SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet

Jun-23-2010 2:40 pm

Case Number: CGC-10-500199 Filing Date: Jun-23-2010 2:37 Juke Box: 001 Image: 02888995 ANSWER

ISHANKA STAGG et al VS. ANANDA FUARA RESTAURANT, AN ENTITY FORM UNKNOW

001C02888995

Instructions:

Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.

LITTLER MENDELSON

A P"OnUlOlAl COIPOUTlOIL 650 Ca!lfornll Sireel 20th Floor

Stoll Flanc:i,c:o, CA 9410'2613 4154331140

6

1 GARRY G. MATHIASON, BarNo. 051119 MICHAEL F. MCCABE, Bar No. 111151

2 APRIL N. LOVE, Bar No. 255527 LITTLER MENDELSON

3 A Professional Corporation 650 California Street

4 20th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94108.2693

5 Telephone: 415.433.1940

Fax No.: 415.399.8490

Attorneys for Defendants

7 SRI CHINMOY SOCIETY, INC. AND SRI CHINMOY CENTRE

8 9 10

~v\(31 F~~,~~.D

JUN 2 3 2010 CLE=K OF IHE COURCUI

BY' ____1.j2CWf?~ .:::I!:J

. Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

11 ASHANKA STAGG, DAMIAN

SEQUOIA, LUCIAN BALMER, and

12 SUNDARI MICHAELIAN,

13 Plaintiffs,

14 v.

15 ANANDA FUARA RESTAURANT, an entity, form unknown; GARIMA, INC., a

16 corporation; GARIMA HOFFMANN, an individual; SRI CHINMOY SOCIETY,

17 INC., a corporation; SRI CHINMOY CENTRE, an entity, form unknown; and

18 DOES 1-100, inclusive,

19

Defendants.

20

Case No. CGC-IO-500199 DEFENDANTS SRI CHINMOY SOCIETY'S AND SRI CHINMOY CENTRE'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

BY fAX

Defendants SRI CHINMOY SOCIETY, INC. and SRI CHINMOY CENTRE

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

("Defendants"), for themselves only, answer the unverified Complaint of plaintiffs ASHANKA

as follows:

STAGG, DAMIAN SEQUOIA, LUCIAN BALMER, and SUNDARI MICHAELIAN ("Plaintiffs")

GENERAL DENIAL .

Pursuant to the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in Plaintiffs' Complaint. In addition, Defendants deny that Plaintiffs have sustained, or will sustain, Case No. CGC-IO-500199

DEFENDANTS SRI CHINMOY SOCIETY'S & SRI CHINMOY CENTRE'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

-

7

DEFENDANTS SRl CHINMOY SOCIETY'S & SRl CHINMOY CENTRE'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

4 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1 any loss or damage in the manner or amount alleged, or otherwise, by reason of any act or omission,

2 or any other conduct or absence thereof on the part of Defendants. Without conceding that they have

3 the burden of proof or persuasion, Defendants also assert the following affirmative defenses:

5 Without waiving or excusing the burden of proof on Plaintiffs or admitting that

6 Defendants bear any burden of proof, Defendants asserts the following affirmative defenses:

1.

As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that the Complaint

8 and each and every alleged cause of action therein fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a claim

9 upon which relief can be granted.

10

2.

As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that the Complaint

11 and each cause of action set forth therein are barred by the equitable doctrines of waiver, consent,

12 estoppel, laches, and unclean hands.

13

3.

As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that there existed no

14 privity between Plaintiffs and Defendants.

15

4.

As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that at all times

16 mentioned in the Complaint, Defendants performed and discharged in good faith each and every

17 obligation, if any, owed to Plaintiffs.

18

5.

As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that to the extent any

20 the actions of Defendants are protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution and

19 of Plaintiffs' claims are premised on actions taken by Defendants with respect to matters of religion,

21 equivalent state law protections.

23 information and belief, that Plaintiffs suffered no injury because they did not work over 8 hours per

24 day or over 40 hours per week.

LITTLER MENDELSON

It PII:O.,UIO •• l COIPOltAliOI SSD C.hloUIlI SIf',1 201hFIoor

Sin F'.ne,sc:o, CA "'01.269) '154331940

22

25 26 27 28

6.

As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege, based on

7.

As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege, based on

information and belief, that Plaintiffs were authorized and permitted to take rest periods, and were

provided meal periods as required by the Wage Order(s) of the California Industrial Welfare

Commission and/or under applicable California law. 2.

Case No. CGC-IO-500199

-_

-

1

."""",.

8.

As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that they were not

2 the employer of Plaintiffs and cannot be held liable under the joint employer theory of liability.

3

9.

As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs' cause

4 of action for unfair business practices under California Business & Professions Code section 17200

5 et seq. is barred because even assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiffs suffered any injury (which

6 Defendants deny), it was not caused by any unlawful policy, custom, practice, procedure, act or

7 omission promulgated and/or tolerated by Defendants.

8

10.

As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that the Complaint

9 fails to state a claim upon which prejudgment interest may be granted, as the damages claimed are

10 not sufficiently certain to allow an award of prejudgment interest.

11

11.

As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that the Complaint

12 and each cause of action set forth therein cannot be maintained against Defendants insofar as each

13 purported cause of action set forth therein is barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of

14 limitations.

15

12.

As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs'

16 Complaint and the causes of action therein are barred by the "avoidable consequences doctrine" in

17 that Plaintiffs cannot be compensated for damages that they could have avoided by reasonable effort

18 or expenditure.

19

13.

As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that the imposition

20 of multiple individual penalties would deprive Defendants of their fundamental Constitutional right

21 to due process.

22

14.

As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that any award of

23 punitive or exemplary damages would violate the excessive fines clause of the Constitutions of the

24 United States and the State of California.

25 26 27 28

15.

As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that if Plaintiffs

suffered any damages, such damages were proximately or legally caused by the breach of duties and/or misconduct of Plaintiffs and/or parties other than Defendants and, accordingly, any award of

LITTLER MENDELSON

A. PI.fUllO."L C._POUlIOI 650 C.lifo'1I11 &I, ... 20ltlFIH'

hn F""cisco, CA Ul0'.2It3 .,S,4331UO

damages is several and must be reduced in whole or in part, or apportioned in proportion to the

3. Case No. CGC·IO-SOOI99

DEFENDANTS SRI CHINMOY SOCIETY'S & SRI CHINMOY CENTRE'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

9

1 percentage of comparative fault of Plaintiffs, other parties and/or unauthorized individuals. In the

2 event of such apportionment, each Defendant is entitled to separate judgments for damages in direct

3 proportion to their percentage of fault, if any is found, notwithstanding Defendants' continuing

4 denial of any fault, with such percentage determined by the comparative fault of all parties, non-

S parties and/or unauthorized individuals to this action, known or unknown. To assess any greater

6 percentage of fault and damages than their own against Defendants would constitute a denial of

7 equal protection of the law and due process, which is guaranteed by the California and United States

8 Constitutions.

16.

As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendants are informed and believe

10 that further investigation and discovery will reveal, and on that basis allege, that Plaintiffs' claims

11 cannot be maintained because Plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable diligence to mitigate their

12 damages, if any damages were in fact suffered, and, to the extent of such failure to mitigate, any

13 damages awarded to Plaintiffs should be reduced accordingly.

17.

As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that any recovery to

14

15 which Plaintiffs might otherwise be entitled must be offset by any benefits and/or other monies that

16 Plaintiffs have received or will receive, whether through employment, contract, disability insurance,

17 unemployment insurance, workers' compensation or otherwise.

18

18.

As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs have

19 not suffered any damages as a result of any actions taken by Defendant, and Plaintiffs are, therefore,

21

20 precluded from asserting any claim against Defendant.

19.

As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that California Labor

23

22 Code section 226 imposes no record-keeping requirements on Defendant with respect to Plaintiffs.

20.

As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs are not

24 entitled to recover any punitive damages because the Complaint and each cause of action set forth

25 therein fail to plead facts sufficient to support the recovery of punitive damages.

27 exists no private right of action under California Labor Code section 351.

26

28

LITTLER MENDELSON

A P~o'u.'o.", CO.'OIll.trO. 650 C.II',""1 Slt.,1 20LhFroo,

s.. Francl'co, CA 84101_2693 415U3194()

21.

As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendants allege that there

4.

Case No. CGC-IO-500199

DEFENDANTS SRI CHINMOY SOCIETY'S & SRI CHINMOY CENTRE'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

LITTLER MENDELSON

"PIIOHUIOIIAl 0011'0111"'1011 6S0 C.l<lo,,". $u .. , 20111 Floor

SI .. Fr.""ilco, CA '41012"3 4154331940

8 9

1 RESERVATION OF ADDITIONAL DEFENSES

2 Because Plaintiffs' Complaint is couched in conc1usory and vague terms, Defendants

3 cannot fully anticipate all of the affirmative defenses that may be applicable to this case.

4 Accordingly, Defendants respectfully reserve the right to amend this Answer to add other applicable

5 defenses revealed during any later proceedings in this case.

6 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

7 WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment from this Court as follows:

1. 2.

That Plaintiffs takes nothing by this action;

That the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered

10 against Plaintiffs and in favor of Defendants on each of Plaintiffs' causes of action;

3. 4.

That Plaintiffs be ordered to pay Defendants' costs and attorneys' fees;

That the Court grant such other and further relief as it deems just and proper.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Dated: June t'?:., 2010

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Finnwide:95957393.1 065769.1 000

28

5.

Case No. CGC-IO-500199

DEFENDANTS SRI CHINMOY SOCIETY'S & SRI CHINMOY CENTRE'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

LITTLER MENDELSON

/It. PIID'UJlO.M CO.~O""'TlOII &50 C.liltr'UI SI'"I 2C1lhFloot

hll Fr."c:lI'., CA V.IOI2IiJ 416433. lI~O

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28

-

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

I am employed in San Francisco County, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business address is 650 California Street, 20th Floor, San Francisco, California 94108.2693. I am readily familiar with this firm's practice for

collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. On June 23, 2010, I placed with this firm at the above address for deposit with the United States Postal

Service a true and correct copy of the within document(s):

DEFENDANTS SRI CHINMOY SOCIETY'S AND SRI CHINMOY CENTRE'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

in a sealed envelope, postage fully paid, addressed' as follows:

Moira C. McQuaid

Law Offices of Moira C. McQuaid 830 Burlway Road

Burlingame, California 94010

Attorneys for Plaintiff

ASHANKA STAGG, DAMIAN SEQUOIA, LUCIAN BALMER, SUNDARI MICHAELIAN

Following ordinary business practices, the envelope was sealed and placed for collection and mailing on this date, and would, in the ordinary course of business, be deposited with the United States Postal Service on this date.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

above is true and correct.

Executed on June 23, 2010, at San Francisco, California.

Case No. CGC-IO-500199

PROOF OF SERVICE