This case was last updated from San Mateo County Superior Courts on 07/20/2018 at 10:58:13 (UTC).

MARIA E. SANCHEZ VS EYAD A. YASIN,ETAL

Case Summary

On 11/06/2012 MARIA E SANCHEZ filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against EYAD A YASIN,ETAL. This case was filed in San Mateo County Superior Courts, Southern Branch Hall Of Justice And Records located in San Mateo, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Novak, Lisa A, Buchwald, Gerald J, Buchwald, Gerald J. and Novak, Lisa A.. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *****7908

  • Filing Date:

    11/06/2012

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    San Mateo County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Southern Branch Hall Of Justice And Records

  • County, State:

    San Mateo, California

Judge Details

Judges

Novak, Lisa A

Buchwald, Gerald J

Buchwald, Gerald J.

Novak, Lisa A.

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

MARIA E SANCHEZ

SANCHEZ, MARIA E

Defendants

EYAD A YASIN

AYMAN SULAIMAN

LA PRIMERA NUTRICION, INC.

CALIDAD MARKET

YASIN, EYAD A

SULAIMAN, AYMAN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

KLETTER, CARY S

Defendant Attorneys

POST, JOHN C

SMITH, LESLIE R

 

Court Documents

Document.

FILING (3) Comment FILED: NOTICE OF HEARING: OSC FOR DISMISSAL AFTER COURT'S RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT FILED.

Proof of Service by MAIL of.

PROOF OF SERVICE (6) Comment PSN3: PROOF OF SERVICE (BY MAIL) OF PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL ETC. SERVED ON SEE LIST WITH A SERVICE DATE OF 09/12/13 FILED.

Document.

FILING (2) Comment FILED: SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPOT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FILED.

Answer / Response / Denial - Unlimited.

ANSWER (5) Comment ANS: (S) ANSWER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF SANCHEZ FILED BY AYMAN SULAIMAN REPRESENTED BY LESLIE R SMITH

Answer / Response / Denial - Unlimited.

ANSWER (4) Comment ANS: (S) ANSWER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF SANCHEZ FILED BY EYAD A YASIN CALIDAD MARKET, LA PRIMERA NUTRICION, INC., REPRESENTED BY JOHN C POST

Substitution of Attorney as to.

ATTORNEY Comment SAT: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY FILED. FORMER ATTORNEY LESLIE R SMITH REMOVED AS TO CALIDAD MARKET AND REPLACED WITH ATTORNEY JOHN C POST.

Proof of Service of Complaint/Petition.

PROOF OF SERVICE (2) Comment PS: PROOF OF SERVICE (PERSONAL) OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT OF SANCHEZ SERVED ON AYMAN SULAIMAN WITH SERVICE DATE OF 12/03/12.

Proof of Service of Complaint/Petition.

PROOF OF SERVICE Comment PSBC: PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT OF SANCHEZ SERVED ON CALIDAD MARKET BY SERVING AYMAN SULAIMAN AGENT FOR SERVICE WITH SERVICE DATE OF 12/03/12

Summons Issued / Filed.

SUMMONS Comment S30IF: 30 DAY SUMMONS ISSUED AND FILED.

Stipulation and Order to ADR.

ORDER (2) Comment SOADR: STIP AND ORDER TO ADR SIGNED BY STEVEN L. DYLINA ON 09/17/13

Order received.

PROPOSED ORDER Comment POR: PROPOSED ORDER RECEIVED.

Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed.

MEMO Comment MPA: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FILED BY MARIA E SANCHEZ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

Conversion Action.

NOTICE Comment PNTWO: PRINT COMBINED MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND JURY TRIAL OR COURT TRIAL NOTICE

Order.

ORDER Comment O: ORDER REGARDING AMENDING THE COMPLAINT SIGNED BY JS ON 04/24/13, FILED.

Proof of Service by MAIL of.

PROOF OF SERVICE (4) Comment PSMN: PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL OF STIP/PROPOSED ORD RE AMENDING THE COMPLAINT SERVED ON LA PRIMERA NUTRICION INC., CALIDAD MARKET, AYMAN SULAIMAN FILED. DATE OF MAILING 04/18/13.

Case Management Statement.

STATEMENT (3) Comment CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY EYAD A YASIN LA PRIMERA NUTRICION, INC., CALIDAD MARKET.

Case Management Statement.

STATEMENT Comment CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY AYMAN SULAIMAN.

Case Management Statement.

STATEMENT (2) Comment CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY MARIA E SANCHEZ.

23 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/08/2013
  • Disposition: Judgment; Judgment Type; Dispositioned; Party; Name: CALIDAD MARKET; Comment: 0001 COMPLAINT; Party; Name: LA PRIMERA NUTRICION INC.; Comment: 0001 COMPLAINT; Party; Name: SULAIMAN, AYMAN; Comment: 0001 COMPLAINT; Party; Name: YASIN, EYAD A; Comment: 0001 COMPLAINT; Party; Name: SANCHEZ, MARIA E; Comment: 0001 COMPLAINT.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2014
  • Conversion Hearing. Additional Info: Comment OSC RE: DISMISSAL HEARING AS TO DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION AFTER NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL SETTLEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2014
  • Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal. Additional Info: Hearing Time 9:00 AM Cancel Reason Vacated Comment Dept: 7 OSC RE: DISMISSAL HEARING AS TO DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION AFTER NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL SETTLEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2014
  • Conversion Minute. Additional Info: Comment HV: HEARING VACATED. REASON: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE FILED 10/8/13

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2014
  • Conversion Hearing. Additional Info: Comment JURY TRIAL. TIME ESTIMATE: 5 DAYS 00:00 HOURS.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2014
  • Jury Trial. Additional Info: Hearing Time 09:00 AM Cancel Reason Vacated Comment Dept: PJ JURY TRIAL. TIME ESTIMATE: 5 DAYS 00:00 HOURS.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2014
  • View Court Documents
  • Request for Dismissal of - WITH prejudice in its entirety. Additional Info: DISMISSAL Comment REQDEA: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FILED AND ENTERED.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2013
  • Conversion Hearing. Additional Info: Comment MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2013
  • Settlement Conference. Additional Info: Hearing Time 01:30 PM Cancel Reason Vacated Comment Dept: 7 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2013
  • View Court Documents
  • Document. Additional Info: FILING (3) Comment FILED: NOTICE OF HEARING: OSC FOR DISMISSAL AFTER COURT'S RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT FILED.

    Read MoreRead Less
96 More Docket Entries
  • 05/30/2013
  • Financial: YASIN, EYAD A; Total Financial Assessment $435.00; Total Payments and Credits $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2013
  • Financial info for SANCHEZ, MARIA E : Case Payment Receipt # 201309120563 SANCHEZ, MARIA E $30.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2013
  • Financial info for SANCHEZ, MARIA E : Transaction Assessment $30.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2013
  • Financial info for SANCHEZ, MARIA E : Case Payment Receipt # 201309120561 SANCHEZ, MARIA E $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2013
  • Financial info for SANCHEZ, MARIA E : Transaction Assessment $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2013
  • Financial info for SANCHEZ, MARIA E : Case Payment Receipt # 201304250258 SANCHEZ, MARIA E $20.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2013
  • Financial info for SANCHEZ, MARIA E : Transaction Assessment $20.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2012
  • Financial info for SANCHEZ, MARIA E : Case Payment Receipt # 201211060943 SANCHEZ, MARIA E $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2012
  • Financial info for SANCHEZ, MARIA E : Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2012
  • Financial: SANCHEZ, MARIA E; Total Financial Assessment $545.00; Total Payments and Credits $545.00

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

JOHN C. POST, Bar No. 233236

POST LEGAL GROUP

5642 Cabot Drive '\/flo

Oakland, CA 94611

Telephone: 510.922.1365 \/&\ F I L ED FaxNo.: 510.2253811 \ SAN MATEO COUNTY

Email: johnpost@postlegalgroup.com

Attorneys for Defendant LA PRIMERA NUTRICION, CALIDAD MARKET, AND EYAD YASIN

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

MARIA SANCHEZ, Case No. CIV 517908 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED

V. ~ COMPLAINT

EYAD A. YASIN; AYMAN SULAIMAN; LA PRIMERA NUTRICION, INC.; CALIDAD MARKET; and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive,

Defendant.

Case No. CIV 517908

Case No. CIV 517908 / Defendants EYAD YASIN, CALIDAD MARKET, and LA PRIMERA

/ Defendants EYAD YASIN, CALIDAD MARKET, and LA PRIMERA

NUTRICION, INC. (“DEF ENDANTS”), on behalf of themselves and no other Defendants, hereby answer the unverified First Amended Complaint of Plaintiff Maria Sanchez (“PLAINTIFF”), as follows:

GENERAL DENIAL

Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, DEFENDANTS generally deny each and every allegation contained in PLAINTIFF’S Complaint and further deny that PLAINTIFF is entitled to equitable or injunctive relief, compensatory damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees, prejudgment interest, costs of suit, or any other relief of any kind whatsoever.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

By way of separate, additional, or affirmative defenses to the COMPLAINT and each

claim therein, and without conceding that DEFENDANTS bear the burden of proof or the burden of

persuasion as to any of these issues, DEFENDANTS allege as follows:

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a first, separate, and affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT and each purported cause of action therein, DEFENDANTS allege that the COMPLAINT and each purported cause of action therein, fails in whole or in part to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against DEFENDANTS.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a second, separate and affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT and each purported cause of action therein, DEFENDANTS allege that the COMPLAINT and each purported cause of action alleged therein is barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations, including without limitation section 12960(d) of the Government Code; sections 337(1), 338(a), 338.1, 339(1), 340(a), and 340(b) of the California Code of Civil Procedure; section 203 of the

California Labor Code; and section 17208 of the California Business and Professions Code.

1. Case No. CIV 517908

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a third separate and affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT and each purported cause of action therein, DEFENDANTS allege, based upon the belief that further investigation and discovery will reveal facts supporting such defense, and, on that basis alleges, that PLAINTIFF has failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate her alleged damages.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a fourth separate and affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT and each purported cause of action therein, DEFENDANTS allege that all pay obligations to Plaintiff has been met as Plaintiff was properly classified as exempt under the executive exemption contained in Section 1(A)(1) of the Wage Order at 8 Cal. Code Regs. Section 11070.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a fifth separate and affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT and each purported cause of action therein, DEFENDANTS allege that PLAINTIFF has waived the right, if any, to pursue the COMPLAINT, and each of its causes of action, by reason of PLAINTIFF’S own actions and course of conduct.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a sixth separate and affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT and each purported cause of action therein, DEFENDANTS allege that PLAINTIFF is estopped from pursuing this I COMPLAINT, and each of its causes of action, by reason of PLAINTIFF’S own actions and course of conduct.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a seventh separate and affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT and each purported cause of action therein, DEFENDANTS allege that PLAINTIFF’.S claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a eighth separate and affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT and each purported cause of action therein, DEFENDANTS allege that PLAINTIFF’S claims are barred, in whole or in

part, by the equitable doctrine of estoppel. 2. Case No. CIV 517908

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a ninth separate and affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT and each purported cause of action therein, DEFENDANTS allege that PLAINTIFF’S claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine of unclean hands.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a tenth separate and affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT and each purported cause of action therein, DEFENDANTS allege that PLAINTIFF’S claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the after-acquired evidence doctrine.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As an eleventh separate and distinct affirmative defense, DEFENDANTS allege that to the extent PLAINTIFF seeks statutory or other penalties, such claims must comport with the due process requirements of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003).

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a twelfth separate and distinct affirmative defense, DEFENDANTS allege that the COMPLAINT, and each of its causes of action, is barred because PLAINTIFF did not satisfy or breached her statutory obligations as provided in the California Labor Code including, but not limited to, sections 2854, 2856-2859, and 2924.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a thirteenth separate and distinct affirmative defense, DEFENDANTS allege that the COMPLAINT, and each of its causes of action, is barred because PLAINTIFF failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies, and otherwise failed to comply with the statutory prerequisites to the bringing of this action, pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code section 12960 ef seq.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a fourteenth separate and distinct affirmative defense, DEFENDANTS allege that

the COMPLAINT, and each of its causes of action, is barred to the extent that PLAINTIFF

complains about matters occurring more than one year prior to the date on which PLAINTIFF 3. Case No. CIV 517908

complains about matters occurring more than one year prior to the date on which PLAINTIFF 3. Case No. CIV 517908 allegedly filed a charge with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction with respect to any such matters.

allegedly filed a charge with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction with respect to any such matters.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a fifteenth separate and distinct affirmative defense, DEFENDANTS allege that the COMPLAINT, and each of its causes of action, is barred to the extent that PLAINTIFF complains about matters that were not reasonably within the scope of any complaint or charge Plaintiff allegedly filed with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction with respect to any such matters

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a seventeeth separate and affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT and each purported cause of action therein, DEFENDANTS allege the twelfth purported cause of action under section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code is unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of California to the extent that California’s Unfair Competition Law purported to allow recovery for “unfair” business practices.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As an seventeenth separate and distinct affirmative defense, DEFENDANTS allege that PLAINTIFF’S prayer for restitution pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. 1s barred with respect to lost wages, penalties, or other monetary remedies of any nature.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As an eighteenth separate and distinct affirmative defense, DEFENDANTS allege that it cannot be liable for any alleged violation of the Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. because its actions were not unfair, fraudulent, nor likely to mislead, and its conduct and dealings were lawful, as authorized by applicable state and federal statutes, rules, and regulations, and such actions, conduct, and dealings were carried out in good faith and for legitimate business purposes.

/! 4. Case No. CIV 517908

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a nineteenth separate and affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT, DEFENDANTS allege that the purported twelfth cause of action for alleged violations of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 er seq. is barred because, to the extent that PLAINTIFF’'S COMPLAINT seeks to enjoin DEFENDANTS from engaging in “unfair,” “unlawful” or otherwise “deceptive” business practices, if any, such claims are now moot because, assuming arguendo that DEFENDANTS engaged in such business practices, DEFENDANTS has since discontinued, modified, and/or corrected his policies and practices and no longer engages in the alleged conduct.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a twentieth separate and affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT, DEFENDANTS allege that PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT is barred because the imposition of penalties, as applied to the facts and circumstances of this case, would constitute a denial of DEFENDANTS’ due process rights, both substantive and procedural, in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution.

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a twenty-first separate and affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT, DEFENDANTS allege that PLAINTIFF may not recover punitive damages because at all times relevant to the COMPLAINT DEFENDANTS had in place policies to prevent harassment and discrimination in the workplace and made good-faith efforts to implement and enforce those policies.

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As an twenty-second separate and affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT and each purported cause of action therein, DEFENDANTS allege that PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT and each cause of action therein, or some of them, are barred in whole or in part, because to the extent that PLAINTIFF seeks to recover waiting time and other statutory penalties, principles of fairness,

and equity operate to bar the imposition of such penalties. 5. Case No. CIV 517908

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a twenty-third separate and affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT and each ‘ purported cause of action therein, DEFENDANTS allege that PLAINTIFF is not entitled to equitable relief because she has an adequate remedy at law.

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a twenty-fourth separate and distinct affirmative defense, DEFENDANTS allege that PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT fails to properly state facts upon which restitution or disgorgement of monies may be ordered.

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a twenty-fifth separate and affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT and each purported cause of action therein, DEFENDANTS allege that PLAINTIFF lacks standing to bring this action for, and the court lack.s jurisdiction to award, certain of the penalties sought in the COMPLAINT, as such penalties may only be imposed in a proceeding brought by the California Labor Commissioner.

TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a twenty-sixth separate and affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT and each purported cause of action therein, DEFENDANTS are informed and believe that further investigation and discovery will reveal, and on that basis allege, that DEFENDANTS are entitled to an offset against any relief for PLAINTIFF based upon her wrongful conduct and monies owed to DEFENDANTS.

TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a twenty-seventh separate and affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT and each purported cause of action therein, DEFENDANTS allege that a reasonable opportunity for investigation and discovery will reveal that PLAINTIFF’S claims are unreasonable, were filed in bad faith, or both, and are frivolous and, for that reason, justify an award of attorneys’ fees and costs against PLAINTIFF and her attorneys. /1

I/ 6. Case No. CIV 517908

TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a twenty-eighth separate and affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT and each purported cause of action therein, DEFENDANTS allege that PLAINTIFF has failed to state a claim for which attorneys’ fees and costs may be granted.

TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a twenty-ninth séparate and affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT and each purported cause of action therein, DEFENDANTS allege that the COMPLAINT fails to properly state a claim upon which prejudgment interest may be awarded, as the damages claimed are not sufficiently certain to allow an award of prejudgment interest.

THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a thirtieth separate and affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT and each purported cause of action therein, DEFENDANTS allege that the COMPLAINT fails because PLAINTIFF has entered into a valid release of the claims contained in this COMPLAINT as to DEFENDANTS.

THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a thirty-first separate and affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT and each purported cause of action therein, DEFENDANTS allege that the COMPLAINT fails because of the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANTS entered into an agreement and had a meeting of the minds to resolve their disputed claims contained in the COMPLAINT.

THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a thirty-second separate and affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT and each purported cause of action therein, DEFENDANTS allege that PLAINTIFF’S claims for waiting time penalties under Labor Code section 203 are barred because there is a bona fide dispute as to whether DEFENDANTS failed to pay all wages due under Labor Code sections 201 or 202.

THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a thirty-third separate and affirmative defense to the COMPLAINT and each

purported cause of action therein, DEFENDANTS allege that any violation of the Labor Code or an

Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission was an act or omission made in good faith and 7. Case No. CIV 517908

Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission was an act or omission made in good faith and 7. Case No. CIV 517908 DEFENDANTS had reasonable grounds for believing that policies and practices complied with applicable laws and that any such act or omission was not a violation of the Labor Code or any Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission such that PLAINTIFF is not entitled to any damages or penalties.

DEFENDANTS had reasonable grounds for believing that policies and practices complied with applicable laws and that any such act or omission was not a violation of the Labor Code or any Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission such that PLAINTIFF is not entitled to any damages or penalties.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, DEFENDANTS pray for judgment as follows:

1. That PLAINTIFF takes nothing by this action;

2. That the COMPLAINT and each purported cause of action alleged therein be dismissed with prejudice;

3. That DEFENDANTS be awarded its costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to law, including without limitation section 218.5 of the California Labor Code; and

4. That DEFENDANTS be awarded such further relief as the Court deems just

and proper.

Dated: May 29, 2013 POST LEGAL GROUP