EUGENE CHOE VS LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORP

Complaint Information

mfls M. M:c{naeiln:y, State Bar No. 162055 ogletreedeakins.com . Lauren M. Cooper, State Bar No. 254580lauren.cooper@ogletreedeakins.com N OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART,P.C. SAN MATEO COU Steuart Tower, Suite 1300 FEB 14 2013 One Market Plaza

San Francisco, CA 94105 eV Telephone: 415.442.4810 § Facsimile: 415.442.4870 §

Attorneys for Defendant

LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

EUGENE CHOE, Case No. CIV 519403

Plaintiff,

DEFENDANT LIFE TECHNOLOGIES

Vvs. , CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO

COMPLAINT

LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Action Filed: January 24, 2013

Defendant.

Y FAX

Case No. CIV 519403

Case No. CIV 519403 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431 .30(d), defendant Life Technologies Corporation denies each and every alle‘éation contained in piaintifP s unverified complaint, and denies further that plaintiff has been injured in the amount or manner alleged or in any other manner whatsoever; -

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431 .30(d), defendant Life Technologies Corporation denies each and every alle‘éation contained in piaintifP s unverified complaint, and denies further that plaintiff has been injured in the amount or manner alleged or in any other manner whatsoever; -

Additionally, defendant asserts the following affirmative defenses as set forth below:

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE |

1. As a separate and affirmative defense, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2. - Asaseparate and affirmative defense, plaintiff’s complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations, including, but not limited to California Code of Civil Procedure § § 338 and 340 and California Government Code § § 12960 and 12965.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE |

3. As a separate and affirmative defense, plaintiff has failed to properly mitigate his damages, if any.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

4, As a separate and affirmative defense, defendant alleges that, to the extent plaintiff’s alleged disability was not accommodated, plaintiff’s alleged disability could not have been |

accommodated without imposing an undue hardship upon defendant.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

5. As a separate and affirmative defense, certain of plaintiff’s causes of action are barred by his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

6. As a separate and affirmative defense, plaintiff’s exclusive remedy for any alleged damages is governed by the California Workers’ Compensation Act, Labor Code §§ 3200 et seq.. i 1

1 Case No. CIV 519403

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

7. As a separate affirmative defense, plaintiff’s claims are barred, or in the alternative, plaintiff’s recovery must be limited because plaintiff engaged in conduct which, if known to defendant, would have resulted in termination of plaintiff’s employment.

WHEREFORE, defendant prays as follows: 1 That plaintiff take nothing by this action;

2 That judgment be entered in favor of defendant; 3. For costs of suit and for attorneys’ fees incurred; and 4

For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DATED: February 14, 2013 - OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & ' STEWART, P.C.

By: Jflm_@%_ Thomas M. Mclnemey

Lauren M. Cooper

Attorneys for Defendant

LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

14328991.1 (OGLETREE)

2 Case No. CIV 519403