On 03/06/2018 REMOVED TO FEDERAL COURT/ Conti filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against L'Oreal USA. This case was filed in Fresno County Superior Courts, Bf Sisk Courthouse located in Fresno, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.. The case status is Other - Transferred.
*******0816
03/06/2018
Other - Transferred
Fresno County Superior Courts
Bf Sisk Courthouse
Fresno, California
Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.
Mora, Justine
Conti, Angela
L'Oreal USA S/D Inc.
Blumenthal, Norman B
Fitzgerald, Irene V.
Rafoth, Angela J
Minute Order Attachment; Comment: From Chambers re: Case Management Conference
Minute Order Attachment; Comment: re: Case Management Conference
Case Management Statement
Minute Order Attachment; Comment: From Chambers re: Case Management Conference
Case Management Statement; Comment: Joint. Hearing: 07/10/2018
Answer/Response/Denial/Demurrer - First Appearance Fee; Comment: Defendant L'Oreal USA S/D, Inc.'s Answer to First Amended Class Action Complaint
POS- Summons- 4-13-18.pdf; Comment: L'Oreal USA S/D, Inc.
Summons.pdf; Summons issued and filed
p-Complaint-Final.pdf; Comment: Class Action Complaint
Answer/Response/Denial/Demurrer - No Fee; Comment: Defendant L'Oreal USA S/D, Inc.'s Answer to Second Amended Class Action Complaint
p-pos-SAC.pdf
p-SAC-For Filing.pdf; Comment: Second Amended Class Action Complaint
Stipulation and Order filed; Judicial Officer: Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.; Comment: STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR LEAVE FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Stip re SAC.pdf; Comment: Order signed forwarded to clerks office for further processing Forwarded to Dept: 501 Order for: Leave to File Second Amended Complaint
p-FAC.pdf; Comment: First Amended Complaint
Notice of Hearing; Comment: Notice of Case Management Conference and Assignment of Judge for all purposes
Summons.pdf; Comment: Summons
Civil Cover Sheet.pdf; Comment: Civil Case Cover Sheet
Case Management Conference- Judicial Officer: Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.; Hearing Time: 3:00 PM; Cancel Reason: Removed to Federal Court
Notice Filed- Notice; Comment: Notice to Plaintiff of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court
Notice of Removal of Action- Notice of Removal of Action
Answer Filed- Answer/Response/Denial/Demurrer - No Fee; Comment: Defendant L'Oreal USA S/D, Inc.'s Answer to Second Amended Class Action Complaint
Proof of Service- p-pos-SAC.pdf
Amended Document Filed- p-SAC-For Filing.pdf; Comment: Second Amended Class Action Complaint
Stipulation and Order filed- Stipulation and Order filed; Judicial Officer: Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.; Comment: STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR LEAVE FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Chambers Work- Pre- Judicial Officer: Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.; Hearing Time: 5:30 PM; Result: Heard
Order Received for Signature- Stip re SAC.pdf; Comment: Order signed forwarded to clerks office for further processing Forwarded to Dept: 501 Order for: Leave to File Second Amended Complaint
Minute Order Attachment- Minute Order Attachment; Comment: attached certificate of mailing
Financial info for L'Oreal USA S/D Inc.: EFile Payment Receipt # WEB-2019-09106 L'Oreal USA S/D Inc. $20.00
Financial info for L'Oreal USA S/D Inc.: Transaction Assessment $20.00
Financial info for L'Oreal USA S/D Inc.: EFile Payment Receipt # WEB-2018-35122 L'Oreal USA S/D Inc. $1435.00
Financial info for L'Oreal USA S/D Inc.: Transaction Assessment $1435.00
Financial: L'Oreal USA S/D Inc.; Total Financial Assessment $1,455.00; Total Payments and Credits $1,455.00
Financial info for Conti, Angela: EFile Payment Receipt # WEB-2019-28024 Conti, Angela $20.00
Financial info for Conti, Angela: Transaction Assessment $20.00
Financial info for Conti, Angela: EFile Payment Receipt # WEB-2018-17466 Conti, Angela $1435.00
Financial info for Conti, Angela: Transaction Assessment $1435.00
Financial: Conti, Angela; Total Financial Assessment $1,455.00; Total Payments and Credits $1,455.00
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.
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
Plaintiffs, ACTION COMPLAINT 15 V. ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO JUDGE
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.
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
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
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.”
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(PAGA - Failure To Identify)
L’OREAL alleges that Plaintiffs have failed to adequately identify any other allegedly “aggrieved employees,” as required by the PAGA.
(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.
(PAGA - Determination Of Penalties)
L’OREAL alleges that any penalties awarded against it pursuant to the PAGA would be unjust, arbitrary, oppressive or confiscatory.
(PAGA - No Statutory Penalties)
L’OREAL alleges that Plaintiffs cannot recover statutory penalties on behalf of other “aggrieved employees” pursuant to the PAGA.
(PAGA = Constitutionality) L’OREAL alleges that the imposition of civil penalties pursuant to the PAGA is
unconstitutional under the California and United States constitutions.
(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).
(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.
(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).
(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.
{(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.
(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.
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.
(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.
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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 333 Bush Spamt
1 var San Francisco Ch pdiga
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,
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
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases