Preview
1 CHARLEY M. STOLL,
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2 Charley M. Stoll, Esq. SBN 064946
3 cstoll@cmsapc.com
340 Rosewood Avenue, Suite K
4 Camarillo, California 93010
805.389.5296 / 805.389.5288 Fax
5
Attorneys for Marisol Garcia Sandoval
6
dba Central City Labor
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
10 COOK DIVISION
11 SICILIA MENDOZA, individually, on behalf Case No.: 18CV04448
12 of themselves and all others similarly
situated, [Assigned for all purposes to Honorable
13 Timothy J. Staffel – Dept. SM1]
Plaintiffs,
14 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
vs.
15
16 FRESH VENTURE FOODS, LLC, a
California limited liability corporation,
17 CENTRAL CITY LABOR [Form Unknown],
MARISOL GARCIA SANDOVAL,
18 individually; and DOES 1 through 20, Complaint Filed: September 7, 2018
19 inclusive, Discovery Cutoff: n/a
Trial Date: November 14, 2022
20 Defendants. Dept.: SM1
21
22
COMES NOW, Defendant MARISOL GARCIA SANDOVAL, individually, and
23
dba CENTRAL CITY LABOR erroneously sued as CENTRAL CITY LABOR [Form
24
Unknown] (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) and who answers the unverified
25
Complaint (hereinafter referred to as “Complaint”) on file herein of SICILIA MENDOZA
26
(hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) as follows:
27
28 -1-
____________________________________________________________________________________
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Sicilia Mendoza v. Fresh Venture Foods, LLC, et al. – Case No. 18CV04448
1 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, subdivision (d),
2 Defendant’s answers by denying, generally and specifically, each and every allegation
3 contained in said unverified Complaint, both conjunctively and disjunctively and the whole
4 thereof, and by specifically denying that as a direct and proximate result of any act or
5 omission on the part of Defendant, Plaintiff has been injured as alleged in the Complaint,
6 or in any other sum, or at all.
7 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
8 Without waiving any of the foregoing answers or defenses, as separate and distinct
9 affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s unverified Complaint, Defendant allege as follows:
10 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 (Failure to State a Cause of Action)
12 The Complaint and each cause of action therein fail to state facts sufficient to
13 constitute a cause of action against Defendant.
14 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 (Uncertainty)
16 The Complaint and each cause of action therein are uncertain in that it is
17 impossible to determine from the Complaint which of the alleged acts of Defendant
18 caused the injuries alleged in the Complaint.
19 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 (Estoppel)
21 The Complaint and each cause of action therein are barred by the doctrine of
22 estoppel.
23 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 (Waiver)
25 The Complaint and each cause of action therein are barred by the doctrine of
26 waiver.
27
28 -2-
____________________________________________________________________________________
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Sicilia Mendoza v. Fresh Venture Foods, LLC, et al. – Case No. 18CV04448
1 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Laches)
3 The Complaint and each cause of action therein are barred by the doctrine of
4 laches.
5 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 (Unclean Hands)
7 The Complaint and each cause of action therein are barred by the doctrine of
8 unclean hands.
9 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 (Avoidable Consequences)
11 The Complaint and each cause of action therein are barred by the doctrine of
12 avoidable consequences.
13 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (Statute of Limitations)
15 The Complaint and each cause of action therein are barred by the applicable
16 Statute of Limitations, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, including but not
17 limited to §§ 335 et seq., 337, 337 (1), 338, 338 (a), 339, 339 (1), 340 (a), 340 (b) et seq.,
18 343 and Labor Code §§ 203 (b) and 1194.2(a), and Business and Professions Code §
19 17208.
20 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 (Mitigation of Damages)
22 The Complaint and each cause of action therein are barred because Plaintiff failed
23 to mitigate Plaintiff’s alleged damages.
24 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 (Comparative Fault)
26 The Complaint and each cause of action therein are barred because Plaintiff
27 contributed entirely, or at least in some degree, to Plaintiff’s alleged damages.
28 -3-
____________________________________________________________________________________
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Sicilia Mendoza v. Fresh Venture Foods, LLC, et al. – Case No. 18CV04448
1 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Preexisting Psychological Disorder)
3 Defendant alleges that to the extent Plaintiff suffered any mental or emotional
4 distress, although such is not admitted her, such distress was the result of a preexisting
5 psychological disorder or other alternative cause and not the result of any act or omission
6 by Defendant.
7 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 (Failure to Utilize Channels of Communication)
9 The Complaint and each cause of action therein are barred because Plaintiff failed
10 to mitigate Plaintiff’s alleged damages by not utilizing the proper channels of
11 communication to advise Defendant of any alleged acts which may have caused Plaintiff
12 damage.
13 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies)
15 The Complaint and each and every cause of action stated therein are barred
16 because Plaintiff failed to exhaust required administrative remedies as to Defendant.
17 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 (Plaintiff Wholly or Partially at Fault)
19 The Complaint and each cause of action therein are barred because if Plaintiff
20 sustained, or will sustain, any of the injuries, losses or damages described in Plaintiff’s
21 Complaint, which Defendant denies, then such injuries, losses or damages were caused
22 solely or in significant part by Plaintiff’s own acts which were a proximate contributing
23 cause of the incident(s), if any, referred to in the Complaint, and any resulting damages,
24 or injuries, if any, there be.
25
26
27
28 -4-
____________________________________________________________________________________
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Sicilia Mendoza v. Fresh Venture Foods, LLC, et al. – Case No. 18CV04448
1 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (No Knowing and/or Willful Violation)
3 The Complaint and all causes of action therein are barred because any act or
4 omission of Defendant were not knowing, willful, malicious or intentional.
5 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 (No Claim for Punitive or Exemplary Damages)
7 The claim for punitive or exemplary damages are barred because Plaintiff has
8 failed to state a claim for which general or specific, special, punitive, or exemplary
9 damages may be granted.
10 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 (Attorneys’ Fees and Costs)
12 Plaintiff fails to properly state a claim for costs or attorneys’ fees under Government
13 Code § 12965(b); Civil Code § 1021.5, or any other basis.
14 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 (Intentional Violation of Company Policy)
16
Plaintiff intentionally violated Defendant’s policies and therefore, is not entitled to
17
recovery.
18
19 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 (No Emotional Distress)
21 Defendant denies that Plaintiff suffered emotional distress. To the extent Plaintiff
22 suffered emotional distress, such emotional distress was not proximately caused by
23 Defendant or the acts of its agents and/or employees.
24 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 (No Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy)
26 Plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action for wrongful
27 termination in violation of public policy.
28 -5-
____________________________________________________________________________________
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Sicilia Mendoza v. Fresh Venture Foods, LLC, et al. – Case No. 18CV04448
1 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Plaintiff’s Did Not Suffer Adverse Employment Action)
3 The Complaint and each cause of action contained therein are barred as Plaintiff
4 did not suffer an adverse employment action.
5 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 (Relief Sought is Inequitable)
7 The Complaint and each cause of action contained therein should be barred or
8 substantially limited or reduced because the imposition of the relief, award, remedies,
9 and/or damages sought by Plaintiff would be inequitable and/or unjust.
10 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 (Insufficient Pleadings)
12 Plaintiff has failed to plead Plaintiff’s claims with sufficient particularity to enable
13 Defendant to allege all appropriate affirmative defenses and therefore, Defendant
14 reserves the right to allege additional affirmative defenses as needed.
15 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 (No Standing to Sue)
17 The Complaint and each cause of action therein are barred because Plaintiff has
18 no standing to sue, or, alternatively, no standing to assert each cause of action.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 ///
27 ///
28 -6-
____________________________________________________________________________________
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Sicilia Mendoza v. Fresh Venture Foods, LLC, et al. – Case No. 18CV04448
Preview
1 CHARLEY M. STOLL, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2 Charley M. Stoll, Esq. SBN 064946 3 cstoll@cmsapc.com 340 Rosewood Avenue, Suite K 4 Camarillo, California 93010 805.389.5296 / 805.389.5288 Fax 5 Attorneys for Marisol Garcia Sandoval 6 dba Central City Labor 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 10 COOK DIVISION 11 SICILIA MENDOZA, individually, on behalf Case No.: 18CV04448 12 of themselves and all others similarly situated, [Assigned for all purposes to Honorable 13 Timothy J. Staffel – Dept. SM1] Plaintiffs, 14 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT vs. 15 16 FRESH VENTURE FOODS, LLC, a California limited liability corporation, 17 CENTRAL CITY LABOR [Form Unknown], MARISOL GARCIA SANDOVAL, 18 individually; and DOES 1 through 20, Complaint Filed: September 7, 2018 19 inclusive, Discovery Cutoff: n/a Trial Date: November 14, 2022 20 Defendants. Dept.: SM1 21 22 COMES NOW, Defendant MARISOL GARCIA SANDOVAL, individually, and 23 dba CENTRAL CITY LABOR erroneously sued as CENTRAL CITY LABOR [Form 24 Unknown] (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) and who answers the unverified 25 Complaint (hereinafter referred to as “Complaint”) on file herein of SICILIA MENDOZA 26 (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) as follows: 27 28 -1- ____________________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Sicilia Mendoza v. Fresh Venture Foods, LLC, et al. – Case No. 18CV04448 1 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, subdivision (d), 2 Defendant’s answers by denying, generally and specifically, each and every allegation 3 contained in said unverified Complaint, both conjunctively and disjunctively and the whole 4 thereof, and by specifically denying that as a direct and proximate result of any act or 5 omission on the part of Defendant, Plaintiff has been injured as alleged in the Complaint, 6 or in any other sum, or at all. 7 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 8 Without waiving any of the foregoing answers or defenses, as separate and distinct 9 affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s unverified Complaint, Defendant allege as follows: 10 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 (Failure to State a Cause of Action) 12 The Complaint and each cause of action therein fail to state facts sufficient to 13 constitute a cause of action against Defendant. 14 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 (Uncertainty) 16 The Complaint and each cause of action therein are uncertain in that it is 17 impossible to determine from the Complaint which of the alleged acts of Defendant 18 caused the injuries alleged in the Complaint. 19 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 (Estoppel) 21 The Complaint and each cause of action therein are barred by the doctrine of 22 estoppel. 23 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 (Waiver) 25 The Complaint and each cause of action therein are barred by the doctrine of 26 waiver. 27 28 -2- ____________________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Sicilia Mendoza v. Fresh Venture Foods, LLC, et al. – Case No. 18CV04448 1 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Laches) 3 The Complaint and each cause of action therein are barred by the doctrine of 4 laches. 5 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (Unclean Hands) 7 The Complaint and each cause of action therein are barred by the doctrine of 8 unclean hands. 9 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 (Avoidable Consequences) 11 The Complaint and each cause of action therein are barred by the doctrine of 12 avoidable consequences. 13 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (Statute of Limitations) 15 The Complaint and each cause of action therein are barred by the applicable 16 Statute of Limitations, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, including but not 17 limited to §§ 335 et seq., 337, 337 (1), 338, 338 (a), 339, 339 (1), 340 (a), 340 (b) et seq., 18 343 and Labor Code §§ 203 (b) and 1194.2(a), and Business and Professions Code § 19 17208. 20 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 (Mitigation of Damages) 22 The Complaint and each cause of action therein are barred because Plaintiff failed 23 to mitigate Plaintiff’s alleged damages. 24 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (Comparative Fault) 26 The Complaint and each cause of action therein are barred because Plaintiff 27 contributed entirely, or at least in some degree, to Plaintiff’s alleged damages. 28 -3- ____________________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Sicilia Mendoza v. Fresh Venture Foods, LLC, et al. – Case No. 18CV04448 1 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Preexisting Psychological Disorder) 3 Defendant alleges that to the extent Plaintiff suffered any mental or emotional 4 distress, although such is not admitted her, such distress was the result of a preexisting 5 psychological disorder or other alternative cause and not the result of any act or omission 6 by Defendant. 7 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 (Failure to Utilize Channels of Communication) 9 The Complaint and each cause of action therein are barred because Plaintiff failed 10 to mitigate Plaintiff’s alleged damages by not utilizing the proper channels of 11 communication to advise Defendant of any alleged acts which may have caused Plaintiff 12 damage. 13 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies) 15 The Complaint and each and every cause of action stated therein are barred 16 because Plaintiff failed to exhaust required administrative remedies as to Defendant. 17 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (Plaintiff Wholly or Partially at Fault) 19 The Complaint and each cause of action therein are barred because if Plaintiff 20 sustained, or will sustain, any of the injuries, losses or damages described in Plaintiff’s 21 Complaint, which Defendant denies, then such injuries, losses or damages were caused 22 solely or in significant part by Plaintiff’s own acts which were a proximate contributing 23 cause of the incident(s), if any, referred to in the Complaint, and any resulting damages, 24 or injuries, if any, there be. 25 26 27 28 -4- ____________________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Sicilia Mendoza v. Fresh Venture Foods, LLC, et al. – Case No. 18CV04448 1 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (No Knowing and/or Willful Violation) 3 The Complaint and all causes of action therein are barred because any act or 4 omission of Defendant were not knowing, willful, malicious or intentional. 5 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (No Claim for Punitive or Exemplary Damages) 7 The claim for punitive or exemplary damages are barred because Plaintiff has 8 failed to state a claim for which general or specific, special, punitive, or exemplary 9 damages may be granted. 10 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 (Attorneys’ Fees and Costs) 12 Plaintiff fails to properly state a claim for costs or attorneys’ fees under Government 13 Code § 12965(b); Civil Code § 1021.5, or any other basis. 14 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 (Intentional Violation of Company Policy) 16 Plaintiff intentionally violated Defendant’s policies and therefore, is not entitled to 17 recovery. 18 19 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 (No Emotional Distress) 21 Defendant denies that Plaintiff suffered emotional distress. To the extent Plaintiff 22 suffered emotional distress, such emotional distress was not proximately caused by 23 Defendant or the acts of its agents and/or employees. 24 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (No Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy) 26 Plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action for wrongful 27 termination in violation of public policy. 28 -5- ____________________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Sicilia Mendoza v. Fresh Venture Foods, LLC, et al. – Case No. 18CV04448 1 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Plaintiff’s Did Not Suffer Adverse Employment Action) 3 The Complaint and each cause of action contained therein are barred as Plaintiff 4 did not suffer an adverse employment action. 5 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (Relief Sought is Inequitable) 7 The Complaint and each cause of action contained therein should be barred or 8 substantially limited or reduced because the imposition of the relief, award, remedies, 9 and/or damages sought by Plaintiff would be inequitable and/or unjust. 10 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 (Insufficient Pleadings) 12 Plaintiff has failed to plead Plaintiff’s claims with sufficient particularity to enable 13 Defendant to allege all appropriate affirmative defenses and therefore, Defendant 14 reserves the right to allege additional affirmative defenses as needed. 15 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 (No Standing to Sue) 17 The Complaint and each cause of action therein are barred because Plaintiff has 18 no standing to sue, or, alternatively, no standing to assert each cause of action. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 /// 27 /// 28 -6- ____________________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Sicilia Mendoza v. Fresh Venture Foods, LLC, et al. – Case No. 18CV04448