Case3:13-cv SI Document11 Filed03/26/13 Page1 of 17
|
|
- Everett Lang
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case:-cv-000-SI Document Filed0// Page of CHRISTOPHER J. BORDERS (SBN: 0 cborders@hinshawlaw.com AMY K. JENSEN (SBN: ajensen@hinshawlaw.com HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP One California Street, th Floor San Francisco, CA Telephone: Facsimile: --00 Attorneys for Defendant FIELD ASSET SERVICES, LLC (erroneously sued herein as Field Asset Services, Inc. FRED BOWERMAN and JULIA BOWERMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, vs. Plaintiffs, FIELD ASSET SERVICES, INC., FIELD ASSET SERVICES, LLC, a successor in interest, Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION Case No.: C-000 SI DEFENDANT S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Hon. Susan Illston Complaint Filed: February, 0 0 TO THIS HONORABLE COURT AND ALL ATTORNEYS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Defendant, FIELD ASSET SERVICES, LLC, erroneously sued herein as FIELD ASSET SERVICES, INC., hereby submits the following Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages ( Complaint as follows. 00
2 Case:-cv-000-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 ANSWER. Defendant admits so much of Paragraph which states that Plaintiffs seek to bring this action as a class action, but denies that Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled facts to support any class claims; that it engaged in any unlawful employment scheme; or that it denied anyone wages and benefits. Defendant denies that Plaintiffs or other members of the proposed class were employees. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant specifically and generally denies each and every remaining allegation contained in the aforementioned paragraph.. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant admits so much of Paragraph which states that Plaintiffs purport to charge Defendant with violations of provisions of the Labor Code and the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and that Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution, compensatory damages, liquidated damages, penalties, attorneys fees and costs, and prejudgment interest. Defendant denies, however, that it violated any of the stated provisions, or that Plaintiffs or the proposed class are entitled to any of the stated requests for relief, and that there is any class entitled to any such relief. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant specifically and generally denies each and every remaining allegation contained in the aforementioned paragraph.. Defendant admits that Plaintiff Fred Bowerman, operating as BB Home Services, was a vendor for FAS. Defendant has insufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.. Defendant admits on information and belief that Plaintiff Julia Bowerman, operating as BB Home Services, was a vendor for FAS. Defendant has insufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.. Admitted.. Due to the vague, ambiguous, and uncertain nature of the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint - namely, Plaintiffs fail to identify the entities which are allegedly affiliated with Defendant or constitute an affiliated enterprise with Defendant - Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the truth of the allegations contained in 00
3 Case:-cv-000-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 Paragraph of the Complaint and on that basis, specifically and generally denies each and every allegation contained therein, except to the extent that the allegations constitute legal conclusions such that no response is required.. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Admitted.. Admitted.. Defendant denies that Plaintiffs, operating as BB Home Services, were employed by FAS. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs were independent contractors, operating under the company BB Home Services, and that BB Home Services was retained to perform property preservation services as BB Home Services in various counties in Northern and Central California. Defendant admits, on information and belief, that Plaintiffs operating as BB Home Services, executed work order requests in Mendocino, Lake, Sonoma, Marin, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Joaquin, San Francisco, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Benito counties. Defendant denies that Plaintiffs, operating as BB Home Services, were inactivated due to the over saturation of vendors. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant specifically and generally denies each and every remaining allegation contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of themselves maintainable as a class action. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs, operating as company BB Home Services, were paid as independent contractors. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant specifically and generally denies each and every remaining allegation contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of themselves maintainable as a class action. Defendant admits that it communicated work order requests through electronic mail notifications and vendor access to an online software systems and information via the Internet, but denies that it assigned work order requests to vendors seven days per week or that that 00
4 Case:-cv-000-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 Plaintiffs, operating as company BB Home Services, were required to accept work order requests. Defendant admits that to the extent Plaintiffs elected to accept a work order request, that under most circumstances Plaintiffs were required to communicate their acceptance within hours, and the work had to be performed within specific deadlines of the work order request which was often within three days of receipt. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant specifically and generally denies each and every remaining allegation contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of themselves maintainable as a class action. Defendant admits that it took steps to confirm the completion of work order requests by its vendors, and communicated with Plaintiffs, operating as BB Home Services, concerning their accepted work order requests. Defendant admits that it had the right to offer other vendors work order requests which were not completed within the timelines communicated with work order requests, including work order requests which required completion within hours of receipt. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant specifically and generally denies each and every remaining allegation contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of themselves maintainable as a class action. Defendant admits that it required vendors to perform tasks outlined in the work order request and complete the objectives of the work order request, but denies that vendors were required to accept work order requests. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant specifically and generally denies each and every remaining allegation contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of themselves maintainable as a class action. Defendant admits that vendors were utilized by Defendant to perform various tasks by way of accepted work order requests, including those tasks outlined in Paragraph, but Defendant denies that FAS required vendor companies to accept work order requests. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant specifically and generally denies each and every remaining 00
5 Case:-cv-000-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 allegation contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of themselves maintainable as a class action. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint, and on that basis, specifically and generally denies the same.. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of themselves maintainable as a class action. Defendant admits that it required vendor companies to perform tasks outlined in accepted work order requests and complete the objectives of work order request, and to document completion of accepted work order requests which would commonly include submission of contemporaneous photographs. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant specifically and generally denies each and every remaining allegation contained in Paragraph of the Complaint. 0. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of themselves maintainable as a class action. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint, and on that basis, specifically and generally denies the same.. Defendant admits that, as to work order requests which were not completed correctly, Plaintiffs, operating as BB Home Services, could be requested to correct deficiencies directly related to the tasks they agreed to perform, and that Plaintiffs had the opportunity to correctly complete tasks before having to incur any related costs. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant specifically and generally denies each and every remaining allegation contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of themselves and a class of persons who they allege are similarly situated, but denies that this action is properly maintainable as a class action. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant specifically and generally denies each and every remaining allegation contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of themselves 00
6 Case:-cv-000-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 maintainable as a class action. Defendant denies that Plaintiffs and/or the proposed class members were workers. On that basis, except as expressly admitted, Defendant specifically and generally denies each and every remaining allegation contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of themselves maintainable as a class action. Defendant admits that vendor companies were sometimes required to participate in telephone calls, in-person seminars, and/or online webinars regarding various matters related to the satisfactory completion of various work order requests or tasks, but denies that all were mandatory. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant specifically and generally denies each and every remaining allegation contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of themselves maintainable as a class action. Defendant denies that Plaintiffs or any proposed class members has or ever had employment with Defendant. Defendant denies that FAS determined all price rates or flat rates for each work order request, as Plaintiffs had the opportunity to bid and/or negotiate rates on various services and/or work order requests. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant specifically and generally denies each and every remaining allegation contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of themselves maintainable as a class action. Defendant denies that Plaintiffs, operating as BB Home Services, were required to incur the expense of debris dumping. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant specifically and generally denies each and every remaining allegation contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of themselves maintainable as a class action. Defendant denies that Plaintiffs or any proposed class members has 00
7 Case:-cv-000-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 or ever had employment with Defendant. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant specifically and generally denies each and every remaining allegation contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of themselves maintainable as a class action. Defendant denies that Plaintiffs or any proposed class members were entitled to any payment of overtime. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant specifically and generally denies each and every remaining allegation contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purports to bring this action on behalf of themselves maintainable as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules (a, (b(, and (b(. To the extent that Paragraph of the Complaint contains legal conclusions, no response is required. Otherwise, Defendant specifically and generally denies each and every remaining allegation. 0. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purports to bring this action on behalf of themselves maintainable as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules (a, (b(, and (c(. To the extent that Paragraph 0 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions, no response is required. Otherwise, Defendant specifically and generally denies each and every remaining allegation.. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purports to bring this action on behalf of themselves maintainable as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules (a, (b(, and (b(. To the extent that Paragraph of the Complaint contains legal conclusions, no response is required. Otherwise, Defendant specifically and generally denies each and every remaining allegation.. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purports to bring this action on behalf of themselves 00
8 Case:-cv-000-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 maintainable as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules (a, (b(, and (b(. To the extent that Paragraph of the Complaint contains legal conclusions, no response is required. Otherwise, Defendant specifically and generally denies each and every remaining allegation.. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purports to bring this action on behalf of themselves maintainable as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules (a, (b(, and (b(. To the extent that Paragraph of the Complaint contains legal conclusions, no response is required. Otherwise, Defendant specifically and generally denies each and every remaining allegation.. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purports to bring this action on behalf of themselves maintainable as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules (a, (b(, and (b(. To the extent that Paragraph of the Complaint contains legal conclusions, no response is required. Otherwise, Defendant specifically and generally denies each and every remaining allegation.. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purports to bring this action on behalf of themselves maintainable as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules (a, (b(, and (b(. To the extent that Paragraph of the Complaint contains legal conclusions, no response is required. Otherwise, Defendant specifically and generally denies each and every remaining allegation.. Defendant repeats and re-alleges each and every statement, averment, denial, and admission contained in paragraphs - as set forth above, with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of themselves maintainable as a class action. Defendant admits that it entered into contracts with vendor 00
9 Case:-cv-000-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 companies to perform certain services in exchange for the payment for those services and that those agreements were in writing. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant specifically and generally denies each and every remaining allegation contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint. 0. Defendant repeats and re-alleges each and every statement, averment, denial, and admission contained in paragraphs - as set forth above, with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint, including (a, (b, (c, and (d.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint, including (a and (b.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant repeats and re-alleges each and every statement, averment, denial, and admission contained in paragraphs - as set forth above, with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant repeats and re-alleges each and every statement, averment, denial, and admission contained in paragraphs - as set forth above, with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint. 0. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 0 of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant repeats and re-alleges each and every statement, averment, denial, and 00
10 Case:-cv-000-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 admission contained in paragraphs - as set forth above, with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint. 0. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 0 of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant repeats and re-alleges each and every statement, averment, denial, and admission contained in paragraphs - as set forth above, with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant repeats and re-alleges each and every statement, averment, denial, and admission contained in paragraphs - as set forth above, with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint. 0. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 0 of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant repeats and re-alleges each and every statement, averment, denial, and admission contained in paragraphs - as set forth above, with the same force and effect as if fully 00
11 Case:-cv-000-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 set forth herein.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint. 0. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 0 of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph of the Complaint. Prayer for Relief. Defendant denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment against Defendant. Defendant denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any declaratory judgment. Defendant denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary, permanent, or mandatory injunction. Defendant denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to an equitable accounting. Defendant denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages, including lost wages, earnings, and other employee benefits. Defendant denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys fees, costs of suit, interest, and any other relief. Defendant also asserts the following affirmative defenses: AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Claim Defendant alleges as a separate and distinct affirmative defense that Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a cause of action on which recovery may be granted to Plaintiffs. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations Defendant alleges as a separate and distinct affirmative defense that Plaintiffs Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, including, but not limited to, Sections, et seq. 00
12 Case:-cv-000-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Mitigate Defendant alleges as a separate and distinct affirmative defense that Plaintiffs recovery, if any, should be barred or decreased to the extent that Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Comparative Fault Defendant alleges as a separate and distinct affirmative defense that the damages of which Plaintiffs now complain were proximately caused by the acts or omissions of Plaintiffs and/or other parties, persons, and/or entities. Wherefore, if there is found to be fault on the part of Defendant, which in any manner or degree contributed to Plaintiffs alleged damages, a finding should be made apportioning and affixing comparative fault of any and all parties or persons, whether named in this action or otherwise. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Acts of Others Defendant alleges as a separate and distinct affirmative defense that Plaintiffs Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, are barred, in whole or in part, in that the damages of which Plaintiffs now complain were proximately caused by the acts or omissions of other parties, persons and/or entities, and its agents and/or employees, which acts or omissions were intervening and superseding and/or the causes of the injuries and/or damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff, if any. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel Defendant alleges as a separate and distinct affirmative defense that Plaintiffs are estopped by their conduct from recovering relief by this Complaint. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Affirmative Misconduct Defendant alleges as a separate and distinct affirmative defense that Plaintiffs are barred from bringing this Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, and obtaining any relief 00
13 Case:-cv-000-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 pursuant to the claims for relief alleged in the Complaint against Defendant by virtue of Plaintiffs own affirmative misconduct. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands Defendant alleges as a separate and distinct affirmative defense that Plaintiffs Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine of unclean hands. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Laches Defendant alleges as a separate and distinct affirmative defense that Plaintiffs Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, are barred by the doctrine of laches. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver Defendant alleges as a separate and distinct affirmative defense that Plaintiffs Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine of waiver. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Justification Defendant alleges as a separate and distinct affirmative defense that any recovery on the Complaint, or any purported cause of action alleged herein is barred because Defendant s conduct was lawful and justified. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Standing Defendant alleges as a separate and distinct affirmative defense that Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part in that Plaintiffs lack standing to assert each and every purported cause of action in the Complaint against Defendant, and are not a proper party. 00
14 Case:-cv-000-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Consent Defendant alleges as a separate and distinct affirmative defense that Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, in that Plaintiffs, their agents or predecessors in interest willfully and voluntarily consented, expressly and impliedly, after full and complete disclosure of all relevant and material facts, to any and all such act or acts, event or events, as to which he now complains. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Ratification Defendant alleges as a separate and distinct affirmative defense that Plaintiffs claims are barred by reason of the fact that Plaintiffs or their predecessor in interest, upon being fully informed or the acts and events of which he now complains, ratified and affirmed all conduct with respect to those acts and events. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Superseding/Intervening Act Defendant alleges as a separate and distinct affirmative defense that Plaintiffs alleged injuries, losses, or damages were approximately caused by a superseding and intervening act. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Assumption of Risk Defendant alleges as a separate and distinct affirmative defense that if Plaintiffs suffered or sustained any loss, damages or injury at or about the times and places alleged, although such is not admitted hereby or herein, the same or the direct and proximate result of the risk, if any there was, was knowingly assumed by Plaintiffs. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Illegal Intent Defendant alleges as a separate and distinct affirmative defense that at all relevant times, none of Defendant s acts were in bad faith, spiteful, malicious, or otherwise motivated by any ill-will or illegal intent. Instead, Defendant s acts were at all relevant times privileged or taken in accordance with its rights as accorded by law. 00
15 Case:-cv-000-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Attorneys Fees Defendant has engaged attorneys to represent it in defense of Plaintiffs frivolous, unfounded and unreasonable action and Plaintiffs are not entitled to attorneys fees; and further, this answering Defendant is thereby entitled to an award of attorneys fees upon judgment thereon in its favor. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Privilege Defendant alleges as a separate and distinct affirmative defense that Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part because Defendant s acts were privileged. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Defendant Acted in Good Faith At all times mentioned in the Complaint, Defendant performed and discharged in good faith each and every obligation, if any, owed to Plaintiffs. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Plaintiff Breached the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Plaintiffs conduct constitutes a breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, if any such covenant existed. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Express or Implied Contract Defendant alleges as a separate and distinct affirmative defense that Plaintiffs Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, are barred, in whole or in part, because no express or implied contract for employment existed between Plaintiffs and Defendant. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Plaintiffs Were Fully Compensated Defendant alleges as a separate and distinct affirmative defense that Plaintiffs were sufficiently compensated for the tasks for which they, through their company, BB Home Services, was retained to do. 00
16 Case:-cv-000-SI Document Filed0// Page of 0 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Penalties are Subject to One-Year Statute of Limitations Defendant alleges as a separate and distinct affirmative defense that wage penalties pursuant to the Labor Code are subject to a statute of limitations period of one year. TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Plaintiffs Not Injured Parties Defendant alleges as a separate and distinct affirmative defense that Plaintiffs claim for unfair competition is barred because Plaintiffs have not suffered injury in fact and/or has not lost money. TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Performance Excused Defendant alleges as a separate and distinct affirmative defense that this answering Defendant fully performed under any agreement referenced in the Complaint, except as excused by Plaintiffs failure to perform under such agreement, and/or Plaintiffs misrepresentations in making the agreement. TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Frustrated Contract Defendant alleges as a separate and distinct affirmative defense that Plaintiffs, by their own actions and representations, may have frustrated the purpose of the contract between Plaintiffs and this answering Defendant, thereby excusing any further performance by this answering Defendant. TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Plaintiffs Prior Breach Defendant alleges as a separate and distinct affirmative defense that this answering Defendant s performance and obligations, if any, were excused by reason of Plaintiffs prior breach of any alleged agreement. TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unknown Defenses Defendant presently has insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a belief as 00
17 Case:-cv-000-SI Document Filed0// Page of to whether it may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses available. Defendant reserves herein the right to assert additional defenses in the event discovery indicates that they would be appropriate. WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays as follows:. That Plaintiffs take nothing by this Complaint;. That Defendant recover its costs of suit herein;. That Defendant recover reasonable attorney s fees incurred herein; and. That the Court award such other and further relief as it is just and proper. 0 Dated: March, 0 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP By:_/s/ Christopher J. Borders Christopher J. Borders Amy K. Jensen Attorneys for Defendant Field Asset Services LLC 00
R. BRIAN DIXON, Bar No LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Case :-cv-000-jgb-rao Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 R. BRIAN DIXON, Bar No. 0 bdixon@littler.com Bush Street, th Floor San Francisco, CA 0 Telephone:..0 Facsimile:..0 DOUGLAS A. WICKHAM, Bar
More informationthe unverified First Amended Complaint (the Complaint ) of plaintiffs MIKE SPITZER and
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1 1 1 Defendant FRHI HOTELS & RESORTS (CANADA) INC. ( Defendant ) hereby answers the unverified First Amended Complaint (the Complaint ) of plaintiffs MIKE SPITZER and MICHELLE MACOMBER
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
David L. Kagel (Calif. Bar No. 1 John Torbett (Calif. State Bar No. Law Offices of David Kagel, PLC 01 Century Park East, th Floor Los Angeles, CA 00 Telephone: ( -00 Fax: ( - Attorneys Admitted Pro Hac
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA * * *
BRETT L. MCKAGUE, ESQ. SBN 0 JEREMY J. SCHROEDER, ESQ. SBN FLESHER MCKAGUE LLP 0 Plaza Drive Rocklin, CA Telephone: ().0 Facsimile: (). Attorneys for defendant and cross-defendant, GENTRY ASSOCIATES CONSTRUCTION
More informationCase5:09-cv JW Document106 Filed04/22/10 Page1 of 9
Case:0-cv-0-JW Document0 Filed0//0 Page of 0 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 0) charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com Melissa J. Baily (Bar No. ) melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/28/ :04 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/28/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/28/2016 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 190293/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/28/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X VINCENT ASCIONE, v. ALCOA,
More informationKanter v. California Administrative Office of the Courts Doc. 10 Case 3:07-cv MJJ Document 10 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 1 of 13
Kanter v. California Administrative Office of the Courts Doc. Case :0-cv-0-MJJ Document Filed 0/0/00 Page of 0 PATRICIA K. GILLETTE (Bar No. ) GREG J. RICHARDSON (Bar No. 0) BROOKE D. ANDRICH (Bar No.
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/ :24 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2016 11:24 AM INDEX NO. 190043/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X JOHN D. FIEDERLEIN AND
More informationCase5:02-cv JF Document3 Filed11/06/02 Page1 of 14
Case:0-cv-0-JF Document Filed/0/0 Page of JAMES R. HAWLEY -- BAR NO. 0 KATHRYN CHOW BAR NO. 0 HOGE, FENTON, JONES & APPEL, INC. Sixty South Market Street, Suite 00 San Jose, California - Phone: (0) -0
More informationCase 4:17-cv PJH Document 61 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 33
Case :-cv-0-pjh Document Filed 0// Page of Brenda A. Prackup Law Office of Brenda A. Prackup 000 MacArthur Blvd. East Tower, th Floor Newport Beach, CA 0 Tel:.. Email: brenda@baplawoffice.com Attorney
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/ :54 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2016 02:54 PM INDEX NO. 190047/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X NORMAN DOIRON AND ELAINE
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY. Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (hereinafter FedEx Ground ), by and
THE HONORABLE BRUCE HELLER SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY MITCH SPENCER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, No. --00- SEA v. Plaintiff, ACTION COMPLAINT FEDEX GROUND
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP PAUL S. COWIE, Cal. Bar No. 01 pcowie@sheppardmuilin.com MICHAEL H. GIACINTI, Cal. Bar No. mgiacinti@sheppardmullin.com Lytton Avenue Palo Alto, California 01-1
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA ELECTRONICALLY FILED 12/17/2012 2:06 PM CV-2012-901531.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA FLORENCE CAUTHEN, CLERK INNOVATION SPORTS & ) ENTERTAINMENT,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Case 1:15-cv-00405-CCE-JEP Document 7 Filed 07/10/15 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ) LIMECCA CORBIN, on behalf of herself and ) similarly situated
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/ :32 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 164 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK VERIFIED REPLY TO 89 BOWERY AND HUA YANG'S COUNTERCLAIMS IN VERIFIED AMENDED ANSWER Index No. 150738/2017 Plaintiff, 93 BOWERY HOLDINGS LLC ("93
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/25/ :15 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/25/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK EVA SCRIVO FIFTH AVENUE, INC., vs. Plaintiff, ANNIE RUSH and COSETTE FIFTH AVENUE, LLC, Defendants. Index No. 656723/2016 VERIFIED ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/19/2012 INDEX NO /2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/19/2012
FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/19/2012 INDEX NO. 100061/2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135 RECEIVED NYSCEF 07/19/2012 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More informationConsolidated Class Action Complaint ( Complaint ) filed by Plaintiffs JAMES E. ELIAS and GENERAL DENIAL
0 0 Defendant SYNCRHONY BANK ( Defendant ) hereby answers the Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint ( Complaint ) filed by Plaintiffs JAMES E. ELIAS and JAMES P. KOZIK ( Plaintiffs ) as follows:
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/ :33 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2016
FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2016 0433 PM INDEX NO. 190115/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 RECEIVED NYSCEF 06/07/2016 LYNCH DASKAL EMERY LLP 137 West 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10001 (212) 302-2400
More informationDefendant, Prevost Car (US) Inc., Individually and as. Successor to Nova Bus, by its attorneys, MAIMONE & ASSOCIATES,
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/08/2016 11:03 PM INDEX NO. 190300/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/08/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------X
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/17/ :47 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2015
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/17/2015 01:47 PM INDEX NO. 190350/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK In RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS
More informationCase 4:18-cv JSW Document 14 Filed 02/23/18 Page 1 of 13. Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF VALLEJO, JARRETT TONN, KEVIN BARRETO, and SEAN KENNEY
Case :-cv-00-jsw Document Filed 0// Page of CLAUDIA M. QUINTANA City Attorney, SBN BY: KATELYN M. KNIGHT Deputy City Attorney, SBN CITY OF VALLEJO, City Hall Santa Clara Street, P.O. Box 0 Vallejo, CA
More informationCase 3:15-cv RGJ-KLH Document 38 Filed 11/25/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 257 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 3:15-cv-02907-RGJ-KLH Document 38 Filed 11/25/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 257 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JOSEPH HENDERSON, SR. * CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:15CV02907 * VERSUS
More informationFILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/22/ :49 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/22/2016. Exhibit D {N
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/22/2016 12:49 PM INDEX NO. 504403/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/22/2016 Exhibit D {N0194821.1 } SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS x THE BOARD
More informationFILED: ONEIDA COUNTY CLERK 01/23/ :02 PM
FILED: ONEIDA COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2017 12:02 PM INDEX NO. EFCA2016-002373 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ONEIDA FRANK JAKUBOWKI AND GLORIA
More informationDEFENDANTS' VERIFIED ANSWER
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2016 11:34 AM INDEX NO. 154310/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK x KRISHNA DEBYSINGH, -against-
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/ :49 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/26/2015
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/2015 03:49 PM INDEX NO. 190202/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/26/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK In RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS
More informationCase 2:15-cv DBP Document 26 Filed 03/24/15 Page 1 of 20
Case 2:15-cv-00102-DBP Document 26 Filed 03/24/15 Page 1 of 20 John A. Anderson (#4464) jaanderson@stoel.com Timothy K. Conde (#10118) tkconde@stoel.com STOEL RIVES LLP 201 South Main Street, Suite 1100
More informationCase 1:12-cv DJC Document 36 Filed 09/10/13 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:12-cv-11280-DJC Document 36 Filed 09/10/13 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x KAREN L. BACCHI,
More informationCase 1:14-cv JCC-IDD Document 7 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID# 39
Case 1:14-cv-01326-JCC-IDD Document 7 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID# 39 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION Jeremy L. Baum, Plaintiff, v. JPMorgan
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/05/ :37 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/05/2014
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/05/2014 12:37 PM INDEX NO. 156171/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/05/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------------X
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil Case No.: 18-cv (WMW/SER)
CASE 0:18-cv-02420-ECT-SER Document 24 Filed 08/30/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil Case No.: 18-cv-02420 (WMW/SER) FRIDAY & COX, LLC, Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS' JOINT
More informationFILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/24/ /31/ :26 08:31 PM AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 637 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/24/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------X MARIA C. CORSO, FRANK J. IANNO -against- Plaintiff, ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIMS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO
Case:-cv-0-JSW Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 J. Rick Taché (#00) rtache@swlaw.com Deborah S. Mallgrave (#0) dmallgrave@swlaw.com Harsh P. Parikh (#0) hparikh@swlaw.com SNELL & WILMER Costa Mesa, CA - Telephone:
More informationCase 3:08-cv VRW Document 11 Filed 05/22/2008 Page 1 of 9
Case :0-cv-0-VRW Document Filed 0//0 Page of BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER, LLP Alan R. Plutzik (State Bar No. ) Michael S. Strimling (State Bar No. ) Oak Grove Road, Suite 0 Walnut Creek, California
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/ :46 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 112 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO Assunte Catazano a/k/a Sue Catazano, as Personal INDEX NO. 190298-16 Representative
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/ /09/ :34 PM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2014
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2014 06/09/2016 02:34 PM INDEX NO. 160662/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2014 06/09/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
1 NAIRI PATERSON, ESQ. State Bar No. STRATMAN, PATTERSON & HUNTER 0 th Street, Suite 00 Oakland, CA 1- Phone: () -0 Fax: () - Attorney for Cross-Defendant/Defendant/Cross-Complainant, VIKING DOOR, INC.
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/09/ :30 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/09/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X 115 KINGSTON AVENUE LLC, and 113 KINGSTON LLC, Plaintiffs, VERIFIED ANSWER -against- Index No.: 654456/16 MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED
More informationCase 1:17-cv PBS Document 24 Filed 05/26/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:17-cv-10356-PBS Document 24 Filed 05/26/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS JONATHAN MONSARRAT, v. Plaintiff, GOTPER6067-00001and DOES 1-5, dba ENCYCLOPEDIADRAMATICA.SE,
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
JAY L. POMERANTZ (CSB No. ) jpomerantz@fenwick.com ILANA RUBEL (CSB No. ) irubel@fenwick.com MATTHEW MEYERHOFER (CSB NO. ) mmeyerhofer@fenwick.com Silicon Valley Center 0 California Street Mountain View,
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/ :02 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------- x IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION NYCAL --------------------------------------------------------------------
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CASE NO.: 1:15-CV LCB-LPA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:15-cv-00519-LCB-LPA Document 14 Filed 09/08/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CASE NO.: 1:15-CV-00519-LCB-LPA THOMAS E. PEREZ, Secretary
More informationCase 1:16-cv LGS Document 21 Filed 04/11/16 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 1:16-cv-00934-LGS Document 21 Filed 04/11/16 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Laspata DeCaro Studio Corporation, Case No: 1:16-cv-00934-LGS - against - Plaintiff,
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/30/ :06 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------x LEROY BAKER, Index No.: 190058/2017 Plaintiff, -against- AF SUPPLY USA INC.,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
White Wave International Labs, Inc. v. Lohan et al Doc. 42 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION WHITE WAVE INTERNATIONAL LABS, INC., a Florida corporation Case No. 8:09-cv-01260-VMC-TGW
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 0//0 0: PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by F. Caldera,Deputy Clerk 0 0 MICHAEL J. KUMP (SBN 00) mkump@kwikalaw.com
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-psg-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 Edward J. Wynne (SBN ) ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com J.E.B. Pickett (SBN ) Jebpickett@wynnelawfirm.com WYNNE LAW FIRM 0 Drakes Landing Road, Suite
More informationCase 8:13-cv JSM-AEP Document 17 Filed 01/14/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID 64 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:13-cv-03084-JSM-AEP Document 17 Filed 01/14/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID 64 SHELENE JEAN-LOUIS, JUDES PETIT-FRERE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/ :13 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/02/2016 11:13 AM INDEX NO. 157868/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/02/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/13/ :43 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------- x CYNTHIA CEBALLOS, Index No. 160696/2016 Plaintiff, CANON SOLUTIONS AMERICA, INC.,
More information6 Mofty Shulman (Pro Hac Vice to be filed)
I BOlES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP Alan B. Vickery (Pro Mac Vice to be Filed) 2 avickery@bsfl1p.com John F. LaSalle (Pro Hac Vice to be Filed) 3 j1asa11ebsfllp.com 575 Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor 4 New York,
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
NAIRI PATERSON, ESQ. State Bar No. STRATMAN, PATTERSON & HUNTER 0 th Street, Suite 00 Oakland, CA -1 Phone: () -0 Fax: () - // Attorney for Cross-Defendant, VIKING DOOR, INC. (sued as ROE ; sued erroneously
More informationFILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 03/22/ :11 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/22/2016
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 03/22/2016 07:11 PM INDEX NO. 52297/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/22/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER - - - - - - - - - -
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/ :23 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/26/2015
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/2015 01:23 PM INDEX NO. 190245/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/26/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------X
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/07/ :53 PM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/07/2015
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/07/2015 03:53 PM INDEX NO. 158552/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/07/2015 SUPREME COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF 11-15 EAST
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION. Case No. 3:18-CV FDW-DSC
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION JAMES SEITZ, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LAUREN E. SEITZ, DECEASED, Case No. 3:18-CV-00044-FDW-DSC v.
More informationCase 3:16-cv LB Document 1 Filed 06/11/16 Page 1 of 14
Case :-cv-0-lb Document Filed 0// Page of MICHAEL A. SCHAPS (SBN ) LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. SCHAPS Third Street, Suite B Davis, CA Telephone: (0) - Facsimile: (0) - mschaps@michaelschaps.com Attorney for
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/05/ :47 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/05/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK NATIONWIDE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INDEX NO.: 159072/2016 Plaintiff(s), ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH CROSS-CLAIM -against-
More informationCase 3:08-cv CRB Document 1 Filed 09/02/2008 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:08-cv-04154-CRB Document 1 Filed 09/02/2008 Page 1 of 1 https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?480403656344617-l_567_0-1 9/3/2008 SDNY CM/ECF Version 3.2.1 Page 1 of 6 Case 3:08-cv-04154-CRB
More informationCase 4:10-cv TSH Document 4 Filed 02/24/11 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 4:10-cv-40257-TSH Document 4 Filed 02/24/11 Page 1 of 9 WAKEELAH A. COCROFT, ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) ) JEREMY SMITH, ) Defendant ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS C.A. No. 10-40257-FDS
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/02/ :41 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/02/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------x Index No.: 221 WEST 17 TH STREET, LLC, -against- Plaintiff, COMPLAINT ALLIED WORLD SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/12/2014 INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/12/2014
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/12/2014 INDEX NO. 190087/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/12/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ALL COUNTIES WITHIN NEW YORK CITY ------------------------------------------------------------------------X
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION. Plaintiff, Defendant.
2:10-cv-03075-RMG Date Filed 02/25/11 Entry Number 22 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Righthaven LLC, Dana Eiser, v. Plaintiff, Defendant. Civil
More information)(
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2016 05:35 PM INDEX NO. 57971/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER --------------------------------------------------------------------------)(
More information11,I 12 DEFENDANTS' A,~S''''ER TO PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
2 1 ERICM. ACKER (BAR NO. 0) Email: EAcker@mofo.com LINDA L. LANE (BAR NO. 1) Email: LLane(a)moio.com MORRISON &: FOERSTER LLP 31 High BluffDrive, Suite 0 San Diego, California 20-0 Telephone:..0 Facsimile:..
More informationINDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION
FORM E.C. 4B (v) 2015 INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION NOMINATION FORM FOR MEMBER HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NAME OF CANDIDATE:.. CONSTITUENCY:.. STATE:. Affix passport photograph INDEPENDENT NATIONAL
More informationCase 1:07-cv GMS Document 25 Filed 11/19/2007 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:07-cv-00228-GMS Document 25 Filed 11/19/2007 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE JEFFREY D. HILL, : : Plaintiff, : : C.A. No. 07-228 (GMS) v. : : JURY TRIAL
More informationFILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/16/ :13 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/16/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------X MICHAEL TACCARDI, Index No.: 504173/2015 Plaintiff, -against- CONSOLIDATED
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/11/ :17 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/11/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------x Index No.: 655023/2016 DAWN JONES, DDS and EXCLUSIVE DENTAL STUDIOS, PLLC. d/b/a
More informationPLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS GORDON RAMSAY'S AND G.R. US LICENSING'S AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/11/2016 11:55 AM INDEX NO. 651046/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/11/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------------)(
More informationCase 2:17-cv EEF-MBN Document 66 Filed 11/07/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:17-cv-06197-EEF-MBN Document 66 Filed 11/07/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ADRIAN CALISTE AND BRIAN GISCLAIR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/30/ :41 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2016 03:41 PM INDEX NO. 651348/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK MARK D ANDREA, Plaintiff,
More informationCase 5:18-cv EJD Document 31 Filed 05/03/18 Page 1 of 14
Case :-cv-00-ejd Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Edward J. Wynne (SBN ) ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com WYNNE LAW FIRM 0 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Ste. G Larkspur, CA Telephone: () -00 Facsimile: () -00 Gregg I.
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
EDWARD J. WYNNE, SBN 11 WYNNE LAW FIRM Wood Island 0 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Ste. G Larkspur, CA Telephone: (1) 1-00 Facsimile: (1) 1-00 ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative
More informationCase 3:16-cv BAS-DHB Document 3 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 9
Case :-cv-00-bas-dhb Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 JAN I. GOLDSMITH, City Attorney DANIEL F. BAMBERG, Assistant City Attorney STACY J. PLOTKIN-WOLFF, Deputy City Attorney California State Bar No. Office
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/ :55 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o Index No.: 152491/2017 ROCKROSE DEVELOPMENT CORP., Plaintiff, VERIFIED ANSWER TO CROSS-CLAIMS OF -against- THIRD-PARTY
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ANSWER
CASE 0:12-cv-00528-RHK-JJK Document 31 Filed 07/20/12 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS and JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., vs. Plaintiffs, SCHWEGMAN
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/18/ :36 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 74 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/18/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK TYREL HEMPSTEAD, Index No. 156963/2017 Plaintif, -against- HAMMER & STEEL, INC., STS-SCHELTZKE GMBH & CO. KG., 9501 DITMARS BOULEVARD, LLC, ICS
More informationCase 5:07-cv JF Document 19 Filed 06/04/2008 Page 1 of 11
Case :0-cv-0-JF Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 Sheila Carmody (pro hac vice) Robert J. Gibson (#) Daniel S. Rodman (#) SNELL & WILMER scarmody@swlaw.com hgibson@swlaw.com Attorneys for Defendants GEICO
More informationCase 2:13-cv CG-WPL Document 17 Filed 09/18/13 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Case 2:13-cv-00727-CG-WPL Document 17 Filed 09/18/13 Page 1 of 10 DAVID ECKERT Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO vs. No. 2:13-cv-00727-CG/WPL THE CITY OF DEMING. DEMING
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-jfw-jc Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN LLP Paul K. Haines (SBN ) Email: phaines@bollaw.com Fletcher W. Schmidt (SBN ) Email: fschmidt@bollaw.com N. Sepulveda
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/19/ :45 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 168 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------X PRIME HOMES LLC, Plaintiff Index No.: 151308l2016 -against- Verified Answer
More information2. Green Tree is without knowledge of the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of
Filing # 18618546 Electronically Filed 09/24/2014 02:01:24 PM IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 2014CA007769 AH FELTON JACK SMITH, JR. Plaintiff,
More informationCase: 1:12-cv Document #: 21 Filed: 03/05/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case: 1:12-cv-00640 Document #: 21 Filed: 03/05/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS RUDE MUSIC, INC. ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) NO.: 1:12-cv-00640
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/30/ :06 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 52 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK : LINDA KIRSCH, : : Plaintiff, : : Index No.: 155451/2017 - against - : : ANSWER AND : AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO LINCOLN CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING
More informationFILED: ONEIDA COUNTY CLERK 01/27/ :26 PM
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ONEIDA -----------------------------------------------------------------------x FRANK JAKUBOWSKI and GLORIA JAKUBOWSKI, -against- Plaintiffs, A.O. SMITH
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/11/ /30/ :42 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/11/2014
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/11/2014 10/30/2014 12:42 PM INDEX NO. 190087/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/11/2014 10/30/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-000-l-nls Document Filed 0/0/ PageID. Page of HAINES LAW GROUP, APC Paul K. Haines (SBN ) phaines@haineslawgroup.com Tuvia Korobkin (SBN 0) tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com Fletcher W. Schmidt (SBN
More informationCase 1:14-cv CMA-KMT Document 1081 Filed 05/16/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:14-cv-074-CMA-KMT Document 1081 Filed 05/16/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of Civil Action No. 14-cv-074-CMA-KMT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO JOHANA PAOLA BELTRAN; LUSAPHO
More informationCase 1:16-cv FAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/13/2017 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:16-cv-20683-FAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/13/2017 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION HERON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/18/ :26 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ADMIRAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, -against- Plaintiff, CITY OF NEW YORK and CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., Index No.: 160397/2014 ANSWER
More informationCase 3:17-cv DPJ-FKB Document 5 Filed 05/19/17 Page 1 of 15
Case 3:17-cv-00270-DPJ-FKB Document 5 Filed 05/19/17 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION TINA L. WALLACE PLAINTIFF VS. CITY OF JACKSON,
More informationCase 3:16-cv DPJ-FKB Document 9 Filed 10/24/16 Page 1 of 11
Case 3:16-cv-00657-DPJ-FKB Document 9 Filed 10/24/16 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION KIMBERLY V. BRACEY VS. PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION
More informationCase: 1:17-cv DCN Doc #: 14 Filed: 03/02/17 1 of 19. PageID #: 69
Case: 1:17-cv-00103-DCN Doc #: 14 Filed: 03/02/17 1 of 19. PageID #: 69 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION TOBIAS MOONEYHAM and DEREK SLEVE, individually
More informationPlaintiff Peter Alexander ( Plaintiff ), individually and on behalf of all others similarly
0 0 Plaintiff Peter Alexander ( Plaintiff ), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by his attorneys Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP, files this Class Action and Representative Action
More informationFILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/10/ :35 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 70 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2018 EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT 4 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/08/2018 04;47 PM WATER STREET REALTY GROUP LLC and YARON HERSHCO, Defendants,....----X -- â â ----- â WATER STREET REALTY GROUP LLC and YARON HERSHCO, Third-Party
More informationCase3:15-cv Document1 Filed01/09/15 Page1 of 16
Case:-cv-00 Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 Matthew C. Helland, CA State Bar No. 0 helland@nka.com Daniel S. Brome, CA State Bar No. dbrome@nka.com NICHOLS KASTER, LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite San Francisco,
More informationFILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 10/13/ :12 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/13/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ----------------------------------------x MONSOUR MARDJANI, as Administrator of the Estate of WILMA MARDJANI and MONSOUR MARDJANI, Individually,
More information