Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of California - California

Case 5:08-cv-00780-RS

Document 4

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 1 of 6

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

JEREMY S. MILLSTONE, ESQ. (SBN 166901) JOY C. ROSENQUIST, ESQ. (SBN 214926) MILLSTONE PETERSON & WATTS, LLP Attorneys at Law 2267 Lava Ridge Court, Suite 210 Roseville, CA 95661 Phone:916.780.8222 Fax: 916.780.8775 Attorneys for Defendants Mexicali Restaurant Group, Inc. and David Villanueva UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERARDO ESPINOZA; MARIEL PACHO; ARELI HERNANDEZ, Plaintiffs, vs. MEXICALI RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.; DAVID VILLANUEVA and DOES 1 -10, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 5:08-CV-00780 DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

(DEMAND FOR JURY)

Defendants Mexicali Restaurant Group, Inc., a California corporation ("MRG"), and David Villanueva ("Villanueva") (collectively, "Defendants") answer Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows: 1. Defendants admit that the action is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs; that Plaintiffs were

employed by MRG; and that Plaintiffs Espinoza and Hernandez were paid hourly. Defendants deny Plaintiffs were employed by Villanueva or that Plaintiff Pacho was paid hourly. Defendants cannot answer the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 1 because they are legal conclusions and, on that basis, Defendants deny them. 2. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 and, on that basis, Defendants deny them.

DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Case 5:08-cv-00780-RS

Document 4

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 2 of 6

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

3.

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 and, on that basis, Defendants deny them. 4. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 and, on that basis, Defendants deny them. 5. Defendant MRG admits it is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of

California. Defendants deny the remaining allegations. 6. 7. Admit. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 and, on that basis, Defendants deny them. 8. Defendants admit Plaintiffs were employees of MRG. Defendants deny the

remaining allegations in Paragraph 8. 9. Defendants admit Plaintiffs were employees of MRG. Defendants deny the

remaining allegations in Paragraph 9. 10. 11. Deny. Defendants admit Plaintiffs Espinoza and Hernandez were paid hourly. Defendants

deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 11. 12. Defendants admit Plaintiffs Espinoza and Hernandez did not perform exempt duties.

Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 12. 13. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief whether

Plaintiffs maintained any professional license or practiced any recognized profession and, on that basis, denies the allegation. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs did not exclusively manage any

division of MRG and that Plaintiffs Espinoza and Hernandez did not supervise employees or participate in policy development. Defendants deny the remaining allegations. 14. Defendants incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 13 above as though

fully set forth herein. 15. Defendants cannot answer the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 because they

present only legal conclusions. 16. Deny. 2
DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Case 5:08-cv-00780-RS

Document 4

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 3 of 6

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

17.

Defendants cannot answer the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 because they

state only legal conclusions. 18. 19. 20. Deny. Deny. Defendants cannot answer the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 because they

state only legal conclusions rather than fact allegations. 21. Defendants cannot answer the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 because they

state only legal conclusions rather than fact allegations. 22. Defendants incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 21 above as though

fully set forth herein. 23. Defendants cannot answer the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 they state only

legal conclusions rather than fact allegations. 24. Defendants cannot answer the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 they state only

legal conclusions rather than fact allegations. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Deny. Deny. Deny. Deny. Deny. Deny. Defendants incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 30 above as though

fully set forth herein. 32. 33. Deny. Defendants cannot answer the allegations contained in Paragraph 33 they state only

legal conclusions rather than fact allegations. 34. 35. Deny. Defendants cannot answer the allegations contained in Paragraph 35 because they

state only a request for relief (attorney fees and costs). 3
DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Case 5:08-cv-00780-RS

Document 4

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 4 of 6

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 ///

36.

Defendants cannot answer the allegations contained in Paragraph 26 because they

state only a request for relief (interest). 37. Defendants incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 36 above as though

fully set forth herein. 38. Defendants admit Plaintiffs were employed by MRG. Defendants cannot answer the

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 38 because they state only legal conclusions. 39. Defendants admit Plaintiffs were employed by MRG. Defendants deny MRG failed

to pay overtime when earned. Defendants cannot answer the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 39 because they state only legal conclusions. 40. Defendants admit Plaintiffs were employed by MRG. Defendants deny MRG failed

to pay overtime timely when it was earned. 41. 42. 43. 44. Deny. Deny. Deny. Defendants deny Plaintiffs were deprived of earned overtime. Defendants cannot

answer the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 44 because they state only a request for relief (restitution). 45. Defendants incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 44 above as though

fully set forth herein. 46. Defendants cannot answer the allegations contained in Paragraph 46 because they

state only legal conclusions rather than fact allegations. 47. Defendants cannot answer the allegations contained in Paragraph 47 because they

state only legal conclusions rather than fact allegations. 48. 49. 50. 51. Deny. Deny. Deny. Deny.

4
DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Case 5:08-cv-00780-RS

Document 4

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 5 of 6

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 work.

52.

Defendants cannot answer the allegations contained in Paragraph 52 because they

state only a request for relief (attorney fees and costs). DEFENDANTS' AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure To State a Claim for Relief) Each of Plaintiff's purported claims against Defendants fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a claim for relief. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Exemption) Plaintiff Pacho is exempt from the state and federal laws requiring premium pay for overtime

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Good Faith) Defendants in good faith dispute that any wages are due Plaintiffs, as Defendant MRG already has timely paid to Plaintiffs all wages they earned. WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment as follows: 1. 2. 3. That Plaintiff take nothing by the Complaint; That Defendants receive an award of costs of suit herein; That Defendants receive an award of attorneys fees and costs pursuant to Labor Code

section 218.5; and /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 5
DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Case 5:08-cv-00780-RS

Document 4

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 6 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 proper.

4.

That Defendants recover such other and further relief as the Court deems just and

DATED: May 13, 2008

MILLSTONE, PETERSON & WATTS, LLP Attorneys at Law

By:

/s/ JEREMY S. MILLSTONE_______ JEREMY S. MILLSTONE

Attorneys for Defendants Mexicali Restaurant Group, Inc. and David Villanueva I hereby attest that I have on file all holograph signatures for any signatures indicated by a "conformed" signature (/s/) within this e-filed document. MILLSTONE PETERSON & WATTS, LLP Attorneys at Law /s/ Jeremy S. Millstone

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

6
DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO COMPLAINT