL, S.A., and
8 MIDWAY IMPORTING, INC.
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
12
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES
13 BOB WARD, individually and on behalf of all Case No. 21CV03751
others similarly situated,
14 Assigned for all Purposes to
Plaintiff, Hon. Jed Beebe, SM Dept. 4
15
v. ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
16 COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANTS
INSTITUTO ESPAÑOL, S.A., a Corporation INSTITUTO ESPAÑOL, S.A., AND
17 doing business as AVENA INSTITUTO MIDWAY IMPORTING, INC.
ESPAÑOL; MIDWAY IMPORTING, INC., a
18 Corporation; and DOES -100, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
19 Complaint Filed: September 20, 2021
Defendants.
20
21 Defendants INSTITUTO ESPAÑOL, S.A., and MIDWAY IMPORTING, INC.
22 (“Defendants”) hereby answer Plaintiff BOB WARD’S (“Plaintiff’s”) unverified First Amended
23 Complaint as follows:
24 GENERAL DENIAL
25 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30(d), Defendants generally deny
26 every material allegation in the First Amended Complaint and every purported cause of action
27 contained therein. Defendants further deny that Plaintiff has sustained, or will sustain, damages as
28 a result of any alleged act, omission, breach of duty or obligation on the part of Defendants. Nor
61914254.1
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 is Plaintiff entitled to any other form of legal or equitable relief against Defendants.
2 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
3 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 (Failure to Mitigate)
5 Plaintiff failed to mitigate, or reasonably attempt to mitigate, his alleged damages, if any,
6 as required by law, and their corresponding recovery, if any, should be reduced or barred
7 accordingly.
8 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 (In the alternative, Learned Intermediary or Illegality)
10 Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s alleged use of the products at issue in the
11 complaint were, in the alternative, either at the direction and under the supervision of a
12 prescribing physician such that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the learned intermediary doctrine,
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES
13 thus barring any recovery.
14 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 (No Liability)
16 Each cause of action asserted by Plaintiff in the First Amended Complaint is barred, in
17 whole or in part, because Defendants have complied with and fully performed any and all
18 obligations imposed upon it by law, contract, or equity. Therefore, any obligation owed to
19 Plaintiff has been satisfied, released, or otherwise discharged. Moreover, Defendants did not
20 commit any wrongful acts as to Plaintiff and, therefore, are not responsible for any damages
21 which Plaintiff claims.
22 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 (Supervening/Intervening Acts of Third Parties)
24 Plaintiff’s causes of action alleged in the First Amended Complaint are barred on the
25 ground that the subsequent and intervening acts of third parties, caused the happening of the
26 alleged injury, loss, and damages complained of.
27
28
61914254.1
-2-
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Lack of Damages)
3 Plaintiff has not suffered any damages as a result of any actions taken by Defendants or its
4 agents, and as a result, Plaintiff is barred from asserting any cause of action against Defendants.
5 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 (Statute of Limitations)
7 Each of Plaintiff’s causes of action alleged in the First Amended Complaint is barred, in
8 whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations, including but not limited to California
9 Code of Civil Procedure section 337, 338, 339, 340, 343, and 1783, Commercial Code section
10 2725, and California Business and Professions Code sections 16750.1 and 17208.
11 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 (Reasonableness and Good Faith)
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES
13 Defendants and their agents acted reasonably and in good faith at all times material herein
14 based on all relevant facts and circumstances known by them at the time they so acted. As a result,
15 Plaintiff is barred from any recovery in this action.
16 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (Lack of Standing)
18 Defendants allege that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring claims on behalf of himself or as a
19 representative of any putative class.
20 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 (Adequate Remedy at Law)
22 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claim under the UCL is barred because Plaintiff possesses
23 an adequate remedy at law.
24 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 (First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and Commercial Speech)
26 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the First Amendment, the Fourteenth
27 Amendment, and to the extent the cause of action is based upon Defendants’ commercial speech.
28
61914254.1
-3-
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Opinion/Puffing)
3 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claim is barred insofar as the statements alleged constitute
4 nonactionable opinion and puffery.
5 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 (Discontinued and Completed Conduct / No Threat of a Future Violation)
7 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is barred insofar as the acts and
8 practices alleged are discontinued and completed, and no threat of a future violation remains.
9 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 (Unclean Hands)
11 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claim is barred based upon the doctrine of unclean hands.
12 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES
13 (Disclosure)
14 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claim is barred based upon the full disclosure of the facts
15 attendant to Plaintiff’s claim.
16 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (Good Faith)
18 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claim under the UCL’s unfairness prong is barred by
19 Defendants’ good faith.
20 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 (Justification)
22 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claim under the UCL’s unfairness prong is barred by
23 justification.
24 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 (No Ascertainability)
26 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claim is barred as a class action because no class is
27 ascertainable.
28
61914254.1
-4-
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (No Community of Interest)
3 Defendants allege that Plaintiffs’ claim is barred as a class action because there is no
4 sufficient community of interest.
5
6 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 (Manageability)
8 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claim is barred as a class action because it is not
9 manageable.
10 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 (No likelihood of confusion)
12 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claim is barred because there is no likelihood of confusion
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES
13 or deception to the extent the same is treated as an affirmative defense.
14 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 (Intent/Punitive Damages)
16 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claim and the prayer for punitive damages is barred for
17 the absence of any intent to injure, deceive, harm, or otherwise engage in conduct entitling Plaintiffs
18 to punitive damages.
19 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 (No Vicarious Liability)
21 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claim is barred inasmuch as there is no vicarious liability
22 under the UCL or CLRA for the acts alleged.
23 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 (Other Affirmative Defenses)
25 The First Amended Complaint does not describe the claims made against Defendants with
26 sufficient particularity to enable Defendants to determine each and every defense it may have.
27 Defendants therefore expressly reserve the right to assert any additional defenses, including
28
61914254.1
-5-
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 affirmative defenses, which may be discovered or become relevant once the precise nature of
2 Plaintiff’s claims has been ascertained.
3 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
4 WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for relief as follows:
5 1. That the First Amended Complaint be dismissed in its entirety;
6 2. That Plaintiff takes nothing by reason of their First Amended Complaint and that
7 judgment be rendered in favor of Defendants;
8 3. That Defendants be awarded its costs of suit and attorneys’ fees incurred in
9 defense of this action, to the extent permitted by law; and
10 4. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
11
12
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Dated: March 11, 2022 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
LOS ANGELES
13
14
By:
15 Michael A. Geibelson
Daniel L. Allender
16 Jessica M. Pettit
17 Attorney for Defendants
INSTITUTO ESPAÑOL, S.A., and
18 MIDWAY IMPORTING, INC.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
61914254.1
-6-
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2 Defendants INSTITUTO ESPAÑOL, S.A., and MIDWAY IMPORTING, INC. hereby
3 demand a trial by jury.
4
Dated: March 11, 2022 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
5
6
By:
7 Michael A. Geibelson
Daniel L. Allender
8 Jessica M. Pettit
9 Attorney for Defendants
INSTITUTO ESPAÑOL, S.A., and
10 MIDWAY IMPORTING, INC.
11
12
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
61914254.1
-7-
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
3 ) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
4
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18
5 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3400,
Los Angeles, California 90067-3208.
6
On March 11, 2022, I served the foregoing document(s) described as ANSWER TO
7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANTS INSTITUTO ESPAÑOL, S.A., AND
MIDWAY IMPORTING, INC.on the interested parties as follows:
8
9 Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
Stephanie M. Taft, Esq.
10 KIESEL LAW LLP
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
11 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
Tel: 310.854.4444
12
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
Fax: 310.854.0812
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Email: koncius@kiesel.law
LOS ANGELES
13
taft@kiesel.law
14
Attorneys for Plaintiff Bob Ward, individually
15 and on behalf of all others similarly situated
16
17 [X] BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Based on a court order or an
agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused
18 the documents to be sent to the person(s) at the e-mail address listed below. My electronic
notification address is ezyalyukova@robinskaplan.com. I did not receive, within a
19 reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the
transmission was unsuccessful.
20
21 [X] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct.
22
Executed on March 11, 2022, at Los Angeles, California.
23
24
Elena Zyalyukova
25
26
27
28
61914254.1
-8-
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Preview
1 Robins Kaplan LLP Michael A. Geibelson, (SBN 179970) 2 MGeibelson@RobinsKaplan.com Daniel L. Allender (SBN 264651) 3 DAllender@RobinsKaplan.com Jessica M. Pettit (SBN 320482) 4 JPettit@RobinsKaplan.com 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3400 5 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-0130 6 Facsimile: (310) 229-5800 7 Attorneys for Defendants INSTITUTO ESPAÑOL, S.A., and 8 MIDWAY IMPORTING, INC. 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 12 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 13 BOB WARD, individually and on behalf of all Case No. 21CV03751 others similarly situated, 14 Assigned for all Purposes to Plaintiff, Hon. Jed Beebe, SM Dept. 4 15 v. ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED 16 COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANTS INSTITUTO ESPAÑOL, S.A., a Corporation INSTITUTO ESPAÑOL, S.A., AND 17 doing business as AVENA INSTITUTO MIDWAY IMPORTING, INC. ESPAÑOL; MIDWAY IMPORTING, INC., a 18 Corporation; and DOES -100, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 19 Complaint Filed: September 20, 2021 Defendants. 20 21 Defendants INSTITUTO ESPAÑOL, S.A., and MIDWAY IMPORTING, INC. 22 (“Defendants”) hereby answer Plaintiff BOB WARD’S (“Plaintiff’s”) unverified First Amended 23 Complaint as follows: 24 GENERAL DENIAL 25 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30(d), Defendants generally deny 26 every material allegation in the First Amended Complaint and every purported cause of action 27 contained therein. Defendants further deny that Plaintiff has sustained, or will sustain, damages as 28 a result of any alleged act, omission, breach of duty or obligation on the part of Defendants. Nor 61914254.1 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 is Plaintiff entitled to any other form of legal or equitable relief against Defendants. 2 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 3 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 (Failure to Mitigate) 5 Plaintiff failed to mitigate, or reasonably attempt to mitigate, his alleged damages, if any, 6 as required by law, and their corresponding recovery, if any, should be reduced or barred 7 accordingly. 8 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 (In the alternative, Learned Intermediary or Illegality) 10 Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s alleged use of the products at issue in the 11 complaint were, in the alternative, either at the direction and under the supervision of a 12 prescribing physician such that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the learned intermediary doctrine, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 13 thus barring any recovery. 14 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 (No Liability) 16 Each cause of action asserted by Plaintiff in the First Amended Complaint is barred, in 17 whole or in part, because Defendants have complied with and fully performed any and all 18 obligations imposed upon it by law, contract, or equity. Therefore, any obligation owed to 19 Plaintiff has been satisfied, released, or otherwise discharged. Moreover, Defendants did not 20 commit any wrongful acts as to Plaintiff and, therefore, are not responsible for any damages 21 which Plaintiff claims. 22 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (Supervening/Intervening Acts of Third Parties) 24 Plaintiff’s causes of action alleged in the First Amended Complaint are barred on the 25 ground that the subsequent and intervening acts of third parties, caused the happening of the 26 alleged injury, loss, and damages complained of. 27 28 61914254.1 -2- ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Lack of Damages) 3 Plaintiff has not suffered any damages as a result of any actions taken by Defendants or its 4 agents, and as a result, Plaintiff is barred from asserting any cause of action against Defendants. 5 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (Statute of Limitations) 7 Each of Plaintiff’s causes of action alleged in the First Amended Complaint is barred, in 8 whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations, including but not limited to California 9 Code of Civil Procedure section 337, 338, 339, 340, 343, and 1783, Commercial Code section 10 2725, and California Business and Professions Code sections 16750.1 and 17208. 11 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 (Reasonableness and Good Faith) ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 13 Defendants and their agents acted reasonably and in good faith at all times material herein 14 based on all relevant facts and circumstances known by them at the time they so acted. As a result, 15 Plaintiff is barred from any recovery in this action. 16 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (Lack of Standing) 18 Defendants allege that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring claims on behalf of himself or as a 19 representative of any putative class. 20 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 (Adequate Remedy at Law) 22 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claim under the UCL is barred because Plaintiff possesses 23 an adequate remedy at law. 24 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and Commercial Speech) 26 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the First Amendment, the Fourteenth 27 Amendment, and to the extent the cause of action is based upon Defendants’ commercial speech. 28 61914254.1 -3- ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Opinion/Puffing) 3 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claim is barred insofar as the statements alleged constitute 4 nonactionable opinion and puffery. 5 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (Discontinued and Completed Conduct / No Threat of a Future Violation) 7 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is barred insofar as the acts and 8 practices alleged are discontinued and completed, and no threat of a future violation remains. 9 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 (Unclean Hands) 11 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claim is barred based upon the doctrine of unclean hands. 12 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 13 (Disclosure) 14 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claim is barred based upon the full disclosure of the facts 15 attendant to Plaintiff’s claim. 16 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (Good Faith) 18 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claim under the UCL’s unfairness prong is barred by 19 Defendants’ good faith. 20 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 (Justification) 22 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claim under the UCL’s unfairness prong is barred by 23 justification. 24 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (No Ascertainability) 26 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claim is barred as a class action because no class is 27 ascertainable. 28 61914254.1 -4- ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (No Community of Interest) 3 Defendants allege that Plaintiffs’ claim is barred as a class action because there is no 4 sufficient community of interest. 5 6 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 (Manageability) 8 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claim is barred as a class action because it is not 9 manageable. 10 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 (No likelihood of confusion) 12 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claim is barred because there is no likelihood of confusion ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 13 or deception to the extent the same is treated as an affirmative defense. 14 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 (Intent/Punitive Damages) 16 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claim and the prayer for punitive damages is barred for 17 the absence of any intent to injure, deceive, harm, or otherwise engage in conduct entitling Plaintiffs 18 to punitive damages. 19 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 (No Vicarious Liability) 21 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claim is barred inasmuch as there is no vicarious liability 22 under the UCL or CLRA for the acts alleged. 23 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 (Other Affirmative Defenses) 25 The First Amended Complaint does not describe the claims made against Defendants with 26 sufficient particularity to enable Defendants to determine each and every defense it may have. 27 Defendants therefore expressly reserve the right to assert any additional defenses, including 28 61914254.1 -5- ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 affirmative defenses, which may be discovered or become relevant once the precise nature of 2 Plaintiff’s claims has been ascertained. 3 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 4 WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for relief as follows: 5 1. That the First Amended Complaint be dismissed in its entirety; 6 2. That Plaintiff takes nothing by reason of their First Amended Complaint and that 7 judgment be rendered in favor of Defendants; 8 3. That Defendants be awarded its costs of suit and attorneys’ fees incurred in 9 defense of this action, to the extent permitted by law; and 10 4. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 11 12 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Dated: March 11, 2022 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP LOS ANGELES 13 14 By: 15 Michael A. Geibelson Daniel L. Allender 16 Jessica M. Pettit 17 Attorney for Defendants INSTITUTO ESPAÑOL, S.A., and 18 MIDWAY IMPORTING, INC. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 61914254.1 -6- ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 2 Defendants INSTITUTO ESPAÑOL, S.A., and MIDWAY IMPORTING, INC. hereby 3 demand a trial by jury. 4 Dated: March 11, 2022 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 5 6 By: 7 Michael A. Geibelson Daniel L. Allender 8 Jessica M. Pettit 9 Attorney for Defendants INSTITUTO ESPAÑOL, S.A., and 10 MIDWAY IMPORTING, INC. 11 12 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 61914254.1 -7- ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 3 ) ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) 4 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 5 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3400, Los Angeles, California 90067-3208. 6 On March 11, 2022, I served the foregoing document(s) described as ANSWER TO 7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANTS INSTITUTO ESPAÑOL, S.A., AND MIDWAY IMPORTING, INC.on the interested parties as follows: 8 9 Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. Stephanie M. Taft, Esq. 10 KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard 11 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Tel: 310.854.4444 12 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP Fax: 310.854.0812 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Email: koncius@kiesel.law LOS ANGELES 13 taft@kiesel.law 14 Attorneys for Plaintiff Bob Ward, individually 15 and on behalf of all others similarly situated 16 17 [X] BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused 18 the documents to be sent to the person(s) at the e-mail address listed below. My electronic notification address is ezyalyukova@robinskaplan.com. I did not receive, within a 19 reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 20 21 [X] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 22 Executed on March 11, 2022, at Los Angeles, California. 23 24 Elena Zyalyukova 25 26 27 28 61914254.1 -8- ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT