TWNIDINO
awe
we 4
10
n
2
13
4
15
16
7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FILED
for Court of Cattfomia
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP aunty af Los Angoles.
JEREMY M. MITTMAN, SBN 248854
jimittman@proskauer.com JAN 18 2018
2049 Century Park East, 32" Floor Sherr R riClerk
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206 &y. orc
Telephone: (310) 557-2900
Facsimile: (310) 557-2193
Attomeys for Defendants,
NFL ENTERPRISES, LP and JESSICA LEE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
FAXED
JAMIL. CANTOR, an individual, Case No, BC678714
Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF
JAMI CANTOR’S UNVERIFIED FIRST.
vs, AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
NFL ENTERPRISES, LP, a limited partnership; | Hon. Michael L. Stern
JESSICA LEE, an individual; and DOES 1 ~ 50, | Dept. 62
inclusive,
Complaint Filed: October 6, 2017
Defendants FAC filed: December I1, 2017
DEFENDANTS" ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESCITyCASE:
LER/DEFS:
ece7714
RECEIPT #: CCH4és980068
DATE PAID: 01/19/18 10:57 AM
PAYMENT: 435.00 310
RECEIVED:
$435.00
0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2
&
=
&
&
3
Dyson gill:10
12
13
4
15
16
7
18
19
20
21
2
4
25
26
7
28
Defendants NFL Enterprises, LLC (erroneously sued as NFL Enterprises, LP) (“NFL”) and *
Jessica Lee (“Lee”) (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby answer Plaintiff Jami L. Cantor’s
(‘Plaintif?”) unverified First Amended Complaint for Damages (the “Complaint”) as follows:
Pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30(4),
Defendants deny, generally and specifically, each and every allegation of the Complaint and further
deny, generally and specifically, that Plaintiff is entitled to damages or to any other relief whatsoever
by any act oromission on the part of Defendants
Without waiving or limiting any of the foregoing, and without assuming the burden of proof
where the burden properly rests with Plaintiff, Defendants also plead the following separate and.
affirmative defenses:
FIRST D
E
(Failure to State a Cause of Action)
Neither the Complaint nor any purported cause of action alleged therein state claims upon
which relief can be granted.
SECOND DEFENSE
(Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies)
‘The Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred, in whole or in
part, because Plaintiff has failed to timely exhaust the administrative remedies available to her under
California law.
THIRD DEFENSE
(Scope of Administrative Charge)
Plaintiff's claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act are barred, in
whole or in part, to the extent they are not within the scope of the administrative complaint filed by
her with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing
FOURTH DEFENSE
‘The Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred by applicable
statutes of limitations, including, but not limited to, California Government Code Sections 12960
ae
DEFENDANTS" ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES,1 || and 12965 (FEHA); California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 335.1 (tort), 337 (written
2 || contract), 338(a) (statutory liability), 339 (oral or implied contract), 340 (a) (statutory penalty or
3 || forfeiture and 343 (miscellaneous), and California Business & Professions Code § 17208 (unfair
4 || competition law).
3 FIFTH DEFENSE
6 (Failure to Use Ordinary Care and Diligence in Performance of Job Duties)
7 Pursuant to Sections 2854, 2856, and 2858 of the California Labor Code, Plaintiff's claims
8 |] are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff failed to act with reasonable skill, diligence, and
9 || cooperation in carrying out the duties and responsibilities required by Plaintiff's employment with
10 || Defendant NFL.
ul SIXTH DEFENSE
2 (Estoppel)
13 Any of the conduct of Defendants that is alleged to be unlawful was taken as a result of
14 |} conduct by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is thus estopped to assert any cause of action against Defendants.
15 SEVENTH DEFENSE
16 (Unclean Hands)
7 Plaintiff is barred from maintaining the Complaint and each purported cause of action
18 |] therein as a result of her unclean hands with respect to the events upon which the Complaint and
19 |] purported causes of action allegedly are based.
20 EIGHTH DEFENSE
2 (Waiver)
2 Plaintiff has waived whatever right she may have had to assert the purported claims
23 || contained in the Complaint and each purported cause of action therein against Defendants.
224 NINTH DEFENSE
S25 (Laches)
"26 Plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of laches from pursuing her Complaint and each
‘% 27 || purported cause of action therein by reason of her inexcusable and unreasonable delay in filing the
28 || Complaint and/or exhausting required administrative remedies.
a
DEFENDANTS" ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10
u
12
13
TENTH DEFENSE
(Managerial Privilege)
Defendants and their agents were privileged in the exercise of managerial discretion with
respect to Plaintiff's employment and neither Defendants nor their agents abused or exceeded their
‘managerial discretion in their conduct toward Plaintiff.
ELEVENTH DEFENSE
(Frivolous Claims)
Plaintiff's Complaint and each purported cause of action therein were not brought in good.
faith and are frivolous. Therefore, the relief requested is precluded and Defendants are entitled to
recover their reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, incurred herein as a matter of law
pursuant to this court's inherent authority and Section 128.7 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure,
TWELFTH DEFENSE
ate Non-Discriminatory, Non-Retaliatory Reasons)
Plaintiff is barred from any recovery in this action because Defendants’ actions toward
Plaintiff were taken for legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and non-retaliatory reasons.
‘THIRTEENTH DEFENSE
(Not a Substantial Motivating Factor)
Even if Plaintiff should prove that discrimination or harassment based on a protected status
‘was a factor motivating the challenged employment actions—which Defendants deny—such a
factor was not a substantial motivating one, and therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to recover any
damages,
FOURTEENTH DEFENSE
(Mixed Motive - Same Decision)
Even if Plaintiff were to prove that discrimination, harassment, or retaliation based on
protected status was a substantial factor motivating the challenged employment actions—which
Defendants deny—the same employment actions would have been taken based on legitimate, non-
-3-
DEFENDANTS" ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES7
18
19
20
ai
22
23
28
discriminatory, non-retaliatory reasons, and therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to recover any
damages
FIFTEENTH DEFENSE,
(Prompt Response to Conduet)
‘The Complaint and each cause of action set forth therein cannot be maintained against
Defendants because Defendants exercised reasonable care to prevent, and promptly correct, any
discriminatory or otherwise unlawful behavior.
" SIXTEENTH DEFENSE
(Lack of Reasonable Care)
Plaintiff is precluded from asserting her Complaint, and each purported cause of action
therein, because she failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid the injuries she purportedly
suffered to the extent that, inter alia, she unreasonably failed to utilize Defendant NFL's intemal
complaint procedures.
ENTH DEFENSE
(Consent)
The alleged conduct of Defendants complained of in the Complaint was approved,
consented to, authorized, and/or ratified by Plaintiff through her actions, omissions, and course of
conduct; accordingly, the Complaint and each purported cause of action therein are barred,
EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE
(Ratification)
Plaintiff's Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, is barred on the ground that
Plaintiff ratified Defendants’ alleged actions.
NINETEENTH DEFENSE
(De Minimus)
Even if Plaintiff has suffered damage in the form of lost wages or other compensation, such
damage is de minimus and therefore, not compensable as a matter of law.
24.
DEFENDANTS" ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES1 TWENTIETH DEFENSE
2 (Reasonableness and Good Faith)
3 Defendants and their agents acted reasonably and in good faith at all times material herein,
4 || based on all relevant facts and circumstances known by them at the time they so acted,
Accordingly, Plaintiff is barred from any recovery in this action.
Q
NT.
'IRST DEFENSE
(Fault of Plaintiff or Others)
If Plaintiff sustained injuries or damages—which Defendants deny—the alleged injuries
and damages, if any, were caused solely by the acts, wrongs, or omissions of Plaintiff herself or by
‘other persons, entities, preexisting conditions, forces, and/or things over which Defendants had no
11 |] control and for which Defendants are not responsible.
2 TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE
13 (Contributory Causation)
4 Plaintiff's damages, if any, were proximately caused, and contributed to, by Plaintiff's own
15 |} negligence and/or intentional acts or omissions, and Plaintiff's recovery, if any, must thereby be
16 |} reduced in proportion to Plaintiff's conduct
7 ‘TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE,
18 (Failure to Mitigate Damages)
19 If Plaintiff suffered any damages as a result of the facts alleged in her Complaint—which
20 || Defendants deny—Plaintff is not entitled to recover the amount of damages alleged or any
21 |) damages due to her failure to make reasonable efforts to mitigate or minimize the damages
22 | incurred.
23 ‘TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE
2 4 (offset)
> 25 If Plaintiff sustained any damage as a result the conduct alleged in the Complaint—which
26 || Defendants deny—then Defendants are entitled to an offset to the extent that Plaintiff received
27 |] income from any other sources, including, but not limited to, any workers’ compensation benefits
28 |] paid to Plaintiff
<5.
DEFENDANTS" ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:u
2
13
14
15
16
7
18
20
au
22
2B
24
25
26
ei
28
TWENTY-FIFTH DEFENSE
(Exclusive Remedy of Workers’ Compensation Act)
Insofar as Plaintiff alleges she suffered from any physical or emotional injury as a result of
Defendants’ conduct, the exclusive remedy for such injuries is provided by the California
Workers’ Compensation statutes, including California Labor Code Sections 3601 et seq., inasmuch
as any compensable alleged injury to Plaintiff occurred at a time when she was subject to
California Workers’ Compensation provisions; at the time of such alleged injury Plaintiff was
performing services growing out of, and incidental to, her employment and was acting within the
course and scope of her employment; the alleged injury was proximately caused by her
employment; and Defendant NFL was providing workers’ compensation coverage without any
charge to the employee.
‘TWENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE
(No Individual Liability as Jessica Lee)
‘Neither the Complaint nor any purported cause of action asserted therein alleges facts
sufficient to state claims against Jessica Lee in her individual capacity.
TWENTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE
(No Defamation — Statements of Opinion)
Plaintiff's defamation claims are barred, in whole or in part, on the grounds that the alleged
statements about which Plaintiff complains were statements of opinion, not of fact.
TWENTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE
(No Defamation “Truth of Allegedly Defamatory Statements)
Plaintiff's defamation claims are barred, in whole or in part, on the grounds that the alleged
statements about which Plaintiff complains were substantially true.
‘TWENTY.
1H DEFENSE
(No Defamation — Qualified Privilege)
Plaintiff's defamation claims are barred, in whole or in part, on the grounds that the alleged
statements were made without malice and were privileged under California Civil Code Section
47(0).
-6-
DEFENDANTS" ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESu
2
3
4
15
16
7
18
19
20
21
22
B
24
25,
26
7
28
TWENTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE
(Conduct Not Severe or Pervasive)
Plaintiff's harassment claims are barred because the alleged conduct that Plaintiff was
purportedly subjected to was not severe and/or pervasive enough to constitute a violation of the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
‘TWENTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE
(Procedural Due Process)
To the extent that it seeks punitive or exemplary damages, Plaintiff's Complaint violates
Defendants’ right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and under the Constitution of the State of California and, therefore, fails to state a
cause of action upon which punitive or exemplary damages may be awarded
‘TWENTY-NINTH DEFENSE
(Protection from Excessive Fines)
To the extent that it seeks punitive or exemplary damages, Plaintiff's Complaint violates
Defendants’ right to protection from “excessive fines” as provided in the Eighth Amendment of
the United States Constitution and in Article I, Section 17 of the Constitution of the State of
California, and, therefore, fails to state a cause of action on which punitive or exemplary damages
may be awarded.
‘THIRTIETH DEFENSE,
(After Acquired Evidence)
To the extent discovery may disclose information which could serve as a basis for the
termination of Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff is barred from recovery by the after-acquired
evidence doctrine.
‘THIRTY-FIRST DEFENSE
(No Extreme or Outrageous Conduct)
Plaintiff's Complaint and the purported causes of action asserted therein fail to allege facts
sufficient to constitute extreme or outrageous conduct, and therefore fail to state a claim for
emotional distress to the extent Plaintiff so seeks, or at all
oe
DEFENDANTS» ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESSeca rxaueun
u
12
B
14
15
16
7
18
19
20
2
22
23
S24
28
‘THIRTY-SECOND DEFENSE
(No Unsafe Working Conditions)
Atall times, Defendants provided a place of employment to plaintiff that was free of any
unsafe working conditions.
‘THIRTY-THIRD DEFENSE
(No Entitlement to Equitable Relief - Adequate Remedy at Law)
Even if the allegations in Plaintif's Complaint are true (which Defendants deny),
Plaintiff's claims for equitable relief are barred on the grounds that Plaintiff has a complete and
adequate remedy at Jaw in the form of compensatory monetary damages.
THIRTY-FOURTH DEFENSE,
(Lack of Standing to Seek Injunetive Relief)
Even if the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint are true (which Defendants deny),
Plaintiff's claim for prospective injunctive is barred because Plaintiff is not a current employee of
Defendant NFL and lacks standing to sue on behalf ofits current employees.
‘THIRTY-FIFTH DEFENSE
(No Entitlement to Prospective Injunctive Relief ~ No Imminent Harm)
Plaintiff's claim for prospective injunctive relief is barred, in whole or in part, because
Plaintiff's Complaint fails to allege facts showing the existence any real or immediate threat of
harm occurring in the future,
THIRTY-SIXTH DEFENSE
(No Unfair Conduct)
‘The Complaint is barred in whole or in part because the conduct of Defendants as alleged
in the Complaint is not “unfair” as defined in the California Business and Professions Code.
THIRTY-S
NTH DEFENSE,
(No Special Damages)
Plaintiff has failed to specifically allege special damages. Accordingly, Plaintiff is not
entitled to recover such damages.
-8-
DEFENDANTS” ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESu
2
4
15
16
7
18
19
20
2
2
2B
24
25
26
2
28
‘THIRTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE
(No Statutory or Civil Penalties)
The Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein fail to allege facts
sufficient to allow recovery of statutory or civil penalties from Defendants,
‘THIRTY-NINTH DEFENSE
(No Willful Conduct)
Defendants did not violate any provision of the Labor Code willfully or knowingly.
FORTIETH DEFENSE
(Meal and Rest Period Claims Barred)
Plaintiff's cause(s) of action for failure to provide and pay for rest and meal periods is
barred because Defendant provided Plaintiff with meal and rest periods in accordance with Cal.
Labor Code section 226.7.
FORTY-FOURTH DEFENSE
(Outside the Scope of Authority)
Ifany manager or supervisor authorized, required, requested, suffered, or permitted an
employee to miss a meal or rest period, such supervisor or manager acted outside the scope of his
or her employment
FORTY-FIFTH DEFENSE
(Failure to Exhaust Internal Remedies)
If any manager or supervisor authorized, required, requested, suffered, or permitted an
employee to miss a meal or rest period, such supervisor or manager acted outside the scope of his
or her employment.
FORTY-SIXTH DEFENSE
(Good Faith Dispute)
Pursuant to Cal. Code Regs. Title 8, § 13520, Plainti’s claim for waiting time penalties
fails because the NFL believed in good faith that it properly paid Plaintiff for all wages due upon
separation of employment, and there is a good-faith dispute on the NFL’s part as to whether any
additional wages are due.
-9-
DEFENDANTS" ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10
ul
12
13
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FORTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE,
(No Ownership in Property)
Plait
's cause of action for conversion is barred because Plaintiff has no claim of
‘ownership or entitlement to possess the property she claims was converted,
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
Defendants hereby give notice that they intend to rely upon such other and further
affirmative defenses as may become available during discovery in this action and reserve the right,
to amend this Answer to assert any such defenses,
WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment as follows:
1. That Plaintiff takes nothing by her unverified Complaint herein;
2. That the unverified Complaint be dismissed;
3. That judgment be entered in favor of Defendants;
4, Forattomeys’ fees;
5. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
6. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
Dated: January 18, 2018 PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
Jeremy M. Mittman
By:
Tere! fttman
Attomeys for Defendants,
‘NFL ENTERPRISES, LP and JESSICA LEE
=10-
DEFENDANTS® ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16280/54346-030 CURRENT 050005604"u
12
13
14
15
16
7
18
19
20
2
22
23
24
25
26
7
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
1 declare that: I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, California. Iam over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to the within cause; my business address is 2049 Century Park East,
32nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206.
(On January 18, 2018, I served the following document, described as:
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF JAMI CANTOR’S
UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES.
&__ by placing L) the original [X) a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as
follows:
Laura L. Horton, Esq Attorneys for Plaintiff
Flor C. Dery, Esq.
HORTON LAW FIRM, APC
9045 Corbin Avenue, Suite 260
Northridge, CA 91324
Telephone: (818) 407-0700
Facsimile: (818) 407-0705
Email: laura@horton-law.com
flor@horton-law.com
(1 — @yE-Mail) By transmitting a true and correct copy thereof via electronic mail.
1) By Mail) 1 am “readily familiar” with the Firm’s practice of collection and processing
correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with U.S. postal
service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California, in
the ordinary course of business. Tam 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
date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
(0 _ @y Personal Service) By personally delivering such envelope to the addressee.
By Overnight Delivery) By causing such envelopes to be delivered by the office of the
addressee by OVERNIGHT DELIVERY via Federal Express or by other similar overnight
delivery service.
tate) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct.
Executed on January 18, 2018, at Los Angeles, California,
Jennifer H. Kwon
Type or Print Name Sfgneture
PROOF OF SERVICE
9961158001