1 Charles W. Hokanson (State BarNo. 1) 01 Atlantic Ave, Suite 0 Long Beach, California 00 Telephone:.1.1 Facsimile:.. Email: CWHokanson@TowerLawCenter.com Attorney for Defendant Exile Machine, LLC IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF Case No. CGC-1- CALIFORNIA, ex rei. San Francisco City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera, Answer of Defendant Exile Machine, LLC. 1 Plaintiff 1 vs. 1 MAG DISTRIBUTING, LLC dba MAG.COM, an Oregon limited liability 1 company; EXILE MACHINE, LLC, a Texas limited liability company; COPES 1 DISTRIBUTING, INC., an Ohio Corporation; and B&L PRODUCTIONS, INC., a Utah corporation, 1 dba CROSSROADS OF THE WEST GUN SHOWS, and DOES 1 through 0, inclusive, Defendants Defendant Exile Machine, LLC ("Exile") answers the complaint in this matter as follows: Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1.0, Exile generally and specifically denies each and every allegation contained in the complaint. Case No. CGC-1-
1 1 1 1 1 1 As separate and distinct affirmative defenses to the complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, Exile alleges as follows: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Claim) The complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against Exile. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) The purported causes of action set out in the complaint are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, including, but not limited to, California Business & Professions Code section 1 and California Code of Civil Procedure sections (a) and (1). THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Laches) The purported causes of action set out in the complaint are barred by the doctrine of laches in that the plaintiff has unreasonably delayed taking action and filing the complaint. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Preemption) The law upon which plaintiff basis the purported causes of action set forth in the complaint is preempted, expressly or implicitly, is preempted by federal law. liability. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Privilege) Exile's conduct, as alleged in the complaint, if true, was privileged and cannot form the basis of SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Jurisdiction) To the extent that the purported causes of action set out in the complaint rely on alleged criminal Case No. CGC-1-
1 1 1 1 1 1 laws, this court does not have jurisdiction to enforce such laws, or impose liability under such laws, based upon conduct occurring outside of the State of California. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Selective Prosecution) To the extent that the purported causes of action set out in the Complaint rely on alleged criminal laws or attempt impose liability under such laws, derivatively or directly, such claims are barred by the doctrine of selective prosecution in that plaintiff has unjustly, impermissibly and with an improper motive, singled out Exile for prosecution where others are engaged in similar alleged conduct without being subject to prosecution. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (VIolation of Constitutional Rights) Exile believes and alleges that the complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, has been brought in civil court, supposedly alleging violations of the Unfair Competition Law, but actually based upon the alleged violation of a California criminal law, in an improper attempt to circumvent and avoid providing Exile with the constitutionally safeguards to which all criminal defendants are entitled and with the effect of depriving Exile of its constitutional rights, including, but not limited to, its rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United Stated Constitution. Exile further believes and alleges that plaintiff has improperly brought this action in an effort to gain discovery and investigatory information from Exile that it cannot obtain through the criminal procedures, compulsory process and subpoena powers, all in an attempt to impermissibly extend California criminal laws beyond the state's borders. All ofthis amounts to the abuse of this court's process and prosecutorial misconduct that in fairness and justice should be held to bar the claims set forth in the complaint. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unconstitutionality of Statute) The criminal statute (or statutes) that plaintiff relies upon to attempt to allege an "unlawful" business practice by Exile is unconstitutional, facially and as applied, in that it impermissibly infringes Case No. CGC-1-
1 on, and improperly burdens, the rights of Exile and its customers under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution to keep and bear arms of common use and for lawful purposes. Further, such law is unconstitutionally vague and uncertain in that a reasonable person would not be readily aware of what conduct might or might not violate its provisions. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Exile prays for judgment as follows: 1. That plaintiff take nothing by reason of the Complaint;. That Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice;. That Exile be awarded its costs of suit as prevailing party; and. For such other and further relief as the Court may properly award. 1 1 1 1 1 Dated: August, 1 Charles W. Hokanson Attorney for Defendant Exile Machine, LLC Case No. CGC-1-
1 1 1 1 1 1 PROOF OF SERVICE I am over the age of, a member of the bar of this court, and not a party to this action. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, California and my business address is 01 Atlantic Ave, Suite 0 Long Beach CA 00. On August, 1, I served the foregoing document, entitled ANSWER OF DEFENDANT EXILE MACHINE, LLC, on the parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, addressed to: C.D. Michel, Esq. Michel & Associates, 0 East Ocean Blvd. Ste 0, Long Beach CA 00 Attorneys for Defendants MAG DISTRIBUTING, LLC, COPES DISTRIBUTING, INC. and B&L PRODUCTIONS, INC. Christine Van Aken, Esq. Deputy City Attorney Office of the San Francisco City Attorney Market Street, th Fl. San Francisco, California -0 Attorneys for PLAINTIFF I am readily fam~liar with my firm's practice of collection and processing of mail. Under that practice, mail collected is deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Long Beach, CA in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of this affidavit. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this th day of August 1 at Long Beach, California. Charles W. Hokanson Case No. CGC-1-