CYNTHIA SANDERS VS. AT&T et al
001C0366301 1
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Page 2 VAUINGAS saVGaiD iVud 1 LSMI-
MILLER Law Group
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
—
Katherine L. Kettler (SBN 231586)
kik@millerlawqroup.com
CALIFORNIA
2 || Noah Levin (SBN 263069)
nal@millerlawgroup.com
3}|MILLER LAW GROUP
A Professional Corporation
4||111 Sutter Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94104
;—~.. 5|] Tel. (415) 464-4300
“ a ||Pax (418) 464-4338
ISS Attorneys for Defendants AT&T CORP.,
~~ 7||PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
bw and PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY
iy °
S) °
~ 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
12
13 || CYNTHIA SANDERS, an individual, Case No.: CGC-11-513645
14
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT PACIFIC BELL
15 DIRECTORY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
v. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
16
17 || AT&T; AT&T Corp.; PACIFIC BELL
TELEPHONE COMPANY; PACIFIC BELL Complaint filed: August 24, 2011
18 || DIRECTORY and DOES 4-10,
First Amended Complaint filed: Nov. 4, 2011
19
Defendants.
20
21
22 Defendant PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY (“Defendant”) hereby answers the
23 ||First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) of Plaintiff CYNTHIA SANDERS (‘Plaintiff’) as
24 || follows:
25
26 Pursuant to Section 431.30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure,
27 || Defendant hereby answers the Complaint filed by Plaintiff by generally denying each and
N
oo
every allegation contained therein. Defendant further denies that Plaintiff has been
1
DEFENDANT PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case No.: CGC-11-513645Page 3 oO D7 N DO HO fF WO DY =|
Sa - lO
rk WwW NO =| OC
CALIFORNIA
=
oa
MILLER Law Group
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
mw NYO NO NO NYO NB YH YH YM |= = oS aA
on oOo on fF WwW NH |= OG Oo DB NN OD
damaged in any sum whatsoever, or that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested or to any
other relief, or that Plaintiff has sustained any injury, damage, or loss by reason of any act,
omission, or negligence on the part of Defendant, or by reason of any act, omission, or
negligence on the part of any of Defendant's agents, servants, or employees. Defendant
further denies that it is liable to Plaintiff under any theory, including, without limitation, the
theories of liability asserted in the Complaint.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendant alleges the affirmative defenses set forth herein as to each and
every cause of action and claim for relief asserted in the Complaint unless specified
otherwise. By pleading these affirmative defenses, Defendant does not assume the burden
of proving any fact, issue, or element of a cause of action where such burden belongs to
Plaintiff.
The Complaint is vague, ambiguous, indefinite and uncertain. Therefore,
Defendant reserves the right to amend or supplement the affirmative defenses asserted
herein, and to present evidence supportive of different or additional defenses, upon
ascertaining the specific nature of the claims asserted by Plaintiff against Defendant.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Claim)
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies)
With regard to Plaintiff's First through Fourth causes of action, Defendant is
informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff failed to exhaust statutory
administrative remedies with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing
and/or the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and/or Plaintiff's
Causes of Action rely on allegations which were not contained in a timely complaint filed
with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and/or the United States
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. See Cal. Gov't Code §§ 12960, 12965; see
also Martin v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. (1994) 29 Cal. App. 4th 1718, 1724. The
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over any discrimination and/or retaliation claims and
allegations in the Complaint which were not contained in a timely administrative charge filed
by Plaintiff against Defendant with the California Department of Fair Employment and
Housing and/or the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Federal Labor Management Relations Act
and National Labor Relations Act Preemption)
Plaintiff's claims are barred and should be dismissed to the extent they are
preempted by the federal Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, and/or the
National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 161, and to the extent this Court otherwise lacks
subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
resolution of Plaintiffs claims (as set forth in each Cause of Action) are substantially
dependent on an analysis of the terms and conditions of the collective bargaining
agreement(s) that governed Plaintiff's employment and are therefore preempted by Section
301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (29 U.S.C. § 185(a)).
3
DEFENDANT PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case No.: CGC-11-513645Page 5 A PROFRSSIONAL CORPORATION
CALIFORNIA
MILLER Law Group
oO oO N OO oO FF WD LY
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Exhaust the Grievance-Arbitration Procedure under the
Collective Bargaining Agreement)
Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff's claims
are barred by Plaintiff's failure to exhaust the grievance-arbitration procedures contained in
the collective bargaining agreement governing Plaintiffs employment, and/or Plaintiff's
failure to file a timely suit under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (29
U.S.C. §§ 160(b), 185).
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statute of Limitations)
Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of
limitations including, but not limited to, those limitations set forth in California Code of Civil
Procedure §§ 335.1, 338, 339(1) and 343, California Government Code §§ 12960 and
12965(b), Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (29 U.S.C. § 185), 29 U.S.C.
§ 160(b) and 29 U.S.C. § 2617(c)(1) (as well as any other statutes that might include
applicable time bars).
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Equitable Doctrines of Waiver, Estoppe!, Unclean Hands and Laches)
Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrines of
waiver, laches, unclean hands, and/or estoppel.
4
benefits under a plan regulated by ERISA, including, but not limited to, any applicable short-
term disability plan or long-term disability plan.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(ERISA Preemption Under Section 503(a))
Plaintiffs Complaint is preempted by federal law under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §
1001, et seq., to the extent Plaintiff seeks to recover “benefits” in this action, including any
employee benefits allegedly due or the clarification of rights to such benefits under a plan
regulated by ERISA, including, but not limited to, any applicable short-term disability plan or
long-term disability plan.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Avoidable Consequences)
Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Defendant had in
place and implemented in good faith, policies, procedures and other measures that were
reasonably designed to prevent workplace discrimination and _ retaliation, Plaintiff
unreasonably failed to invoke those measures or to take other corrective action regarding
any perceived discrimination or retaliation, and, to the extent Plaintiff suffered any harm
(which Defendant denies), the reasonable use of such policies, procedures and other
measures would have prevented some or all of that harm.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Claim — Punitive Damages)
Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages fails to state a claim under California Civil
Code § 3294 because neither Defendant, nor its officers, directors or managing agents
6
DEFENDANT PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case No.: CGC-11-513645Page 8 MILLER Law Group
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
CALIFORNIA
Go OO ON OD oO RF WH) DY =
NR MB NRO MDB NM MF NM HM PDP ss | oe or od dh dd uel klk Ok
oN Oo oO fF OY BS = OG OO ON OD MH BRB WwW PDP =
engaged in any wrongful conduct vis-a-vis Plaintiff. To the extent any of the wrongful
conduct Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint occurred, these acts were neither performed nor
ratified by Defendant's managing agents, directors, or officers. See White v. Ultramar, Inc.
(1999) 21 Cal.4th 563.
WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment in its favor, costs of suit, and
attorneys’ fees, and all other proper relief.
Dated: June 22, 2012 MILLER LAW GROUP
A Professignal Corporation
dia
Katherine L. Kettler
Attorneys for Defendant
PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY
By:
4846-9486-9007, v. 1
7
DEFENDANT PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case No.: CGC-11-513645Page 9 oO Oo ON Oo ON FF WO HY =
= 0 ea ea eee
oOo om F&F Ww MY =
CALIFORNIA
—_—
“J
MiLierR Law Group
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
NO NM MO DR HO NH NPB HB LNB =| =
oO NO oO fF WO NY |- DBD Oo DW
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Tracy Wilson, declare that | am employed at Miller Law Group, A Professional
Corporation, whose address is 111 Sutter Street, Suite 700, San Francisco, CA 94104; | am
over the age of eighteen (18) years and am not a party to this action. On the below date, by
the method noted below, | served the following document(s):
DEFENDANT PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT
on the interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof, enclosed
in a sealed envelope addressed as follows:
Spencer F. Smith, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff: Cynthia Sanders
Dow W. Patten, Esq.
Smith Patten
353 Sacramento Street, Suite 1120
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 402-0084
Fax: (415) 520-0104
X] BY MAIL: By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with
postage thereon fully prepaid, in the ordinary course of business for collection and mailing
on this date at Miller Law Group, 111 Sutter Street, San Francisco, California. | declare that
| am readily familiar with the business practice of Miller Law Group for collection and
processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service and that the
correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in
the ordinary course of business.
x i declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on June 22, 2012 at San celine iL,
Nos dA [
Trae Wilson —
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
San Francisco County Court Case No. CGC-11-513645
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
UMMM
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Jun-22-2012 3:30 pm
Case Number: CGC-11-513645
Filing Date: Jun-22-2012 3:25
Filed by: ROSSALY DELAVEGA
Juke Box: 001 image: 03663011
ANSWER
CYNTHIA SANDERS VS. AT&T et al
001C0366301 1
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.
PDF Page 3
VAUINGAS saVGaiD iVud 1 LSMI-
MILLER Law Group
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
—
Katherine L. Kettler (SBN 231586)
kik@millerlawqroup.com
CALIFORNIA
2 || Noah Levin (SBN 263069)
nal@millerlawgroup.com
3}|MILLER LAW GROUP
A Professional Corporation
4||111 Sutter Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94104
;—~.. 5|] Tel. (415) 464-4300
“ a ||Pax (418) 464-4338
ISS Attorneys for Defendants AT&T CORP.,
~~ 7||PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
bw and PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY
iy °
S) °
~ 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
12
13 || CYNTHIA SANDERS, an individual, Case No.: CGC-11-513645
14
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT PACIFIC BELL
15 DIRECTORY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
v. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
16
17 || AT&T; AT&T Corp.; PACIFIC BELL
TELEPHONE COMPANY; PACIFIC BELL Complaint filed: August 24, 2011
18 || DIRECTORY and DOES 4-10,
First Amended Complaint filed: Nov. 4, 2011
19
Defendants.
20
21
22 Defendant PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY (“Defendant”) hereby answers the
23 ||First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) of Plaintiff CYNTHIA SANDERS (‘Plaintiff’) as
24 || follows:
25
26 Pursuant to Section 431.30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure,
27 || Defendant hereby answers the Complaint filed by Plaintiff by generally denying each and
N
oo
every allegation contained therein. Defendant further denies that Plaintiff has been
1
DEFENDANT PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case No.: CGC-11-513645
PDF Page 4
oO D7 N DO HO fF WO DY =|
Sa - lO
rk WwW NO =| OC
CALIFORNIA
=
oa
MILLER Law Group
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
mw NYO NO NO NYO NB YH YH YM |= = oS aA
on oOo on fF WwW NH |= OG Oo DB NN OD
damaged in any sum whatsoever, or that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested or to any
other relief, or that Plaintiff has sustained any injury, damage, or loss by reason of any act,
omission, or negligence on the part of Defendant, or by reason of any act, omission, or
negligence on the part of any of Defendant's agents, servants, or employees. Defendant
further denies that it is liable to Plaintiff under any theory, including, without limitation, the
theories of liability asserted in the Complaint.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendant alleges the affirmative defenses set forth herein as to each and
every cause of action and claim for relief asserted in the Complaint unless specified
otherwise. By pleading these affirmative defenses, Defendant does not assume the burden
of proving any fact, issue, or element of a cause of action where such burden belongs to
Plaintiff.
The Complaint is vague, ambiguous, indefinite and uncertain. Therefore,
Defendant reserves the right to amend or supplement the affirmative defenses asserted
herein, and to present evidence supportive of different or additional defenses, upon
ascertaining the specific nature of the claims asserted by Plaintiff against Defendant.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Claim)
Plaintiffs Complaint, and/or each purported cause of action therein, fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
2
DEFENDANT PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case No.: CGC-11-513645
A PROFRSSIONAL CORPORATION
CALIFORNIA
MILLER Law Group
oO oO N OO oO FF WD LY
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Exhaust the Grievance-Arbitration Procedure under the
Collective Bargaining Agreement)
Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff's claims
are barred by Plaintiff's failure to exhaust the grievance-arbitration procedures contained in
the collective bargaining agreement governing Plaintiffs employment, and/or Plaintiff's
failure to file a timely suit under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (29
U.S.C. §§ 160(b), 185).
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statute of Limitations)
Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of
limitations including, but not limited to, those limitations set forth in California Code of Civil
Procedure §§ 335.1, 338, 339(1) and 343, California Government Code §§ 12960 and
12965(b), Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (29 U.S.C. § 185), 29 U.S.C.
§ 160(b) and 29 U.S.C. § 2617(c)(1) (as well as any other statutes that might include
applicable time bars).
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Equitable Doctrines of Waiver, Estoppe!, Unclean Hands and Laches)
Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrines of
waiver, laches, unclean hands, and/or estoppel.
4
DEFENDANT PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case No.: CGC-11-513645
MILLER Law Group
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
CALIFORNIA
Go OO ON OD oO RF WH) DY =
NR MB NRO MDB NM MF NM HM PDP ss | oe or od dh dd uel klk Ok
oN Oo oO fF OY BS = OG OO ON OD MH BRB WwW PDP =
engaged in any wrongful conduct vis-a-vis Plaintiff. To the extent any of the wrongful
conduct Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint occurred, these acts were neither performed nor
ratified by Defendant's managing agents, directors, or officers. See White v. Ultramar, Inc.
(1999) 21 Cal.4th 563.
WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment in its favor, costs of suit, and
attorneys’ fees, and all other proper relief.
Dated: June 22, 2012 MILLER LAW GROUP
A Professignal Corporation
dia
Katherine L. Kettler
Attorneys for Defendant
PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY
By:
4846-9486-9007, v. 1
7
DEFENDANT PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case No.: CGC-11-513645
PDF Page 10
oO Oo ON Oo ON FF WO HY =
= 0 ea ea eee
oOo om F&F Ww MY =
CALIFORNIA
—_—
“J
MiLierR Law Group
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
NO NM MO DR HO NH NPB HB LNB =| =
oO NO oO fF WO NY |- DBD Oo DW
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Tracy Wilson, declare that | am employed at Miller Law Group, A Professional
Corporation, whose address is 111 Sutter Street, Suite 700, San Francisco, CA 94104; | am
over the age of eighteen (18) years and am not a party to this action. On the below date, by
the method noted below, | served the following document(s):
DEFENDANT PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT
on the interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof, enclosed
in a sealed envelope addressed as follows:
Spencer F. Smith, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff: Cynthia Sanders
Dow W. Patten, Esq.
Smith Patten
353 Sacramento Street, Suite 1120
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 402-0084
Fax: (415) 520-0104
X] BY MAIL: By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with
postage thereon fully prepaid, in the ordinary course of business for collection and mailing
on this date at Miller Law Group, 111 Sutter Street, San Francisco, California. | declare that
| am readily familiar with the business practice of Miller Law Group for collection and
processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service and that the
correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in
the ordinary course of business.
x i declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on June 22, 2012 at San celine iL,
Nos dA [
Trae Wilson —
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
San Francisco County Court Case No. CGC-11-513645
Back to 
