- 1 -

Defendants’ Answer to Complaint

Firm:43097278v1 Case No. 3:17-CV-00480-RS

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

Steven R. Blackburn (SBN 154797)

Matthew Goodin (SBN 169678)

EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.

655 Montgomery Street, Suite 1150

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: 415.398.3500

Facsimile: 415.398.0955

sblackburn@ebglaw.com

mgoodin@ebglaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants

C&H SUGAR COMPANY, INC. AND

SUGAR REFINING, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAY STRONG, on behalf of himself and all

similarly situated individuals

Plaintiff,

v.

C&H SUGAR COMPANY, INC.;

SUGAR REFINING, INC.; AND DOES 1-

100.

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-CV-00480-RS

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO

COMPLAINT

Defendants C&H Sugar Company, Inc. (“C&H”) and American Sugar Refining, Inc.

(“ASR”) (collectively, “Defendants”), in answer to the Complaint (“Complaint”) of Plaintiff Ray

Strong, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals (“Plaintiff”) on file herein,

admit, deny, and aver as follows:

1. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that such allegations are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded and

which shall be taken as denied or avoided.

2. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that such allegations are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded and

Case 3:17-cv-00480-RS Document 23 Filed 04/18/17 Page 1 of 24
- 2 -

Defendants’ Answer to Complaint

Firm:43097278v1 Case No. 3:17-CV-00480-RS

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

which shall be taken as denied or avoided.

3. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.

THE PARTIES

4. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, Defendants deny

that that Plaintiff is or was at any time employed by Defendant ASR. Defendants admit the

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint.

5. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint.

6. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, Defendants deny

that Plaintiff or any Collective Action Members or California Class Members are or were at any

time employed by Defendant ASR. Defendants further deny that ASR employed any employees

in California. Defendants admit the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the

Complaint.

7. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that such allegations are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded and

which shall be taken as denied or avoided.

8. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that such allegations are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded and

which shall be taken as denied or avoided.

9. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, Defendants admit

that C&H does business in the state of California, that the acts giving rise to this action occurred

in this state and in this District, and that Defendant ASR has applied to do business in California.

Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 9

of the Complaint.

10. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, Defendants admit

that venue is proper in this District, that C&H operates and does substantial business within the

Northern District of California, that Plaintiff was employed by C&H, that the acts alleged in the

Complaint have an effect on Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals within the State of

California. Defendants further admit that C&H maintains offices, operates a business, employs

Case 3:17-cv-00480-RS Document 23 Filed 04/18/17 Page 2 of 24
- 3 -

Defendants’ Answer to Complaint

Firm:43097278v1 Case No. 3:17-CV-00480-RS

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

persons, and conducts business in, the state of California. Except as expressly admitted herein

Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 10, except those allegations which are

conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded and which shall be taken as

denied or avoided.

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

11. Defendants incorporate, as though fully set forth herein, their responses to

Paragraphs 1 through 10 of the Complaint, as set forth above.

12. In response to Paragraph 12 of the Complaint, Defendants state that the

allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded and

which shall be taken as denied or avoided.

13. In response to Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, Defendants state that the

allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded and

which shall be taken as denied or avoided.

14. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained

in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint.

15. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained

in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint.

16. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, Defendants admit

that Plaintiff and the alleged Collective Action Members are subject to C&H’s practices,

policies, and plans of compensating them for hours worked. Except as expressly admitted herein

Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint.

17. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, Defendants admit

that Plaintiff purports to bring the action on behalf of a class of allegedly similarly situated

individuals, and that the proposed Collective Action is asserted on behalf of all individuals

employed by Defendants and represented by the Sugar Workers Union (“SWU”) in non-exempt

hourly positions to provide work refining and processing raw sugar into refined sugar and related

activities in the state of California who performed more than 40 hours of work in a workweek

and received non-discretionary bonuses at any time from three years before the filing of the

Case 3:17-cv-00480-RS Document 23 Filed 04/18/17 Page 3 of 24
- 4 -

Defendants’ Answer to Complaint

Firm:43097278v1 Case No. 3:17-CV-00480-RS

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

Complaint or the effective date of any tolling agreement, whichever is earlier, and ending at the

time this action proceeds to final judgment or settlement. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge

to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint.

18. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint.

19. Defendants admit that the allegations in Paragraphs 19(a) through 19(h) constitute

alleged common questions of law and/or fact in the action that may affect the rights of each

member of the Collective Action. Except as expressly admitted herein Defendants deny the

remaining allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint.

20. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint.

21. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained

in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint.

22. In response to Paragraph 22 of the Complaint, Defendants state that the

allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded and

which shall be taken as denied or avoided.

23. In response to Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, Defendants state that the

allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded and

which shall be taken as denied or avoided.

24. In response to Paragraph 24 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that the names

and addresses of additional Collective Action members are available from Defendants and that

notice, if any, should be provided by first class mail. Except as expressly admitted herein

Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

25. Defendants incorporate, as though fully set forth herein, their responses to

Paragraphs 1 through 24 of the Complaint, as set forth above.

26. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint, Defendants admit

that Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of class allegedly similarly situated individuals pursuant

to Federal Rule of Procedure 23, and that the proposed class is asserted on behalf of all allegedly

similarly situated individuals employed by Defendants and represented by the SWU in nonCase 3:17-cv-00480-RS Document 23 Filed 04/18/17 Page 4 of 24
- 5 -

Defendants’ Answer to Complaint

Firm:43097278v1 Case No. 3:17-CV-00480-RS

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

exempt hourly positions to provide work refining and processing raw sugar into refined sugar

and related activities in the state of California and performed more than 40 hours of work in a

workweek and received non-discretionary bonuses at any time from three years before the filing

of the Complaint or the effective date of any tolling agreement, whichever is earlier, and ending

at the time this action proceeds to final judgment or settlement. Defendants lack sufficient

knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of the

Complaint.

27. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint.

28. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint, Defendants admit

that the proposed class may consist of over 40 non-exempt employees employed by C&H who

performed work in the state of California during the applicable limitations period(s) and that

members of the class are ascertainable. Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendants deny the

remaining allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint.

29. Defendants admit that the allegations in Paragraphs 29(a) through 29(q) constitute

alleged common questions of law and/or fact in the action that may affect the rights of each

member of the proposed California Class. Except as expressly admitted herein Defendants deny

the remaining allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint.

30. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint.

31. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint.

32. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint.

33. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint.

GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

34. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint, Defendants admit

that Plaintiff is a non-exempt employee of C&H and that his duties primarily consist of manual

labor related to the refining of raw sugar and related activities. Defendants lack sufficient

knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of the

Complaint.

35. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint, Defendants admit

Case 3:17-cv-00480-RS Document 23 Filed 04/18/17 Page 5 of 24
- 6 -

Defendants’ Answer to Complaint

Firm:43097278v1 Case No. 3:17-CV-00480-RS

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

that the proposed Collective Action and California Class members perform the duties described

in Paragraph 34 at C&H’s refining facility in Crockett, California. Except as expressly admitted

herein, Defendants’ deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint.

36. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint.

37. Defendants admit and aver that ASR is the “paying agent” for C&H and admit the

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint.

38. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint.

39. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint, Defendants aver

that there was no such “practice of exclusion” and admit that they have never collectively or

individually sought an opinion from the Unites States Department of Labor of whether such

alleged “practice of exclusion” as described therein would be lawful for the purposes of FLSA

compliance. Except as expressly admitted herein Defendants deny the remaining allegations in

Paragraph 39 of the Complaint.

40. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint.

41. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint, Defendants admit

that the Agreement referenced therein provides for certain bonus payments to employees,

including a Christmas Award. Defendants further admit that employees must satisfy certain

conditions to earn the Christmas Award, that a certain equation is set forth for calculating the

Christmas Award amount, and that the Agreement does not specifically provide that Defendants

have discretion to determine whether the Christmas Award is paid or to modify the amount of the

Christmas Award. Except as expressly admitted herein Defendants deny the remaining

allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint.

42. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint.

43. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint.

44. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint, Defendants lack

sufficient knowledge to respond to the allegations that when Plaintiff or other members of the

Collective Action or California Class earned the meal allowance they did not incur any expense

at Defendants’ convenience. Defendants admit the remaining allegations in Paragraph 44 of the

Case 3:17-cv-00480-RS Document 23 Filed 04/18/17 Page 6 of 24
- 7 -

Defendants’ Answer to Complaint

Firm:43097278v1 Case No. 3:17-CV-00480-RS

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

Complaint.

45. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint, Defendants deny

that Plaintiff and the other members of the Collective Action or California Class consistently

worked 60-80-hour workweeks. Defendants further deny that they pay Plaintiff and the other

members of the Collective Action or California Class 1.5x their regular rate of pay, excluding the

extra compensation from the shift differential, for all hours worked above 40 in one workweek.

Defendants admit the remaining allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint.

46. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint, Defendants admit

they received a copy of a letter dated March 2, 2016, to the California LWDA describing various

alleged violations of the California Labor Code. Defendants admit the remaining allegations in

Paragraph 46 of the Complaint.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act)

47. Defendants incorporate, as though fully set forth herein, their responses to

Paragraphs 1 through 46 of the Complaint, as set forth above.

48. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint.

49. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint.

50. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that the allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded

and which shall be taken as denied or avoided.

51. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint.

52. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint but aver that

Plaintiff and the Collective Action members very often volunteered to work overtime hours.

53. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint.

54. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint.

55. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that the allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded

but nonetheless admit said allegations on information and belief.

Case 3:17-cv-00480-RS Document 23 Filed 04/18/17 Page 7 of 24
- 8 -

Defendants’ Answer to Complaint

Firm:43097278v1 Case No. 3:17-CV-00480-RS

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

56. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that the allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded

but nonetheless admit said allegations on information and belief.

57. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 57 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks

sufficient knowledge to respond to the allegation that Defendants did not issue any earned but

unpaid overtime wages based on the new regular rate to Plaintiff and other members of the

Collective Class. Defendants admit the remaining allegations in Paragraph 57 of the Complaint.

58. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks

sufficient knowledge to respond to the allegation that Defendants did not issue any earned but

unpaid overtime wages based on the new regular rate to Plaintiff and other members of the

Collective Class. Defendants admit the remaining allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Complaint.

59. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 59 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that the allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded

but nonetheless admit said allegations on information and belief.

60. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 60 of the Complaint.

61. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 61 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that the allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded

and which shall be taken as denied or avoided.

62. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 62 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks

sufficient knowledge to respond to the allegation that Defendants did not pay any earned but

unpaid overtime wages based on the new regular rate to Plaintiff and other members of the

Collective Class. Defendants admit the remaining allegations in Paragraph 62 of the Complaint.

63. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 63 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks

sufficient knowledge to respond to the allegation that Defendants did not issue any earned but

unpaid overtime wages based on the new regular rate to Plaintiff and other members of the

Collective Class. Defendants admit the remaining allegations in Paragraph 63 of the Complaint.

64. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 64 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that the allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded

Case 3:17-cv-00480-RS Document 23 Filed 04/18/17 Page 8 of 24
- 9 -

Defendants’ Answer to Complaint

Firm:43097278v1 Case No. 3:17-CV-00480-RS

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

but nonetheless admit said allegations on information and belief.

65. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 65 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that the allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded

and which shall be taken as denied or avoided.

66. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 66 of the Complaint, Defendants lack

sufficient knowledge to respond to the allegations that when Plaintiff or other members of the

Collective Action or California Class earned the meal allowance they did not incur any expense

at Defendants’ convenience. Defendants admit the remaining allegations in Paragraph 66 of the

Complaint.

67. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 67 of the Complaint.

68. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraph 68 of the Complaint.

69. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 69 of the Complaint.

70. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 70 of the Complaint.

71. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 71 of the Complaint, Defendants admit

that Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals in the Collective

Action seeks damages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs. Except as

expressly admitted herein, Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 71 of the

Complaint.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Failure to Timely Pay All Wages When Due)

72. Defendants incorporate, as though fully set forth herein, their responses to

Paragraphs 1 through 71 of the Complaint, as set forth above.

73. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 73 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that the allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded

but nonetheless admit such allegations on information and belief.

74. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 74 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that the allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded

Case 3:17-cv-00480-RS Document 23 Filed 04/18/17 Page 9 of 24
- 10 -

Defendants’ Answer to Complaint

Firm:43097278v1 Case No. 3:17-CV-00480-RS

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

but nonetheless admit such allegations on information and belief.

75. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraph 75 of the Complaint.

76. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraph 76 of the Complaint.

77. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 77 of the Complaint.

78. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 78 of the Complaint, Defendants admit

they received a copy of a letter dated March 2, 2016, to the LWDA describing various alleged

violations of the California Labor Code. Defendants admit the remaining allegations in

Paragraph 78 of the Complaint.

79. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 79 of the Complaint, Defendants lack

sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained therein.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Unlawful Withholding of Wages)

80. Defendants incorporate, as though fully set forth herein, their responses to

Paragraphs 1 through 79 of the Complaint, as set forth above.

81. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 81 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that the allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded

but nonetheless admit such allegations on information and belief with the exception that Labor

Code § 223 makes it unlawful for an employer to “secretly pay a lower wage while purporting to

pay the wage designated by statute or contract.”

82. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 82 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that the allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded

but nonetheless admit such allegations on information and belief.

83. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraph 83 of the Complaint.

84. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 84 of the Complaint.

85. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 85 of the Complaint, Defendants admit

Case 3:17-cv-00480-RS Document 23 Filed 04/18/17 Page 10 of 24
- 11 -

Defendants’ Answer to Complaint

Firm:43097278v1 Case No. 3:17-CV-00480-RS

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

they received a copy of a letter dated March 2, 2016, to the LWDA describing various alleged

violations of the California Labor Code. Defendants admit the remaining allegations in

Paragraph 85 of the Complaint.

86. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 86 of the Complaint, Defendants lack

sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained therein.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees)

87. Defendants incorporate, as though fully set forth herein, their responses to

Paragraphs 1 through 86 of the Complaint, as set forth above.

88. In response to Paragraph 88 of the Complaint, Defendants state that the

allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded but

nonetheless admit such allegations on information and belief.

89. In response to Paragraph 89 of the Complaint, Defendants state that the

allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded but

nonetheless admit such allegations on information and belief.

90. In response to Paragraph 90 of the Complaint, Defendants state that the

allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded but

nonetheless admit such allegations on information and belief.

91. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 91 of the Complaint, Defendants lack

sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegation that Defendants failed to properly pay

Plaintiff and the California Class members all earned overtime wages. Defendants deny the

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 91 and aver that there exists a good-faith dispute as

to whether Plaintiff and the California Class are entitled to overtime wages and therefore no

waiting-time penalties are owed.

92. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 92 of the Complaint, Defendants deny

the allegations contained therein and aver that there exists a good-faith dispute as to whether

Plaintiff and the California Class are entitled to overtime wages and therefore no waiting-time

penalties are owed.

Case 3:17-cv-00480-RS Document 23 Filed 04/18/17 Page 11 of 24
- 12 -

Defendants’ Answer to Complaint

Firm:43097278v1 Case No. 3:17-CV-00480-RS

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

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Failure to Maintain Required Records)

93. Defendants incorporate, as though fully set forth herein, their responses to

Paragraphs 1 through 92 of the Complaint, as set forth above.

94. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 94 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that the allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded

but nonetheless admit such allegations on information and belief.

95. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 95 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that the allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded

but nonetheless admit such allegations on information and belief.

96. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 96 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that the allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded

but nonetheless admit such allegations on information and belief.

97. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 97 of the Complaint.

98. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 98 of the Complaint.

99. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraph 99 of the Complaint.

100. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 100 of the Complaint.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Failure to Accurate Itemized Wage Statements)

101. Defendants incorporate, as though fully set forth herein, their responses to

Paragraphs 1 through 100 of the Complaint, as set forth above.

102. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 102 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that the allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded

but nonetheless admit such allegations on information and belief.

103. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 103 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that the allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded

but nonetheless admit such allegations on information and belief.

Case 3:17-cv-00480-RS Document 23 Filed 04/18/17 Page 12 of 24
- 13 -

Defendants’ Answer to Complaint

Firm:43097278v1 Case No. 3:17-CV-00480-RS

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

104. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 104 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that the allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded

but nonetheless admit such allegations on information and belief.

105. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 105 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that the allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded

but nonetheless admit such allegations on information and belief.

106. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 106 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that the allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded

but nonetheless admit such allegations on information and belief.

107. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 107 of the Complaint.

108. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 108 of the Complaint, Defendants

admit they received a copy of a letter dated March 2, 2016, to the LWDA describing various

alleged violations of the California Labor Code. Defendants admit the remaining allegations in

Paragraph 108 of the Complaint.

109. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 109 of the Complaint.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act)

110. Defendants incorporate, as though fully set forth herein, their responses to

Paragraphs 1 through 110 of the Complaint as set forth above.

111. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 111 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that the allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded

but nonetheless admit such allegations on information and belief.

112. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 112 of the Complaint.

113. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 113 of the Complaint, Defendants

admit and aver that Plaintiff, as a private attorney general, is entitled to recover applicable

statutory penalties on his own behalf, on behalf of all other aggrieved employees, and on behalf

of the general public if Plaintiff can prove that he and any other employee or employees are

aggrieved employees. Defendants admit the remaining allegations in Paragraph 113 of the

Case 3:17-cv-00480-RS Document 23 Filed 04/18/17 Page 13 of 24
- 14 -

Defendants’ Answer to Complaint

Firm:43097278v1 Case No. 3:17-CV-00480-RS

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

Complaint.

114. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 114 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that the allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded

but nonetheless admit such allegations on information and belief.

115. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 115 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that the allegations therein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is demanded

but nonetheless admit such allegations on information and belief.

116. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 116 of the Complaint.

117. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 117 of the Complaint, Defendants

admit they received a copy of a letter dated March 2, 2016, to the LWDA describing various

alleged violations of the California Labor Code. Defendants admit the remaining allegations in

Paragraph 117.

117. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained

in Paragraph 1171of the Complaint.

118. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 118 of the Complaint.

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices)

120. Defendants incorporate, as though fully set forth herein, their responses to

Paragraphs 1 through 1182of the Complaint, as set forth above.

121. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 121 of the Complaint.

122. In responding to the allegations in Paragraph 122 of the Complaint, Defendants

admit that Labor Code section 90.5(a) sets forth a public policy of California to vigorously

enforce minimum labor standards in order to ensure employees are not required or permitted to

work under substandard unlawful conditions and to protect employers who comply with the law

from those who attempt to gain a competitive advantage at the expense of their workers by

1 There are two paragraphs numbered 117 in the Complaint. For ease of reference, Defendants’ Answer responds to

the paragraphs exactly as they are numbered in the Complaint.

2 There is no Paragraph 119 in the Complaint. For ease of reference, Defendants’ Answer responds to the paragraphs

exactly as they are numbered in the Complaint.

Case 3:17-cv-00480-RS Document 23 Filed 04/18/17 Page 14 of 24
- 15 -

Defendants’ Answer to Complaint

Firm:43097278v1 Case No. 3:17-CV-00480-RS

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

failing to comply with minimum labor standards. Except as expressly admitted herein,

Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 122 of the Complaint.

123. In responding to the allegations in Paragraph 123 of the Complaint, Defendants

admit that Plaintiff and the California Class Members seek restitution of unpaid wages,

disgorgement of profits, penalties, and injunctive relief in their Compliant. Defendants lack

sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 123 of the

Complaint.

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Declaratory Judgment)

124. Defendants incorporate, as though fully set forth herein, their responses to

Paragraphs 1 through 123 of the Complaint, as set forth above.

125. Responding to the allegations in Paragraph 125 of the Complaint, Defendants

admit that Plaintiff desires a declaration of rights and other relief available pursuant to the

California Declaratory Judgment Act. Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendants deny the

remaining allegations in Paragraph 125 of the Complaint.

126. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 126 of the Complaint.

127. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 127 of the Complaint.

128. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraph 128 of the Complaint.

129. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 129 of the Complaint.

130. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 130 of the Complaint.

131. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraph 131 of the Complaint.

132. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 132 of the Complaint.

133. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 133 of the Complaint.

134. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraph 134 of the Complaint.

135. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 135 of the Complaint.

Case 3:17-cv-00480-RS Document 23 Filed 04/18/17 Page 15 of 24
- 16 -

Defendants’ Answer to Complaint

Firm:43097278v1 Case No. 3:17-CV-00480-RS

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

136. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 136 of the Complaint.

137. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraph 137 of the Complaint.

138. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 138 of the Complaint.

139. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 139 of the Complaint.

140. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraph 140 of the Complaint.

141. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 141 of the Complaint.

142. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 142 of the Complaint.

143. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraph 143 of the Complaint.

144. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 144 of the Complaint.

145. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 145 of the Complaint.

146. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraph 146 of the Complaint.

147. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 147 of the Complaint.

148. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 148 of the Complaint.

149. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraph 149 of the Complaint.

150. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 150 of the Complaint.

151. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 151 of the Complaint.

152. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraph 152 of the Complaint.

153. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 153 of the Complaint.

154. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 154 of the Complaint.

155. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraph 155 of the Complaint.

156. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 156 of the Complaint.

Case 3:17-cv-00480-RS Document 23 Filed 04/18/17 Page 16 of 24
- 17 -

Defendants’ Answer to Complaint

Firm:43097278v1 Case No. 3:17-CV-00480-RS

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

157. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 157 of the Complaint.

158. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraph 158 of the Complaint.

159. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 159 of the Complaint.

160. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 160 of the Complaint.

161. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraph 161 of the Complaint.

162. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 162 of the Complaint.

163. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 163 of the Complaint.

164. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraph 164 of the Complaint.

165. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 165 of the Complaint.

166. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 166 of the Complaint.

167. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraph 167 of the Complaint.

168. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 168 of the Complaint.

169. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 169 of the Complaint.

170. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraph 170 of the Complaint.

171. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 171 of the Complaint.

172. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 172 of the Complaint.

173. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraph 173 of the Complaint.

174. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 174 of the Complaint.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Responding to Plaintiff’s prayer for relief, Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to

any of the relief requested.

Case 3:17-cv-00480-RS Document 23 Filed 04/18/17 Page 17 of 24
- 18 -

Defendants’ Answer to Complaint

Firm:43097278v1 Case No. 3:17-CV-00480-RS

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

AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES

Without admitting any of the facts alleged in the Complaint, Defendants hereby submit

the following affirmative and other defenses, which are pleaded in the alternative and do not

constitute any admission of liability, or that Plaintiff or the putative collective members and class

members he purports to represent are entitled to any relief. Defendants may have additional

affirmative or other defenses of which they are not presently aware and, as such, expressly

reserve the right to assert any such additional affirmative and other defenses.

FIRST DEFENSE

The Complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted.

SECOND DEFENSE

Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue some or all of the claims asserted in the Complaint.

THIRD DEFENSE

Plaintiff is not owed any remuneration of any kind in connection with his employment.

FOURTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff is not entitled to any alleged unpaid overtime because Defendants’ payments to

Plaintiff of premium remuneration, including but not limited to daily overtime pay (including

double-time pay), holiday-work pay, work-on-day-of-rest pay, double-back pay, reporting pay,

and staggered-hours pay, is properly creditable toward, and should be offset against, any alleged

unpaid overtime pay.

FIFTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff is not entitled to any alleged back overtime pay because certain of the bonus and

incentive payments and other premium pay, including but not limited to meal allowance pay,

received by Plaintiff are not properly included in the regular rate for purposes of calculating

overtime pay.

SIXTH DEFENSE

At all times Plaintiff was paid the complete and timely payment of all wages owed in

accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and California Labor Code.

Case 3:17-cv-00480-RS Document 23 Filed 04/18/17 Page 18 of 24
- 19 -

Defendants’ Answer to Complaint

Firm:43097278v1 Case No. 3:17-CV-00480-RS

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

SEVENTH DEFENSE

The claims are barred, in whole or in part, and/or recovery is precluded by the applicable

statutes of limitation, including but not limited to 29 U.S.C. § 255; California Code of Civil

Procedure §§ 337, 338, 340, and California Business and Professions Code § 17208.

EIGHTH DEFENSE

If the unlawful acts and/or omissions alleged in the Complaint were engaged in by the

Defendants, which they deny, the defendants did not do so willfully.

NINTH DEFENSE

At all times relevant to this lawsuit Defendants acted in good faith, on reasonable

grounds, and with the reasonable belief that they were in full compliance with the FLSA and

California Labor Code.

TENTH DEFENSE

The claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that he is

entitled to recover liquidated damages. Defendants have at all times compensated Plaintiff in

accordance with the law, in good faith, and with reasonable grounds for believing Plaintiff’s

compensation was in compliance with the FLSA and California Labor Code.

ELEVENTH DEFENSE

Defendant American Sugar Refining, Inc. is not Plaintiff’s “employer” for purposes of

the FLSA and/or California Labor Code.

TWELFTH DEFENSE

The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant American Sugar Refining, Inc.

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

Defendants C & H Sugar Company, Inc. and American Sugar Refining, Inc. are not “joint

employers” for purposes of the FLSA or California Labor Code.

FOURTEENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs’ claims were not caused by any unlawful policy, custom, practice, program,

procedure, protocol, or plan promulgated and/or permitted by Defendants.

Case 3:17-cv-00480-RS Document 23 Filed 04/18/17 Page 19 of 24
- 20 -

Defendants’ Answer to Complaint

Firm:43097278v1 Case No. 3:17-CV-00480-RS

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

FIFTEENTH DEFENSE

This action is not a proper class or collective action, and cannot be properly certified as

such.

SIXTEENTH DEFENSE

This action cannot be maintained as a collective action because it fails to meet the

requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and applicable case law.

SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE

This action cannot be maintained as a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class action or a

collective action pursuant to the FLSA because Plaintiff’s allegations require an individualized

inquiry. Such individual analyses predominate over common questions which defeat the utility

and legality of a purported collective action or class action.

EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff cannot bring this action in a representative capacity because he is not similarly

situated to the individuals he purports to represent in this action.

NINETEENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff is not an adequate representative of the alleged putative class members for

purposes of satisfying Rule 23.

TWENTIETH DEFENSE

This case is not appropriate for class certification under Rule 23 because Plaintiff’s

claims are not typical of the claims of the putative class.

TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE

This case is not appropriate for class certification under Rule 23 because the facts and

law common to the case are insignificant compared to the individual facts and issues particular to

Plaintiff and the alleged putative class members.

TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE

This case is not appropriate for class certification under Rule 23 because Plaintiff cannot

demonstrate that the class is so numerous that joinder of all putative members is impracticable.

Case 3:17-cv-00480-RS Document 23 Filed 04/18/17 Page 20 of 24
- 21 -

Defendants’ Answer to Complaint

Firm:43097278v1 Case No. 3:17-CV-00480-RS

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

TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE

Collective action and class action treatment is not superior to other available methods for

the fair and efficient adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims and the claims of the putative collective

and class action members.

TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE

The Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1367 over Plaintiff’s state law claims on the ground that there is no federal question or other

federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

TWENTY-FIFTH DEFENSE

The Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) and/or (c)(2).

TWENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff and the putative collective action and class action members are barred from

recovering any damages, or any recovery must be reduced by virtue of their failure to exercise

reasonable diligence to mitigate their alleged damages.

TWENTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE

Defendants oppose collective and class action certification and dispute the propriety of

collective or class treatment of this action. If the Court certifies a collective or class action in

this case over Defendants’ objections, then Defendants assert the applicable denials and

affirmative defenses set forth herein against each and every putative member of the collective

action and class action.

TWENTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff failed to exhaust the

requisite administrative remedies, statutory and/or contractual remedies available to him prior to

commencing this action.

TWENTY-NINTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff is precluded and/or preempted from pursuing his claims in this action because he

failed to follow the required grievance procedure pursuant to Section 20 of the June 1, 2012

Case 3:17-cv-00480-RS Document 23 Filed 04/18/17 Page 21 of 24
- 22 -

Defendants’ Answer to Complaint

Firm:43097278v1 Case No. 3:17-CV-00480-RS

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

Collective Bargaining Agreement between C & H Sugar Company, Inc. and Sugar Workers

Union No. 1 Seafarers International Union of N.A. AFL-CIO.

THIRTIETH DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands.

THIRTY-FIRST DEFENSE

Plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief insofar as he has adequate remedies at law.

THIRTY-SECOND DEFENSE

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine of laches.

THIRTY-THIRD DEFENSE

Plaintiff is estopped by his conduct from asserting his claims.

THIRTY-FOURTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of waiver.

THIRTY-FIFTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or part, by the doctrine of estoppel because the

alleged wage and hour violations at issue in this case, if they did occur, occurred as a result of

the operation of a collective bargaining agreement negotiated by Sugar Workers Union 1, which

is the exclusive bargaining agent for all terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment, and the

Union failed to specify in the collective bargaining agreement applicable to Plaintiff that the

various payments at issue here were to be included in the regular rate of pay for purposes of

calculating overtime.

THIRTY-SIXTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or part, by the doctrine of estoppel or waiver

because Sugar Workers Union 1 is the exclusive agent for the administration and enforcement of

the collective bargaining agreement that governs Plaintiff’s terms and conditions of employment,

and at no time during Plaintiff’s employment did the Union contend or assert that the various

payments at issue here should have been included in the regular rate of pay for purposes of

calculating overtime.

Case 3:17-cv-00480-RS Document 23 Filed 04/18/17 Page 22 of 24
- 23 -

Defendants’ Answer to Complaint

Firm:43097278v1 Case No. 3:17-CV-00480-RS

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

THIRTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because he consented to the alleged

conduct of which he now complains.

THIRTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of avoidable

consequences.

THIRTY-NINTH DEFENSE

Defendants maintained proper records and furnished Plaintiff with accurate wage

statements in compliance with the California Labor Code.

FORTIETH DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims brought under the California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et

seq. are barred, in whole or in part, because California law does not permit representative actions

where liability can only be determined through fact-intensive individualized assessments of

alleged wage and hour violations.

FORTY-FIRST DEFENSE

Plaintiff cannot recover any alleged damages in this action because doing so would result

in unjust enrichment to Plaintiff which would unduly prejudice Defendants.

FORTY-SECOND DEFENSE

Any recovery pursuant to PAGA is unconstitutionally excessive and violates Defendants’

due process rights.

FORTY-THIRD DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s cause of action pursuant to PAGA is barred to the extent it seeks to recover

penalties on behalf of putative collective action and class action members who are not

“aggrieved employees.”

FORTY-FOURTH DEFENSE

Defendants reserve the right to raise additional affirmative and other defenses that may

subsequently become or appear applicable to Plaintiff’s claims.

Case 3:17-cv-00480-RS Document 23 Filed 04/18/17 Page 23 of 24
- 24 -

Defendants’ Answer to Complaint

Firm:43097278v1 Case No. 3:17-CV-00480-RS

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

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

On Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendants pray for judgment as follows:

1. That the Complaint be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice, and that Plaintiff,

the Collective Action Members, and the California Class Members, take nothing by this action;

2. That the court award judgment in favor of Defendants;

3. That Defendants be awarded their costs of suit, and

4. Any and such further relief as this court may deem proper.

DATED: April 18, 2017 EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.

By:/s/ Steven Blackburn

Steven R. Blackburn

Matthew Goodin

Attorneys for Defendants

C&H SUGAR COMPANY, INC.

AND SUGAR REFINING, INC.

Case 3:17-cv-00480-RS Document 23 Filed 04/18/17 Page 24 of 24