Answer to Verified Complaint

							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

STEIN & ASSOCIATES Michael D. Stein (SBN 132540) 5235 West Allen Street Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (213) 555-0994 Fax: (213) 555-0995 Attorneys for Defendant B-2 VIDEO INCORPORATED

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

SCOTT ALAN WOODWARD, Plaintiff, vs.

B-2 VIDEO INCORPORATED, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive, Defendants.

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

Case No.: ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO JUDGE JOHN SMITH Department 27 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT B-2 VIDEO INCORPORATED TO PLAINTIFF SCOTT ALAN WOODWARD’S COMPLAINT COMPLAINT FILED: January 9, 2004 TRIAL DATE: None

Defendant B-2 Video Incorporated (“B-2”), appearing for itself and no others, hereby answers (“Answer”) the complaint (“Complaint”) of plaintiff Scott Alan Woodward (“Plaintiff”) and admits, denies and alleges as follows:
1
__________________ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

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

1. the Complaint. 2.

Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 1 of

Answering paragraph 2 of the Complaint, Defendant

admits the allegations in paragraph 2 except for the allegation that Defendant “participated in and/or ratified and approved the conduct of the other Defendants, and each of them” which allegation Defendant generally and specifically denies. 3. Defendant generally and specifically denies each

and every allegation in paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 4. Answering paragraph 4 of the Complaint, Defendant

admits that Plaintiff was originally hired by Defendant as an administrative assistant and that he was a senior sales associate at the time his employment with Defendant was terminated. Except

as so expressly admitted, Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every remaining allegation in paragraph 4 of the Complaint. 5. Answering paragraph 5 of the Complaint, Defendant

incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 4 of this Answer. 6. Defendant generally and specifically denies each

and every allegation in paragraph 6 of the Complaint. /// /// /// /// /// /// ///
2
__________________ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

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 accordingly. /// /// /// /// /// /// 3. 2. 1.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Cause of Action) Neither the complaint, nor any purported cause of

action alleged therein, states facts sufficient to state a cause of action against Defendant. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Punitive Damages) The Complaint, and each purported cause of action

alleged therein, fails to allege facts sufficient to allow the recovery of punitive or exemplary damages from Defendant. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Mitigation of Damages) Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages, if

any, and has failed to exercise due diligence in an effort to mitigate his damages, and to the extent of such failure to mitigate, any damages awarded to Plaintiff should be reduced

3

__________________ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 4.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Comparative Negligence) Plaintiff’s conduct concerning the matters alleged

in the Complaint constitutes carelessness, negligence, misconduct, and/or bad faith, or Plaintiff was otherwise at fault, and the

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 caused by Defendant, but resulted from the conduct of Plaintiff or others who were either not employed by Defendant or acted outside the course and scope of employment, without the consent or ratification of Defendant.
4
__________________ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

resulting injuries, if any, sustained by Plaintiff were proximately caused and contributed to, in whole or in part, by the conduct of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s recovery, if any, should thereby be reduced in proportion to this fault. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) 5. Any of the conduct of Defendant or its agents which

is alleged to be unlawful was taken as a result of conduct by Plaintiff. Plaintiff is thus estopped to assert any cause of

action against Defendant. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Any Damage is the Result of Acts of Others) 6. While Defendant denies that Plaintiff has been

damaged in any way, if it should be determined that Plaintiff has been damaged, then Defendant alleges that such damage was not

1 2 3 4 5 7.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) The Complaint, and each purported cause of action

alleged therein, is barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations set forth in California Code of Civil

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
5
__________________ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Procedure §§ 337-340 and California Government Code §§ 12960 and 12965. WHEREFORE, defendant B-2 Video Incorporated prays that judgment against Plaintiff as follows: 1. Complaint; 2. 3. That the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice; For costs of suit incurred herein, including That Plaintiff take nothing by virtue of his

reasonable attorneys’ fees; and 4. For such other and further relief as the Court

deems just and proper. DATED: March 31, 2004 STEIN & ASSOCIATES

By: _________________________________ Michael D. Stein Attorneys for Defendant B-2 VIDEO INCORPORATED

1 2 3 4 5 on B-2’s behalf. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2.

VERIFICATION PETER L. ORNELLAS declares: 1. I am the Vice-President of Operations of B-2 Video

Incorporated (“B-2”) and am authorized to make this Verification

I have read the foregoing “ANSWER OF DEFENDANT B-2

VIDEO INCORPORATED TO PLAINTIFF SCOTT ALAN WOODWARD’S COMPLAINT” (“the Answer”) and know its contents. I am informed and believe

that the matters set forth in the Answer are true and accurate, and on that ground I allege, to the best of my knowledge and information, that the matters therein stated are true and accurate.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Verification was executed on March 31, 2004 at Los Angeles, California.

________________________________ Peter L. Ornellas

6

__________________ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

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 ___ BY MAIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

PROOF OF SERVICE ) ) )

ss:

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to the within action. My business address is 5235 West Allen Street Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90067. On March 31, 2004, I served the foregoing documents described as ANSWER OF DEFENDANT B-2 VIDEO INCORPORATED TO PLAINTIFF SCOTT ALAN WOODWARD’S COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Peter Crawford, Esq. 27255 Van Buren Road Torrance, California

93627

I deposited such envelope into the Firm’s office mail at Los Angeles, California. I am readily familiar with the Firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, in the ordinary course of business, the mail is affixed with postage thereon fully prepaid and deposited with the U.S. Postal Service in Los Angeles, California on the same day. I am aware that on motion of a party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or the postage meter date is more than one (1) day after the date of deposit for mailing in this affidavit. ___ BY PERSONAL SERVICE

I hand delivered such envelope to the offices of the addressee(s) listed above. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed March 31, 2004 at Los Angeles, California.

_____________________________ Harriet Evans
7
__________________ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT