REMOVED TO FEDERAL COURT/ Conti vs L'Oreal USA

Complaint Information

ANGELA J. RAFOTH, Bar No. 241966

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

333 Bush Street, 34th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: 415.433.1940 E-FILED

Email: ARafoth@littler.com 5/15/2018 2:53 PM

IRENE V. FITZGERALD, Bar No. 266949 FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. By: A. Ramos, Deputy

5200 North Palm Avenue, Suite 302

Fresno, CA 93704.2225

Telephone: 559.244.7500

Email: [fitzgerald@littler.com

Attorneys for Defendant, L’OREAL USA S/D, INC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO

ANGELA CONTI and JUSTINE MORA, Case No. 18CECG00816

13 || individuals, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, DEFENDANT L’OREAL USA S/D, INC.'S

14 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED CLASS

Plaintiffs, ACTION COMPLAINT 15 V. ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO JUDGE

16 JEFFREY HAMILTON

L’OREAL USA §/D, INC., a Corporation; 17 || and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, First Amended Complaint filed: April 9, 2018

Trial Date: TBD 18 Defendant. 9

: Defendant L’OREAL USA S/D, INC. (“L’OREAL”) hereby answers the unverified 20 First Amended Class Action Complaint (“FAC”) filed by Plaintiffs ANGELA CONTI and JUSTINE 21 MORA (“Plaintiffs”) on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated in the above- 22 :

referenced action.

23 GENERAL DENIAL

24 Pursuant to the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2

) 431.30(d), L’OREAL denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in the

26 FAC. Inaddition, L’OREAL denies Plaintiffs have sustained, or will sustain, any loss or damages in 27

the manner or amount alleged, or otherwise, by reason of any act or omission, or any other conduct 28

ITTLER M NPC

LTTLE mjflgflf.? Case No.: 18CECGO0R16 4an F T o.igi 04

LTTLE mjflgflf.? Case No.: 18CECGO0R16 4an F T o.igi 04 LITTLER MENDELSON, P C. 133 Buvh Strael

LITTLER MENDELSON, P C. 133 Buvh Strael

4tk Flaor §on Francipts CA SAI04

AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES

L’OREAL asserts the following affirmative and other defenses, which it designates, collectively, as “affirmative defenses.” L’OREAL’s designation of its defenses as “affirmative” is not intended in any way to alter Plaintiffs’ burden of proof with regard to any element of their causes of action. L’OREAL also expressly denies the existence of any alleged putative class of persons or “aggrieved employees” that Plaintiffs purport to represent in this lawsuit. L’OREAL incorporates (as if fully set forth therein) this express denial each and every time it references “Plaintiffs.”

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(General Denial) L’OREAL alleges that Plaintiffs' FAC, and every alleged cause of action therein, fails

to state a claim sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Statute of Limitations)

L’OREAL alleges that Plaintiffs’ FAC, and every cause of action therein, is barred by the applicable statutes of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure sections 338 and 340(a), Labor Code section 203, Business and Professions Code section 17208, and/or any other applicable statute of limitations.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(PAGA - No Standing)

L’OREAL alleges that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring claims for any civil penalties on behalf of others because they are not an “aggrieved employee” pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA™), Labor Code section 2698 et seq.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(PAGA - Failure To Exhaust)

L’OREAL alleges that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust all internal grievance procedures and administrative remedies and failed to timely provide the Labor Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and Defendant with proper notification of the claims and/or to adequately describe their claims or the “aggrieved employees” on whose behalf they intend to seek penalties, pursuant to the

PAGA.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(PAGA - Failure To Identify)

L’OREAL alleges that Plaintiffs have failed to adequately identify any other allegedly “aggrieved employees,” as required by the PAGA.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(PAGA - Determination Of Penalties) L’OREAL alleges that civil penalties that Plaintiffs seek pursuant to the PAGA cannot be determined on a class-wide or representative basis.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(PAGA - Determination Of Penalties)

L’OREAL alleges that any penalties awarded against it pursuant to the PAGA would be unjust, arbitrary, oppressive or confiscatory.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(PAGA - No Statutory Penalties)

L’OREAL alleges that Plaintiffs cannot recover statutory penalties on behalf of other “aggrieved employees” pursuant to the PAGA.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(PAGA = Constitutionality) L’OREAL alleges that the imposition of civil penalties pursuant to the PAGA is

unconstitutional under the California and United States constitutions.

418 433 1940 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Labor Code §226(a) = No Violation)

L’OREAL alleges that it has provided compliant wage statements because they show all of the categories of information required by Labor Code section 226(a).

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Labor Code §226(e) = No Injury)

L’OREAL alleges that, even assuming arguendo Plaintiffs were not provided with a compliant wage statement, Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any damages or penalties because, pursuant to California Labor Code section 226(e), they did not suffer any injuries as a result.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Labor Code §226(e) — No Intentionality)

L’OREAL alleges that, even assuming arguendo Plaintiffs were not provided with a compliant wage statement, Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any damages or penalties because L’OREAL’s alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code section 226(a) was not a “knowing and intentional” under California Labor Code section 226(e).

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(CCP § 382 - Class Action Requirements)

L’OREAL alleges that this suit may not be properly maintained as a class action because: (a) Plaintiffs have failed to plead and/or cannot establish the necessary procedural elements for class treatment; (b) the number of putative class members is too small to meet the numerosity requirement for a class action; (c) a class action is not an appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims described in the FAC; (d) common issues of facts or law do not predominate and, to the contrary, individual issues predominate; (e) Plaintiffs’ claims are not representative or typical of the claims of the putative class; (f) Plaintiffs are not a proper class representative; (g) the named Plaintiffs and alleged putative class counsel are not adequate representatives for the alleged putative class; and/or (h) Plaintiffs cannot satisfy any of the requirements for class action treatment set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure section 382 or

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. If the Court certifies a class in this case over L’OREAL’s

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. If the Court certifies a class in this case over L’OREAL’s objections, then L’OREAL asserts the additional defenses set forth herein against each and every member of the certified class.

objections, then L’OREAL asserts the additional defenses set forth herein against each and every member of the certified class.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

{(Equitable Defenses) L’OREAL alleges that Plaintiffs’ FAC, and every alleged cause of action therein, is barred in whole or in part to the extent it is subject to the equitable doctrines, of laches, unclean hands, waiver, and estoppel.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Claims Subject To Arbitration)

o 0 ~3 O U B W

10 L’OREAL alleges that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claims alleged in 11 || Plaintiffs’ FAC to the extent that Plaintiffs, and/or some or all of those they purport to represent, are 12 || subject to a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement requiring the arbitration of those

13 || individual’s claims.

14 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

s (No Class Arbitration Claims) 16 L’OREAL alleges that the class and representative allegations of the FAC are barred

17 || because Plaintiffs, and/or some or all of those they purport to represent, and L’OREAL agreed to 18 || submit only individual disputes to arbitration.

19 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Satisfaction of Obligations) 21 L’OREAL alleges that Plaintiffs’ FAC, and every alleged cause of action therein, is 22 || barred because, to the extent L’OREAL owed any duties or obligations to Plaintiffs, such duties or

23 |[ obligations have been fully performed, satisfied or discharged.

24 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

55 (Injury Caused by Plaintiff) 26 L’OREAL alleges that Plaintiffs’ FAC, and every alleged cause of action therein,

27 || cannot be maintained against L’OREAL because any alleged losses or harms sustained by Plaintiffs

28 || resulted from causes other than any act or omission of any L’OREAL.

LITTLER M , ] E ;;aj.".?fkf.?" PC. Case No.: ISCECGO0816 5. 4tk I Sen anu:tul.:.l 108

NINTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(No Equitable Relief)

L’OREAL alleges that Plaintiffs’ FAC, and each and every cause of action alleged therein, is barred to the extent Plaintiffs seek equitable relief because there is an adequate remedy at law.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Voluntary Waiver)

Defendant alleges that, to the extent that Plaintiffs, and/or some or all of the employees Plaintiffs purport to represent, did not take a meal period or rest break, it was because he/she: (1) failed to take breaks that were provided to him/her in compliance with California law; (2) chose not to take breaks that were authorized and permitted; or (3) waived his/her right to meal periods and/or rest breaks.

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Bona Fide Dispute)

Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to state a claim for penalties under the California Labor Code in that (1) there was a bona fide, good faith dispute as to Defendant’s obligations under any applicable Labor Code provisions, including, without limitation, Labor Code section 203, and (2) Defendant did not willfully violate Labor Code section 203.

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Offset To Injury)

L’OREAL alleges that any recovery by Plaintiffs under any of the causes of action alleged in the FAC must be offset by any benefits and/or other monies they, and those they seek to represent, have received from L’OREAL.

_— T

LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 333 Bush Spamt

1 var San Francisco Ch pdiga

415 433 1949 ADDITIONAL AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES

L’OREAL presently has insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to whether there may be additional, as yet unstated, defenses and reserves the right to assert

additional defenses or affirmative defenses in the event discovery indicates such defenses are

appropriate,

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, L’OREAL prays for relief as follows: 1. That Plaintiffs take nothing and that the FAC be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice;

2, That judgment be entered in L’OREAL’s favor; 3. That L’OREAL be awarded such other and further relief as the Court deems

just and proper.

Dated: May l‘_’{ , 2018

ANGELA J. RAFOTH IRENE V. FITZGERALD LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. At}ane&s for Defendant

Firmwide: 154390893.2 054993.1110