Case :-cv-00-rsl Document Filed 0// Page of The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 ABDIKHADAR JAMA an individual, JEES JEES, an individual, and MOHAMED MOHAMED, an individual, vs. Plaintiff, GOLDEN GATE AMERICA LLC, a foreign limited liability company and EAN HOLDINGS LLC, ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC., a foreign corporation, and VANGUARD AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, a foreign business entity d/b/a NATIONAL CAR RENTAL, ALAMO RENT A CAR, and ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR, Defendants. ANSWER No. Case No. :-cv-00-rsl DEFENDANT EAN HOLDINGS LLC S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Defendant EAN Holdings LLC ( EAN ) files this answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint. To the extent that any allegation in the complaint is not specifically admitted, the allegation is denied. EAN answers the corresponding numbered paragraphs of the complaint as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION. Plaintiffs bring this class action individually and on behalf of the Class against (i) Golden Gate America LLC ( GGA ) and (ii) Enterprise Holdings, Inc. and Vanguard (:-cv- RSL) -..0 main..00 fax
Case :-cv-00-rsl Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Automotive Group LLC (collectively, Enterprise ) under Chapter., et seq., of the City of SeaTac Municipal Code, the City s minimum wage ordinance (the Ordinance ), and for unjust enrichment, upon personal knowledge as to themselves and their own acts, and as to all other matters upon information and belief based on the investigation made by their attorneys. ANSWER: Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent Paragraph requires a response, EAN admits that Plaintiffs purport to bring this action individually and on behalf of the Class. EAN denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under the claims asserted in Paragraph. EAN otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph.. The facts giving rise to this action involve the Defendants violations of the Ordinance by failing to pay the prevailing minimum wage to hourly workers within the Class. ANSWER: EAN denies Paragraph.. As a result of Defendants wrongful conduct, the Plaintiffs and the Class have been injured. ANSWER: EAN denies Paragraph. PARTIES. Plaintiff Abdikhadar Jama is a natural person and at all times relevant hereto has been a resident of King County, Washington. From June through August, Plaintiff Jama worked for the Defendants as a car washer at an hourly wage rate less than $.00. ANSWER: EAN denies that EAN employed Plaintiff Jama. EAN admits, on information and belief, that Golden Gate America LLC ( Golden Gate ) employed Plaintiff Jama. EAN is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations of Paragraph and on that basis denies the same.. Plaintiff Jees Jees is a natural person and at all times relevant hereto has been a resident of King County, Washington. From January through July, Plaintiff Jees worked for the Defendants as a service agent (car cleaner) and shuttle driver at an hourly wage rate less than $.00. (:-cv- RSL) -..0 main..00 fax
Case :-cv-00-rsl Document Filed 0// Page of 0 ANSWER: EAN denies that EAN employed Plaintiff Jees. EAN admits, on information and belief, that Golden Gate employed Plaintiff Jees. EAN is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations of Paragraph and on that basis denies the same.. Plaintiff Mohamed Mohamed is a natural person and at all times relevant hereto has been a resident of King County, Washington. From June through February, Plaintiff Mohamed worked for the Defendants as a service agent (car cleaner) and shuttle driver at an hourly wage rate less than $.00. ANSWER: EAN denies that EAN employed Plaintiff Mohamed. EAN admits, on information and belief, that Golden Gate employed Plaintiff Mohamed. EAN is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations of Paragraph and on that basis denies the same.. Golden Gate America LLC is, on information and belief, a foreign corporation with headquarters at 0 Cape Hatteras Drive, Clermont, FL. GGA provides travelrelated services at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and otherwise within the City of SeaTac. ANSWER: EAN admits that Golden Gate provides certain car-washing and carcleaning services as a contractor for EAN at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. EAN otherwise lacks sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph, and on that basis, EAN denies the remaining allegations of that Paragraph.. Defendant GGA describes itself in online publicity as follows: We are a dedicated labor team operating out of key car rental facilities, such as the major metropolitan airports. Our services manage the parking, cleaning and maintenance of rental vehicles. We provide complete fleet and staffing management for car rental facilities, nationwide. ANSWER: EAN admits that the quoted language appears on Golden Gate s website. EAN otherwise lacks sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a (:-cv- RSL) -..0 main..00 fax
Case :-cv-00-rsl Document Filed 0// Page of 0 belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph, and on that basis, EAN denies the remaining allegations of that Paragraph.. Defendant EAN Holdings, LLC and/or Enterprise Holdings, Inc. ( Enterprise ) are, on information and belief, foreign business entities with headquarters at 00 Corporate Park Drive, St. Louis, MO 0. EAN Holdings, LLC and Enterprise Holdings, Inc. may be one and the same entities. Enterprise provides rental car services at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and otherwise within the City of SeaTac. ANSWER: EAN admits that it provides rental car services at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. EAN further admits that it is a limited liability company and that its sole member is Enterprise Holdings, Inc. ( EHI ). EAN further admits that EAN and EHI are incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware with their principal places of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Except as expressly admitted, EAN denies the allegations of Paragraph. 0. Defendant Enterprise describes itself in online publicity as follows: With annual revenues of $. billion and more than,000 employees, Enterprise Holdings and its affiliates own and operate more than. million cars and trucks. Enterprise Holdings the largest car rental service provider in the world measured by revenue, employees and fleet and its affiliates together offer a total transportation solution and are all united by a common mission: To be the best transportation service provider in the world... to exceed our customers expectations for service, quality and value... to provide our employees with a great place to work... and to serve our communities as a committed corporate citizen. ANSWER: EAN denies that it currently describes itself in online publicly with the quoted text in Paragraph 0. EAN accordingly denies the allegations in Paragraph 0.. Defendant Vanguard Automotive Group ( Vanguard ) is, on information and belief, a foreign business entity that is a subsidiary, affiliate, or business name of Defendant Enterprise. Vanguard s actual business form is unknown to the Plaintiff. On information and (:-cv- RSL) -..0 main..00 fax
Case :-cv-00-rsl Document Filed 0// Page of 0 belief, Vanguard is located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Defendant Enterprise, through Vanguard, conducts the business of National Car Rental, Alamo Rent A Car, and Enterprise Rent-A-Car. ANSWER: EAN denies Paragraph.. On information and belief, within the boundaries of the City of SeaTac, Enterprise jointly with GGA provides Rental Car Labor management and Support Services, and/or other services that bring them within the minimum wage requirements of the Ordinance. ANSWER: EAN denies Paragraph.. Enterprise, in joint operations and concerted action with GGA, are the employers of the Plaintiff and the Class. ANSWER: EAN denies Paragraph. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. The Defendants are located or are doing business in King County, Washington. The wrongful acts complained of here occurred in whole or in part in King County, Washington. ANSWER: EAN admits that it does business in King County, Washington. EAN otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph.. This action was originally filed in King County Superior Court and was subsequently removed by Defendant GGA to federal court in the Western District of Washington. ANSWER: EAN admits Paragraph.. This court had personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and subject matter jurisdiction over the matters related to this action. ANSWER: Paragraph states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, EAN does not dispute that this Court has personal jurisdiction over EAN and subject matter jurisdiction over the matters related to this action. (:-cv- RSL) -..0 main..00 fax
Case :-cv-00-rsl Document Filed 0// Page of 0 SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS. Section..00 of the Ordinance requires certain employers within the City to pay a $ minimum wage to certain employees, subject to annual adjustments to be effective on January of the next successive year. The law became effective on January,. ANSWER: Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is.. The minimum wage for was $ and for was $.. ANSWER: Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is.. The two categories of employers that are subject to the Ordinance are identified as Hospitality Employers and Transportation Employers. ANSWER: Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is.. A Hospitality Employer is defined as follows: Hospitality Employer means a person who operates within the City any Hotel that has one hundred (00) or more guest rooms and thirty (0) or more workers or who operates any institutional foodservice or retail operation employing ten (0) or more nonmanagerial, nonsupervisory employees. This shall include any person who employs others providing services for customers on the aforementioned premises, such as a temporary agency or subcontractor. ANSWER: Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is. (:-cv- RSL) -..0 main..00 fax
Case :-cv-00-rsl Document Filed 0// Page of 0. A Transportation Employer is defined as: Transportation Employer means: ) A person, excluding a certificated air carrier performing services for itself, who: a) operates or provides within the City any of the following: any curbside passenger check-in services; baggage check services; wheelchair escort services; baggage handling; cargo handling; rental luggage cart services; aircraft interior cleaning; aircraft carpet cleaning; aircraft washing and cleaning; aviation ground support equipment washing and cleaning; aircraft water or lavatory services; aircraft fueling; ground transportation management; or any janitorial and custodial services, facility maintenance services, security services, or customer service performed in any facility where any of the services listed in this paragraph are also performed; and b) employs twenty-five () or more nonmanagerial, nonsupervisory employees in the performance of that service. ) A transportation employer also includes any person who: a) operates or provides rental car services utilizing or operating a fleet of more than one hundred (00) cars; shuttle transportation utilizing or operating a fleet of more than ten (0) vans or buses; or parking lot management controlling more than one hundred (00) parking spaces; and b) employs twenty-five () or more nonmanagerial, nonsupervisory employees in the performance of that operation. ANSWER: Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is.. The two categories of employees that are subject to the Ordinance are Hospitality Workers and Transportation Workers. ANSWER: Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is.. A Hospitality Worker is defined as: Hospitality Worker means any nonmanagerial, nonsupervisory individual employed by a Hospitality Employer. (:-cv- RSL) -..0 main..00 fax
Case :-cv-00-rsl Document Filed 0// Page of 0 ANSWER: Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is.. A Transportation Worker is defined as: Transportation Worker means any nonmanagerial, nonsupervisory individual employed by a Transportation Employer. ANSWER: Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is.. Washington law recognizes that two or more employers may be considered joint employers where they are not completely disassociated with respect to the employment of a particular employee and may be deemed to share control of the employee, directly or indirectly, by reason of the fact that one employer controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the other employer. Becerra v. Expert Janitorial, LLC, Wash. d, -, P.d (). ANSWER: Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is.. Joint employers are responsible, both individually and jointly, for compliance with all of the applicable provisions of both state and federal wage and hour laws. ANSWER: Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is.. In the instant case, Enterprise contracts with GGA for the provision of workers to operate Enterprise s facilities in the City of SeaTac. Numerous facts prove that Enterprise and GGA are joint employers of the putative class. For example, and without limitation, during the relevant time period: (:-cv- RSL) -..0 main..00 fax
Case :-cv-00-rsl Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Plaintiffs primarily work on property and equipment owned by Enterprise, GGA workers tasks performed for Enterprise was piecework and/or not work that required initiative, judgment or foresight, Without GGA s employees, Enterprise would be unable to refresh its rental car inventory and re-rent vehicles, Class members who worked as drivers moved cars from the return area to the ready line, where they would be picked up by Enterprise customers with whom the drivers interacted, Workers regularly provided customers with assistance in the same manner as Enterprise s direct employees, including directions as to how to get on the shuttle bus, where to take their luggage, how to get to the freeway, what are good restaurants in the area, and similar inquiries, Workers acting as Service Agents performed duties directly related to Enterprise s operations, including checking rental cars for damage, vacuuming and cleaning the interior of the cars, and running the cars through a car wash, and cleaning the area of the Rental Car Facility where they serviced the rental cars. ANSWER: EAN admits that Golden Gate provides certain car-washing and carcleaning services as a contractor for EAN at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. EAN further admits that Golden Gate s employees move rental cars to and from Golden Gate s car-washing and car-cleaning area. Except as expressly admitted, EAN denies the allegations of Paragraph. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AS TO PLAINTIFFS. As described more fully in the table found in Paragraph, above, the Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants in the relevant time period in capacities governed by the Ordinance and were paid less than the then-prevailing minimum wage. (:-cv- RSL) -..0 main..00 fax
Case :-cv-00-rsl Document Filed 0// Page 0 of 0 ANSWER: EAN responds that there is no table found in Paragraph, above. EAN further denies the allegations of Paragraph.. By failing to pay the prevailing minimum wage, Defendants acted unlawfully and proximately caused damages to the Plaintiffs in an amount to be proven at trial. ANSWER: EAN denies Paragraph. CLASS ALLEGATIONS 0. Plaintiffs bring this class action pursuant to Civil Rule on behalf of themselves and all members of the following Class: All joint employees of the Defendants who have been either Hospitality Workers or Transportation Workers and who worked one or more hours within the City of SeaTac at any time during the time period from January,, to the present, and who were paid less than the prevailing minimum wage prescribed by City of SeaTac Ordinance..00. ANSWER: Paragraph 0 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, EAN admits that Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of the proposed class. EAN otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 0.. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend or modify this Complaint and/or the Class definition after receiving Defendants Answers and responses to meaningful discovery and/or in the motion for class certification. ANSWER: Paragraph is a reservation of rights to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, EAN responds that it is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to these allegations contained in Paragraph, and on that basis denies the allegations of that Paragraph.. Members of the Class are so numerous and geographically dispersed that joinder of all Class members is impracticable. The precise number and identities of Class members are unknown to Plaintiff but should be obtainable through notice and discovery. Notice can be (:-cv- RSL) - 0..0 main..00 fax
Case :-cv-00-rsl Document Filed 0// Page of 0 provided through a variety of means including publication, the cost of which is properly imposed on Defendants. ANSWER: Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, EAN denies the allegations of that Paragraph.. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of all Class members and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class and employment litigation and who have been repeatedly found to be adequate to represent the interests of class members in other complex class actions. ANSWER: Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, EAN denies the allegations of that Paragraph.. Plaintiff s claims are typical of the claims of the Class whose members sustained similar types of injury arising out of the conduct challenged in this action. The injuries flow from the common nucleus of operative facts detailed above. ANSWER: Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, EAN denies the allegations of that Paragraph.. There is a well-defined community of interest in the common questions of law and/or fact alleged herein since the rights of each Class member were infringed or violated in a similar fashion based upon Defendants wrongdoing or arise out of similar legal obligations. ANSWER: Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, EAN denies the allegations of that Paragraph.. The common questions of law and fact detailed in this Complaint predominate over any questions solely affecting individual Class members. Defendants engaged in a common course of conduct giving rise to the legal rights sought to be enforced by Plaintiff and (:-cv- RSL) -..0 main..00 fax
Case :-cv-00-rsl Document Filed 0// Page of 0 the Class members. Individual questions, if any, pale by comparison to the numerous common questions that predominate. ANSWER: Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, EAN denies the allegations of that Paragraph.. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all Class members is impracticable. Furthermore, the expense and burden of individual litigation make it impossible for the Class members to individually redress the wrongs done to them. ANSWER: Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, EAN denies the allegations of that Paragraph.. The claims in this action are manageable on a class-wide basis and can be the subject of a class-wide plan for litigating and resolving these issues. ANSWER: Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, EAN denies the allegations of that Paragraph.. Defendants have also acted or have refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making it appropriate to grant final declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the Class as a whole. ANSWER: Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, EAN denies the allegations of that Paragraph. (:-cv- RSL) -..0 main..00 fax
Case :-cv-00-rsl Document Filed 0// Page of 0 CAUSES OF ACTION Count Statutory Violations 0. RCW.. establishes Washington State s minimum wage and provides for enforcement of more favorable minimum wages that may be established federal, state, or local law or ordinance. ANSWER: Paragraph 0 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, EAN denies the allegations of Paragraph 0.. Pursuant to RCW..00, Any employer who pays any employee less than wages to which such employee is entitled under or by virtue of this chapter, shall be liable to such employee affected for the full amount of such wage rate, less any amount actually paid to such employee by the employer, and for costs and such reasonable attorney s fees as may be allowed by the court. ANSWER: EAN admits that RCW..00 contains the quoted text. Except as expressly admitted, EAN denies the allegations of Paragraph.. Pursuant to RCW..00, Any employer or officer, vice principal or agent of any employer, whether said employer be in private business or an elected public official, who *** () Willfully and with intent to deprive the employee of any part of his or her wages, shall pay any employee a lower wage than the wage such employer is obligated to pay such employee by any statute, ordinance, or contract; *** Shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. ANSWER: EAN admits that RCW..00 contains the quoted text. Except as expressly admitted, EAN denies the allegations of Paragraph.. Pursuant to..00, (:-cv- RSL) -..0 main..00 fax
Case :-cv-00-rsl Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Any employer and any officer, vice principal or agent of any employer who shall violate any of the provisions of RCW..00 () and () shall be liable in a civil action by the aggrieved employee or his or her assignee to judgment for twice the amount of the wages unlawfully rebated or withheld by way of exemplary damages, together with costs of suit and a reasonable sum for attorney s fees: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That the benefits of this section shall not be available to any employee who has knowingly submitted to such violations. ANSWER: EAN admits that RCW..00 contains the quoted text. Except as expressly admitted, EAN denies the allegations of Paragraph.. The Defendants, as joint employers, are jointly and individually responsible for ensuring compliance with the Ordinance. ANSWER: EAN denies Paragraph.. Defendants have violated the foregoing statutes and are liable to the Plaintiffs and the Class for actual damages, double damages, and attorneys fees and costs. ANSWER: EAN denies Paragraph. Count Unjust Enrichment. As described more fully above, the Defendants have been unjustly enriched by wrongfully withholding wages from the Class. ANSWER: EAN denies Paragraph. Count Injunctive and Declaratory Relief. As described more fully above, the Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to a declaration of their right to be paid the prevailing minimum wage and an injunction prohibiting the Defendants from further violations of the Ordinance. ANSWER: EAN denies Paragraph. PRAYER FOR RELIEF EAN denies that any relief sought by the Plaintiffs as described in Plaintiffs Prayer for Relief is appropriate. (:-cv- RSL) -..0 main..00 fax
Case :-cv-00-rsl Document Filed 0// Page of 0 AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES EAN raises the following affirmative and other defenses and reserves its rights to amend or supplement these affirmative and other defenses.. The Complaint and each of its purported causes of action fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.. The Complaint and each of its purported causes of action are barred because the Airline Deregulation Act, U.S.C. (b)(), preempts SeaTac Municipal Code section..00.. The Complaint and each of its purported causes of action are barred because the National Labor Relations Act, U.S.C. et seq., preempts SeaTac Municipal Code section..00.. SeaTac Municipal Code section..00 interferes with airport operations and therefore cannot apply to EAN s operations at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport because, under the Revised Airports Act, the airport is under the exclusive jurisdiction and control of the Port of Seattle. See RCW.0.0.. Plaintiffs and the putative class cannot recover statutory penalties under RCW..00 because a bona fide dispute exists as to whether Plaintiffs and the putative class were paid in compliance with applicable law.. Plaintiffs and the putative class cannot recover statutory penalties under RCW..00 because Plaintiffs and the putative class knowingly submitted to the alleged wage withholdings.. EAN is not an employer or joint employer of Plaintiffs and the putative class. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, EAN prays for the following relief: A. That the First Amended Complaint, and its purported causes of action, be dismissed with prejudice; B. That the Court award EAN fees, expenses, and costs to the full extent permitted (:-cv- RSL) -..0 main..00 fax
Case :-cv-00-rsl Document Filed 0// Page of 0 by law; and circumstances. C. That the Court award such other relief as is just and proper under the DATED this th day of June,. By: s/ Harry J.F. Korrell By: s/ Taylor S. Ball By: s/ Ryan C. Hess By: s/ Laura Turczanski Harry J. F. Korrell, WSBA # Taylor S. Ball, WSBA # Ryan C. Hess, WSBA #0 Laura Turczanski, WSBA #00 Telephone: --0 Fax: --00 E-mail: harrykorrell@dwt.com taylorball@dwt.com ryanhess@dwt.com lauraturczanski@dwt.com Attorneys for Defendant EAN HOLDINGS, LLC (:-cv- RSL) -..0 main..00 fax
Case :-cv-00-rsl Document Filed 0// Page of 0 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June,, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: Duncan C. Turner Badgley Mullins Turner PLLC Ballinger Way NE, Suite 0 Seattle, WA Telephone: () - Email: duncantumer@badgleymullins.com Daniel R. Whitmore Law Office of Daniel R. Whitmore th Avenue West, Suite 0 Seattle, WA Telephone: () -00 Email: dan@whitmorelawfirm.com DATED this th day of June,. /s/ Margaret C. Sinnott Margaret C. Sinnott EAN HOLDINGS LLC S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS (:-cv- RSL) -..0 main..00 fax