NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 274-2800

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ANSWER - 1

(C05-2035 TSZ)

The Honorable Thomas S. Zilly

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JOEL HODGELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

YVES ROCHER NORTH AMERICA

(a foreign corporation), YVES

ROCHER (U.S.A.) INC., (a Delaware

corporation),

YVESROCHERUSA.COM, and JOHN

DOES 1-20,

Defendants. 

Case No. C05-2035 TSZ

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES

Defendants YVES ROCHER NORTH AMERICA, YVES ROCHER

(U.S.A.) INC., and, YVESROCHERUSA.COM answer Plaintiff’s complaint

and assert affirmative defenses as follows:

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.1. Defendants ADMIT Plaintiff alleges the causes of action

described in Paragraph 1.1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, but DENY any liability or

that Plaintiff suffered any damages, and further DENY any other allegations

contained in Paragraph 1.1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

1.2. Defendants ADMIT Plaintiff alleges the causes of action

described in Paragraph 1.2 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, but DENY any liability

Case 2:05-cv-02035-TSZ Document 7 Filed 02/22/06 Page 1 of 6
NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 274-2800

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ANSWER - 2

(C05-2035 TSZ)

and further DENY any other allegations contained in Paragraph 1.2 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

1.3. Defendants ADMIT this Court has jurisdiction over the subject

matter of this action, but DENY this Court has personal jurisdiction over any

of the Defendants, and further DENY all other allegations contained in

Paragraph 1.3 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

1.4. Defendants DENY the allegations contained in Paragraph 1.4 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

II. PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS

2.1. Defendants are without knowledge and information sufficient to

form a belief with respect to the veracity of the allegations contained in

Paragraph 2.1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and therefore DENY the same.

2.2. Defendants DENY the allegations contained in Paragraph 2.2 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

2.3. Defendants DENY the allegations contained in Paragraph 2.3 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

2.4. Defendants DENY the allegations contained in Paragraph 2.4 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

III. NATURE OF TRADE OR COMMERCE

3.1. Defendants DENY the allegations contained in Paragraph 3.1 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

3.2. Defendants DENY the allegations contained in Paragraph 3.2 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

3.3. Defendants DENY the allegations contained in Paragraph 3.3 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

3.4. Defendants DENY the allegations contained in Paragraph 3.4 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Case 2:05-cv-02035-TSZ Document 7 Filed 02/22/06 Page 2 of 6
NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 274-2800

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ANSWER - 3

(C05-2035 TSZ)

IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

4.1. Defendants incorporate their answers to paragraphs 1.1 through

3.4 above as though fully stated herein. Defendants DENY any allegations

contained in Paragraph 4.1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

4.2. Defendants DENY the allegations contained in Paragraph 4.2 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

4.3. Defendants DENY the allegations contained in Paragraph 4.3 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

4.4. Defendants DENY the allegations contained in Paragraph 4.4 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

4.5. Defendants DENY the allegations contained in Paragraph 4.5 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

4.6. Paragraph 4.6 of Plaintiff’s Complaint contains statements of law

which require no response. Defendants DENY any and all factual allegations

contained in Paragraph 4.6 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

V. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

5.1. Defendants incorporate their answers to paragraphs 1.1 through

4.6 above as though fully stated herein. Defendants DENY any allegations

contained in Paragraph 5.1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

5.2. Defendants DENY the allegations contained in Paragraph 5.2 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

5.3. Defendants DENY the allegations contained in Paragraph 5.3 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

5.4. Paragraph 5.4 of Plaintiff’s Complaint contains statements of law

which require no response. Defendants DENY any and all factual allegations

contained in Paragraph 5.4 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

VI. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

6.1. Defendants incorporate their answers to paragraphs 1.1 through

Case 2:05-cv-02035-TSZ Document 7 Filed 02/22/06 Page 3 of 6
NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 274-2800

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ANSWER - 4

(C05-2035 TSZ)

5.4 above as though fully stated herein. Defendants DENY any allegations

contained in Paragraph 6.1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

6.2. Defendants DENY the allegations contained in Paragraph 6.2 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

VII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

7.1. Defendants incorporate their answers to paragraphs 1.1 through

6.2 above as though fully stated herein. Defendants DENY any allegations

contained in Paragraph 7.1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

7.2. Defendants DENY the allegations contained in Paragraph 7.2 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

7.3. Defendants DENY the allegations contained in Paragraph 7.3 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

VIII. PLAINTIFF’S PRAYER

8.1. Defendants DENY any and all allegations contained in

Paragraphs 8.1 through 8.15 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and further DENY that

Plaintiff is entitled to any relief, including but not limited to the relief he

requests in the Complaint’s “Prayer for Relief” section.

IX. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Without admitting any allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint,

Defendants assert the following affirmative defenses: 

9.1. This Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants and

each of them.

9.2. This Court is not the proper venue for this action.

9.3. Plaintiff is barred from obtaining any relief sought in the

Complaint because the Complaint fails to state any claim upon which relief

may be granted.

9.4. Plaintiff is barred from obtaining any relief because he failed to

mitigate his damages.

Case 2:05-cv-02035-TSZ Document 7 Filed 02/22/06 Page 4 of 6
NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 274-2800

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ANSWER - 5

(C05-2035 TSZ)

9.5. Plaintiff is barred from obtaining any relief sought in the

Complaint by reason of its own unclean hands.

9.6. Plaintiff waived his claims.

9.7. Plaintiff ratified and approved all actions he complains about in

his Complaint, and therefore he is not entitled to any relief.

9.8. Plaintiff’s claims, and each of them, are barred by the doctrine of

estoppel.

9.9. Plaintiff’s claims, and each of them, are barred by the doctrine of

laches

9.10. Defendant has failed to join one or more necessary and

indispensable parties.

9.11. The acts Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint were committed by

parties other than Defendants, which parties Defendants do not control now,

nor have they ever controlled.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-02035-TSZ Document 7 Filed 02/22/06 Page 5 of 6
NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 274-2800

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ANSWER - 6

(C05-2035 TSZ)

X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendants request that this Court:

1. DISMISS Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants alleged in the

Complaint;

2. DENY Plaintiff the relief he seeks;

3. GRANT Defendants their reasonable costs and attorney’s fees

incurred in defending this action; and

4. GRANT such other and further relief in favor of Defendants and

against Plaintiff as is equitable and appropriate.

Dated this 22nd day of February, 2006.

Respectfully Submitted,

NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

By:

Derek A. Newman, WSBA No. 26967

Roger M. Townsend, WSBA No. 25525

505 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 610

Seattle, Washington 98104

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:05-cv-02035-TSZ Document 7 Filed 02/22/06 Page 6 of 6