1-PH/2174863.1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RICHARD CHENNISI, :

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : No. 04-CV-4826

:

COMMUNICATIONS :

CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC, :

:

and :

:

RONALD TOTTEN, :

:

Defendants. :

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER

AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Defendants, through their attorneys, hereby answer Plaintiff’s Complaint as

follows:

INTRODUCTION

Defendants admit that Plaintiff has brought an action purporting to state a claim

under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief. The

remaining allegations in the introductory unnumbered paragraphs of the Complaint are

conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required.

1. Defendants admit that the last known address for Plaintiff maintained by

Communications Construction Group, LLC (“CCG”) is as alleged in this paragraph.

2. Defendants admit that the principal place of business of CCG is at the

location alleged in this paragraph. The allegation that CCG is an employer as that term is

Case 2:04-cv-04826-HB Document 6 Filed 03/04/05 Page 1 of 5
1-PH/2174863.1 2

defined in the FLSA is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. The

remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied.

3. Defendants admit that Ronald Totten is director of technical operations at

CCG. The allegation that Mr. Totten is an employer as that term is defined in the FLSA is a

conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required.

4. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which

no responsive pleading is required.

VENUE AND JURISDICTION

5. Denied.

6. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which

no responsive pleading is required.

7. Admitted.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

8. Defendants admit that CCG is a limited liability corporation. The

remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied.

9. Defendants admit that CCG is a provider of engineering, construction, and

construction management services largely to the cable television industry. The remaining

allegations of this paragraph are denied.

10. Admitted.

11. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which

no responsive pleading is required.

12. Defendants admit that in 2003 Plaintiff claimed he was owed overtime pay

from CCG. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied.

Case 2:04-cv-04826-HB Document 6 Filed 03/04/05 Page 2 of 5
1-PH/2174863.1 3

13. Defendants admit that after Plaintiff claimed he was owed overtime pay,

the parties reached the agreement attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint as Exhibit A. The allegations

pertaining to the terms of that agreement purport to characterize a written document which

speaks for itself. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied.

14. Denied.

15. Denied.

16. Admitted.

17. Denied.

18. Denied.

19. Denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Plaintiff’s claims for monetary relief are barred in whole or in part due to

mitigation of and/or failure to mitigate damages.

2. Defendants at all relevant times made a good faith and reasonable effort to

comply with all applicable statutes and laws, and therefore, Plaintiff cannot recover liquidated

and/or punitive damages.

3. To the extent Plaintiff is claiming an entitlement to overtime pay,

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

4. To the extent Plaintiff is claiming an entitlement to overtime pay,

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction.

5. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants are barred by the doctrines of laches

and/or estoppel.

Case 2:04-cv-04826-HB Document 6 Filed 03/04/05 Page 3 of 5
1-PH/2174863.1 4

6. Plaintiff’s claims are barred due to the fact that absent any alleged

protected activity, Plaintiff still would have been discharged from employment.

WHEREFORE, Defendants request that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint

and award Defendants their fees and costs and such other relief as the Court deems just and

proper.

Respectfully submitted,

 

SARAH E. BOUCHARD

SEAN V. BURKE

Of Counsel: 1701 Market St.

Philadelphia, PA 19103

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 215.963.5077/5315

eFax: 215.963.5001

Dated: March 4, 2004

Case 2:04-cv-04826-HB Document 6 Filed 03/04/05 Page 4 of 5
1-PH/2174863.1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 4, 2004 a true and correct copy of the foregoing

answer and affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint was served, by way of automatic

notification using the Court’s electronic filing system, on the following person:

Randall C. Schauer, Esquire

DILWORTH PAXSON LLP

3200 Mellon Bank Center

1735 Market St.

Philadelphia, PA 19103-7595

Attorney for Plaintiff

 

SEAN V. BURKE

Case 2:04-cv-04826-HB Document 6 Filed 03/04/05 Page 5 of 5