This case was last updated from Fresno County Superior Courts on 03/08/2018 at 19:54:44 (UTC).

XXXXX

Case Summary

On 10/22/2014 XXXXX was filed as a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit. This case was filed in Fresno County Superior Courts, Bf Sisk Courthouse located in Fresno, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Ikeda, Dale, Snauffer, Mark and Culver Kapetan, Kristi. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3162

  • Filing Date:

    10/22/2014

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Fresno County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Bf Sisk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Fresno, California

Judge Details

Judges

Ikeda, Dale

Snauffer, Mark

Culver Kapetan, Kristi

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Chapa, Adrian Cerda

Defendants

Signature Equipovision LLC

Ruelas, Juan Gerardo

Harrell, Rodger

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Smith, William J.

Smith Johnson, Inc. 5588 N. Palm Ave

Fresno, CA 93704

Fox, Parnell

Defendant Attorneys

Eddings, Ryan L.

Crass, Steven M

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service

Proof of Service

Declaration Filed

Declaration; Comment: Declaration of S. Crass In support of summary judgment

Notice Filed

Notice Filed; Comment: Appendix of Evidence iso Defs' Motion for Summary Adjudication

Statement filed

Separate Statement; Comment: Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts iso Defs' Motion for Summary Adjudication

Opposition to Request for Pre-Trial Discovery filed

Opposition

Request for Pre-Trial Discovery filed

Request

Substitution of Attorney Filed

Substitution of Attorney; Comment: Substitution of Attorney - Signature Equipovision, LLC

Opposition filed

Opposition; Comment: Opposition to Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial filed

Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial filed; Judicial Officer: Culver Kapetan, Kristi; Comment: Trial dates vacated. CMC set for 3/21/16 @ 11 am in Room 104 signed by Judge Culver Kapetan

Request for Dismissal Received - Pending Review

Request for Dismissal; Comment: Request for Dismissal with Prejudice

Proof of Service

Proof of Service; Comment: Re: motion for Summary Judgment and supporting documents- Fox

Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Memorandum of Points & Authorities; Comment: In support of summary judgment

Notice of Motion

Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication; Comment: Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Adjudication

Request for Pre-Trial Discovery filed

Request

Order filed

Civil Document; Judicial Officer: Culver Kapetan, Kristi; Comment: Order on Pretrial Discovery Conference

Answer Filed

Answer/Response/Denial/Demurrer - No Fee; Comment: Answer to First Amended Complaint

Case Management Statement Filed

Notice

Order Received for Signature

Motion (No Fee); Comment: Order submitted pending motion-amend hearing on 4/20/2016

26 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/17/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Request for Dismissal filed; Judgment Type: Request for Dismissal filed; Party Names: Chapa, Adrian Cerda; Signature Equipovision LLC; Ruelas, Juan Gerardo; Harrell, Rodger; Culver Kapetan, Kristi; Comment: with prejudice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2017
  • Jury Trial- Judicial Officer: Snauffer, Mark; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Dismissed; Comment: Requested by Plaintiff with an estimated time of 5-10 days

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2017
  • Trial Readiness- Judicial Officer: Snauffer, Mark; Hearing Time: 9:30 AM; Cancel Reason: Dismissed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2017
  • Mandatory Settlement Conference- Hearing Time: 1:30 PM; Cancel Reason: Dismissed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2017
  • Summary Judgment- Judicial Officer: Culver Kapetan, Kristi; Hearing Time: 3:27 PM; Cancel Reason: Dismissed; Comment: Steve Crass

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2017
  • Summary Judgment- Judicial Officer: Culver Kapetan, Kristi; Hearing Time: 3:27 PM; Cancel Reason: Dismissed; Comment: Jason Borchers

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • Request for Dismissal Received - Pending Review- Request for Dismissal; Comment: Request for Dismissal with Prejudice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service- Proof of Service; Comment: Re: Summary Judgment and supporting documents- Littler

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service- Proof of Service; Comment: Re: motion for Summary Judgment and supporting documents- Fox

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service- Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
88 More Docket Entries
  • 02/06/2015
  • Financial info for Signature Equipovision LLC: Counter Payment Receipt # 199326 Signature Equipovision LLC $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2015
  • Financial info for Signature Equipovision LLC: Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2015
  • Financial: Signature Equipovision LLC; Total Financial Assessment $995.00; Total Payments and Credits $995.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2016
  • Financial info for Chapa, Adrian Cerda: EFile Payment Receipt # WEB-2016-09704 Chapa, Adrian Cerda $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2016
  • Financial info for Chapa, Adrian Cerda: Transaction Assessment $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2015
  • Financial info for Chapa, Adrian Cerda: Counter Payment Receipt # 199518 Chapa, Adrian Cerda $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2015
  • Financial info for Chapa, Adrian Cerda: Transaction Assessment $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2014
  • Financial info for Chapa, Adrian Cerda: Counter Payment Receipt # 195760 Chapa, Adrian Cerda $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2014
  • Financial info for Chapa, Adrian Cerda: Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2014
  • Financial: Chapa, Adrian Cerda; Total Financial Assessment $645.00; Total Payments and Credits $645.00

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

E-FILED

Steven M. Crass #209873 5/31/2016 Diane E. Coderniz #279458 FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT BAKER MANOCK & JENSEN, PC By: C. Cogburn, Deputy

5260 North Palm Avenue, Fourth Floor Fresno, California 93704

Telephone: 559.432.5400

Facsimile: 559.432.5620

Attorneys for Defendants, SIGNATURE EQUIPOVISION, LLC; JUAN GERARDO RUELAS:; and RODGER HARRELL

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO

ADRIAN CERDA CHAPA, CASE NO. 14CECG03162 Plaintiff, ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS, SIGNATURE EQUIPOVISION, LLC, V. JUAN GERARDO, AND RODGER

HARRELL TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

SIGNATURE EQUIPOVISION, LLC; JUAN | AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR BREACH

GERARDO RUELAS, individually, OF CONTRACT, WRONGFUL RODGER HARRELL, individually, and TERMINATION, DEFAMATION, DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, NEGLIGENT Defendants. INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL

DISTRESS, INVASION OF PRIVACY

Assigned for All Purposes to the Hon. Kristi Culver Kapetan

Action Filed: October 22, 2014 Trial Date: Not Yet Assigned

Pursuant to Sections 431.10, ef seq., of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant SIGNATURE EQUIPOVISION, LLC, JUAN GERARDO, RODGER HARRELL ("Defendants") answer the First Amended Complaint of Plaintift ADRIAN CERDA CHAPA ("Plaintiff"). Defendants deny, both generally and specifically, each and every allegation of the

First Amended Complaint ("FAC") and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever.

1822727v1 / 19027.0001

AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSES

Defendants plead the following separate defenses. Defendants reserve the right to assert additional affirmative and/or other defenses that discovery indicates are proper.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Failure to State a Claim) 1. As a separate and first affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC, and to the purported causes of action set forth therein, Defendants allege that the FAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Accord and Satisfaction) 2. As a separate and second affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that an accord and satisfaction was made between Plaintiff and Defendants.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(After Acquired Evidence)

3. As a separate and third affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC, and to the purported causes of action set forth therein, Defendants allege that to the extent that Defendants have discovered and/or will discover, since the termination of Plaintiff’s employment, additional evidence supporting that termination, including but not limited to Plaintiff’s unlawful conduct and/or breach of Plaintiff’s duty of loyalty, Plaintiff is barred from recovering damages and/or any other remedy by reason of such after-acquired evidence.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(All Obligations Performed) 4, As a separate and fourth affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Defendants have fully and/or

substantially performed any and all obligations it may have had to Plaintiff.

1822727v1/19027.0001

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Apportionment of Fault)

5. As a separate and fifth affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiff's damages, if any, were caused by the negligence and/or acts or omissions of parties other than the Defendants, whether or not parties to this action. By reason thereof, Plaintiff's damages, if any, as against the Defendants, must be reduced by the proportion of fault attributable to such other parties, and to the extent that this is necessary, Defendants may be entitled to partial indemnity from others on a comparative fault basis.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(At-Will Employment)

6. As a separate and sixth affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC, and to the purported causes of action set forth therein, Defendants alleges that Plaintiff was an at-will employee pursuant to California Labor Code Section 2922, and thus, the Defendants could terminate Plaintiff's employment at-will.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Attorneys Fees Barred)

7. As a separate and seventh affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC, and to the purported causes of action set forth therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiff's claim for attorneys’ fees is barred by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Comparative Fault)

8. As a separate and eighth affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiff's damages, if any, were caused by the primary negligence and/or acquiescence in the acts and omissions allegedPlaintiff, and Plaintiff's agents, employees, representatives, relatives, heirs, assigns, attorneys, and/or any others acting on Plaintiff's behalf. By reason thereof, Plaintiff is not

entitled to damages or any other relief whatsoever as against Defendants. 1822727v1 /19027.0001

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Compliance with the Law) 9. As a separate and ninth affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that the actions taken by Defendants were in full compliance with the law.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Consent) 10. As a separate and tenth affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC, and to the purported causes of action set forth therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of consent.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Estoppel)

11. As a separate and eleventh affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiff is barred in whole or in part from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forthdoctrine of estoppel.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Failure to Exercise Ordinary Care or Diligence)

12. As a separate and twelfth affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC, and to the purported causes of action set forth therein, Defendants allege that the FAC and each cause of action alleged therein is barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff failed to use ordinary care and diligence during the time he was employed by Defendants, as required by California Labor Code Section 2854.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies) 13. As aseparate and thirteenth affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiff's claims are barred

because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. 1822727v1 / 19027.0001

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Failure to Mitigate) 14, As a separate and fourteenth affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiff's claims, if any, are barred for his failure, and/or the failure of the persons and/or entities acting on his behalf, to mitigate any purported damages.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Fault of Others)

15. As a separate and fifteenth affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC, and to the purported causes of action set forth therein, Defendants allege that if Plaintiff sustained any injury, damage or loss, which Defendants continue to deny, said injury, damage or loss has been brought about and caused wholly and solely by reason of the acts, breaches, negligence and conduct of Plaintiff, and/or others, and without any breach, negligence or other unlawful conduct of Defendants, and as a result and consequence thereof, Plaintiff is barred from relief or recovery herein against Defendants.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Good Faith / Business Necessity)

16. As a separate and sixteenth affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC, and to the purported causes of action set forth therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiff is barred from recovery because all acts of Defendants affecting the terms and/or conditions of Plaintiff's employment were done in good faith and motivated by legitimate, non-retaliatory, and non- discriminatory reasons and/or as a result of business necessity.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Individual Cannot Be Held Liable) 17. As a separate and seventeenth affirmative defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants note that to the extent Plaintiff's claims rely on alleged retaliatory conduct, Plaintiff's claims are barred against Defendants JUAN GERARDO

RUELAS and RODGER HARRELL because non-employer individuals may not be held 1822727v1 / 19027.000!

RUELAS and RODGER HARRELL because non-employer individuals may not be held 1822727v1 / 19027.000! personally liable for their role in retaliation. (See Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1158.)

personally liable for their role in retaliation. (See Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1158.)

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Intentional and Willful Acts of Plaintiff)

18. As a separate and eighteenth affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC, and to the purported causes of action set forth therein, Defendants allege that the FAC and each cause of action alleged therein is barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that the alleged losses resulted from intentional or willful acts of Plaintiff.

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Justification/Privilege)

19. As a separate and nineteenth affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC, and to the purported causes of action set forth therein, Defendants allege that the FAC and each cause of action alleged therein is barred, in whole or in part, because Defendants' actions were undertaken in good faith and for good cause, with the absence of any malicious intent to injure Plaintiff. Defendants' actions constitute lawful, proper, and justified means to further the sole purpose of Defendants' lawful business activities. Furthermore, all decisions made with respect to Plaintiff's employment were reasonably based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons and were made for proper business-related reasons which were neither arbitrary nor capricious nor unlawful. By reason thereof, Plaintiff is barred in whole or in part from recovery on any of the alleged causes of action.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Laches)

20. As a separate and twentieth affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiff is barred in whole or in part from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forthdoctrine of

laches.

1822727v1 / 19027.0001

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Lack of Compliance)

21. As a separate and twenty-first affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC, and to the purported causes of action set forth therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiff's FAC 1s barred because he failed to substantially comply with all the directions of Defendants concerning the service in which they were engaged, as required by California Labor Code section 2856.

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Lack of Standing)

22. As aseparate and twenty-second affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiff lacks standing to prosecute the purported claims set forth in the FAC.

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Mistake) 23. As atwenty-third separate and affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiff is barred from recovering on the claimsgrounds of mistake.

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(No Contractual Relationship)

24, As a separate and twenty-fourth affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that no contractual relationship exists between Plaintiff and Defendants and, therefore, Plaintiff's claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against said Defendants, insofar as Plaintitf purports to assert those claims against said Defendants.

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(No Injury or Damage) 25. As a separate and twenty-fifth affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC and

cach purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiff has not been 1822727v1 / 19027.0001

cach purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiff has not been 1822727v1 / 19027.0001 injured or damaged as a proximate result of any act or omission for which Defendants are responsible.

injured or damaged as a proximate result of any act or omission for which Defendants are responsible.

TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(No Malicious Intent)

26. As a separate and twenty-sixth affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Defendants did not act with malicious intent to deprive any person of any Constitutional right or to cause any other injury and therefore are not liable.

TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Offset)

27. As aseparate and twenty-seventh affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that by virtue of the acts of the Plaintiff and/or the persons and/or the entities acting on Plaintiff's behalf, the Defendants have been damaged in an amount equal to or greater than the amount of damages, if any, to which Plaintiff might be entitled. As a result, the Defendants are entitled to an offset against any sums found owing to the Defendants from Plaintiff.

TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Performance Excused)

28. As a separate and twenty-eighth affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Defendants were excused from any performance due from them to Plaintiff under any of the alleged contracts.

TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Privilege) 29. As a separate and twenty-ninth affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that in each act or statement done or made by Defendants, their officers, employees and/or agents, with reference to Plaintiff

were and continue to be made in good faith and are proper assertions of Defendants' legal rights

1822727v1/19027.0001

1822727v1/19027.0001 and obligations and, therefore, were and are privileged under all applicable statutory and common law privileges, including, but not limited to the "manager privilege."

and obligations and, therefore, were and are privileged under all applicable statutory and common law privileges, including, but not limited to the "manager privilege."

THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Proximate Cause — Plaintiff)

30. As a separate and thirtieth affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that the injuries and damages alleged in the FAC by Plaintiff occurred, were proximately caused by and/or were contributed to by Plaintiff's own acts or failures to act and that Plaintiff's recovery, if any, should be reduced by an amount proportionate to the amount by which said acts caused or contributed to said alleged injury or damages.

THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Punitive Damages Barred) 31. As a separate and thirty-first affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiff's alleged claim for punitive damages is barred by the provisions of California Civil Code Sections 3294 and 3295.

THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Punitive Damages Limited)

32. As aseparate and thirty-second affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that if Plaintiff produces clear and convincing evidence against Defendants sufficient to satisfy the requirements for punitive damages under California Civil Code, Section 3294, any punitive damages awarded must be reasonable in terms of the following guideposts set forth by the United States Supreme Court in BMW of North America. Inc. v. Ira Gore. Jr.: (1) the degree of reprehensibility of the Defendants' conduct; (2) the actual harm inflicted on Plaintiff; and (3) the civil or criminal penalties that could

be imposed for comparable misconduct.

1822727v1i /19027.0001

THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Ratification)

33. As aseparate and thirty-third affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that by virtue of the acts of the Plaintiff, and/or the persons and/or entities acting on his behalf, Plaintiff is barred from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forthdoctrine of ratification.

THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Statute of Frauds)

34, As a separate and thirty-fourth affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of frauds.

THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Statute of Limitations)

35. As a separate and thirty-fifth affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that the purported causes of action asserted in the FAC are barred by such statutes of limitation as may be applicable, including, but not limited to, California Code of Civil Procedure sections 338 and 340, and Government Code sections 12940, 19960, and 12965.

THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Truth)

36. As a separate and thirty-sixth affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC and each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that the purported causes of action asserted in the FAC are barred by truth of the alleged statements made.

THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE AND/OR OTHER DEFENSE

(Unclean Hands) 37. As a separate and thirty-seventh affirmative and/or other defense to the FAC and

each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiff is barred in

1822727v1/19027.0001