1 2 3 4 5 6
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO A Professional Corporation Steven D. Atkinson State Bar No. 59094 Joanna L. Blake State Bar No. 198799 17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Cerritos, California 90703-8597 Telephone: (562) 653-3200 • (714) 826-5480 Facsimile: (562) 653-3333 Attorneys for Defendant WESTERN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Cerritos, California 90703-8597 Telephone: (562) 653-3200 • (714) 826-5480 Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
7 8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, EAST DISTRICT
10 11
SINCLAIR HUGH, an individual,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
WESTERN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, a California non-profit corporation, and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive,
15 16
CASE NO.
KC041824 O
JUDGE: HONORABLE PETER J. MEEKA, DEPT. O VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT WESTERN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Defendants.
17 18 19
Defendant WESTERN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES (“Western University”),
20
for itself alone and no other party, files this Answer to the Verified Complaint filed by Plaintiff
21
SINCLAIR HUGH (“Hugh”).
22
Western University rejects as totally without factual basis the allegation that Hugh was
23
terminated because of the false and misleading statements he made to the IRS and the state
24
Attorney General’s office. Hugh was terminated because he took other actions that violated
25
University policies and ignored sound management practices. His employment was terminated
26
because his other actions (not his contact with government agencies) made him unfit to continue to
27
serve as head of human resource functions for Western University.
28 29 08227.014/419940v1
30
VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Cerritos, California 90703-8597 Telephone: (562) 653-3200 • (714) 826-5480 Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
1
Following a thorough investigation, culminating in a review of relevant information by its
2
Board of Trustees, Western University determined that Hugh breached his management
3
responsibilities by: (a) failing to report alleged violations of law to his supervisor; (b) sharing
4
confidential and private information, including confidential salary information, with subordinate
5
employees and others both inside and outside the University; and (c) disseminating private and
6
confidential information, thus exposing Western University to potential liability from non-
7
governmental third parties. Western University determined that Hugh’s conduct constituted a
8
serious breach of confidentiality, a serious breach of Hugh’s management responsibilities, and
9
demonstrated a serious lack of judgment. For those reasons, and those reasons alone, Western
10
University terminated Hugh’s employment.
11
Western University answers Hugh’s Verified Complaint as follows:
12
1.
To the extent the allegations in paragraph 1 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint
13
constitute legal argument or legal conclusions, no answer is required. Western University admits
14
that Hugh was employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California within this judicial
15
district, pursuant to an “Agreement of Employment.”
16
information and belief with which to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in
17
paragraph 1, and on that basis, Western University denies each and every, all and singular,
18
generally and specifically, said allegations.
19 20 21
2.
Western University lacks sufficient
Western University admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Hugh’s
Verified Complaint. 3.
Western University lacks sufficient information and belief with which to admit or
22
deny the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint, and on that basis,
23
Western University denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the
24
allegations contained therein.
25
4.
Western University lacks sufficient information and belief with which to admit or
26
deny the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint, and on that basis,
27
Western University denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the
28
allegations contained therein.
29 08227.014/419940v1
30
-2-
VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
2
TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
3 4
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Cerritos, California 90703-8597 Telephone: (562) 653-3200 • (714) 826-5480 Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
Western University repleads and incorporates herein by this reference, as though
5
fully set forth, each and every admission, denial and allegation made in this answer in response to
6
the paragraphs incorporated by reference into paragraph 5 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint.
7
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
5.
6.
Western University admits that from July 1, 1999 until May 2, 2003, Hugh was
8
employed by Western University, pursuant to successive one-year written “Agreement[s] of
9
Employment,” as Western University’s Director of Human Resources.
Western University
10
further admits that Hugh was responsible for managing and overseeing all human resources
11
functions and activities of Western University. Western University lacks sufficient information
12
and belief with which to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 6 of
13
Hugh’s Verified Complaint, and on that basis, Western University denies each and every, all and
14
singular, generally and specifically, said allegations.
15
7.
Western University lacks sufficient information and belief with which to admit or
16
deny the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint, and on that basis,
17
Western University denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the
18
allegations contained therein.
19
8.
Western University admits that, on or about April 11, 2003, Western University
20
placed Hugh on paid administrative leave pending an investigation into Hugh’s apparent breach of
21
management responsibilities. Save and except as expressly admitted herein, Western University
22
denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the allegations contained in
23
paragraph 8 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint.
24
9.
Western University admits Western University terminated Hugh on May 2, 2003
25
following a thorough investigation during which Western University found that (a) Hugh failed to
26
report alleged violations of law to his supervisor, (b) Hugh shared confidential and private
27
information regarding Western University and current and former employees of Western
28
University, including but not limited to confidential salary information, with Hugh’s subordinate
29 08227.014/419940v1
30
-3-
VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Cerritos, California 90703-8597 Telephone: (562) 653-3200 • (714) 826-5480 Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
1
employees and others both inside and outside the University who were not governmental agencies,
2
and (c) Hugh’s behavior exposed Western University to potential liability from non-governmental
3
third parties due to the disclosure of private information, including but not limited to current and
4
former employee salary information; Western University considered Hugh’s conduct to be a
5
breach of confidentiality, a breach of Hugh’s management responsibilities, and demonstrative of a
6
serious lack of judgment. Save and except as expressly admitted herein, Western University denies
7
each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the allegations contained in paragraph 9
8
of Hugh’s Verified Complaint.
9
10.
To the extent the allegations in paragraph 10 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint
10
constitute legal argument or legal conclusions, no answer is required. Western University lacks
11
sufficient information and belief with which to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in
12
paragraph 10, and on that basis, Western University denies each and every, all and singular,
13
generally and specifically, said allegations.
14
11.
To the extent the allegations in paragraph 11 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint
15
constitute legal argument or legal conclusions, no answer is required. Western University repleads
16
and incorporates herein by this reference, as though fully set forth, each and every admission,
17
denial and allegation made in response to Paragraphs 7 and 10. Western University admits
18
Western University terminated Hugh on May 2, 2003 following a thorough investigation during
19
which Western University found that (a) Hugh failed to report alleged violations of law to his
20
supervisor, (b) Hugh shared confidential and private information regarding Western University and
21
current and former employees of Western University, including but not limited to confidential
22
salary information, with Hugh’s subordinate employees and others both inside and outside the
23
University who were not governmental agencies, and (c) Hugh’s behavior exposed Western
24
University to potential liability from non-governmental third parties due to the disclosure of
25
private information, including but not limited to current and former employee salary information;
26
Western University considered Hugh’s conduct to be a breach of confidentiality, a breach of
27
Hugh’s management responsibilities, and demonstrative of a serious lack of judgment. Save and
28 29 08227.014/419940v1
30
-4-
VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
except as expressly admitted herein, Western University denies each and every, all and singular,
2
generally and specifically, the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 11.
3 4
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Cerritos, California 90703-8597 Telephone: (562) 653-3200 • (714) 826-5480 Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
5
12.
Western University denies each and every, all and singular, generally and
specifically, the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint. 13.
Western University admits that Western University placed Hugh on paid
6
administrative leave pending an investigation into Hugh’s conduct, such as sharing his complaints
7
with subordinates and third parties, that Western University considered demonstrated a breach of
8
Hugh’s management responsibilities.
9
terminated Hugh’s employment following a thorough investigation during which Western
10
University found that (a) Hugh failed to report alleged violations of law to his supervisor, (b)
11
Hugh shared confidential and private information regarding Western University and current and
12
former employees of Western University, including but not limited to confidential salary
13
information, with Hugh’s subordinate employees and others both inside and outside the
14
University who were not governmental agencies, and (c) Hugh’s behavior exposed Western
15
University to potential liability from non-governmental third parties due to the disclosure of
16
private information, including but not limited to current and former employee salary information;
17
Western University considered Hugh’s conduct to be a breach of confidentiality, a breach of
18
Hugh’s management responsibilities, and demonstrative of a serious lack of judgment. Western
19
University further admits that it filed a lawsuit against Hugh in this Court for libel, trade libel,
20
slander, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and conspiracy. Save and
21
except as expressly admitted herein, Western University denies each and every, all and singular,
22
generally and specifically, the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 13 of Hugh’s Verified
23
Complaint.
24
14.
Western University admits that Western University
To the extent the allegations in paragraph 14 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint
25
constitute legal argument or legal conclusions, no answer is required. Western University admits
26
that no action was taken to alter the decision reflected in the termination letter to Hugh dated May
27
2, 2003. Save and except as expressly admitted herein, Western University denies each and every,
28
all and singular, generally and specifically, the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 14.
29 08227.014/419940v1
30
-5-
VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2
VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §1102.5
3 4 5 6 7
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Cerritos, California 90703-8597 Telephone: (562) 653-3200 • (714) 826-5480 Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
15.
Western University repleads and incorporates herein by this reference, as though
fully set forth, each and every admission, denial and allegation made in this answer in response to the paragraphs incorporated by reference into paragraph 15 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint. 16.
To the extent the allegations in paragraph 16 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint
constitute legal argument or legal conclusions, no answer is required. Western University admits the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 16. 17.
To the extent the allegations in paragraph 17 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint
constitute legal argument or legal conclusions, no answer is required. Western University repleads and incorporates herein by this reference, as though fully set forth, each and every admission, denial and allegation made in response to Paragraphs 13 and 14. Western University denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 17. 18.
Western University repleads and incorporates herein by this reference, as though
fully set forth, each and every admission, denial and allegation made in response to Paragraph 11 and 12. Western University denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 18 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint. 19.
Western University repleads and incorporates herein by this reference, as though
fully set forth, each and every admission, denial and allegation made in response to Paragraphs 13 and 14. Western University denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 19 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint. 20.
Western University repleads and incorporates herein by this reference, as though
fully set forth, each and every admission, denial and allegation made in response to Paragraphs 13 and 14. Western University denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 20 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint.
28 29 08227.014/419940v1
30
-6-
VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2 3 4
21.
specifically, the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint. 22.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
6
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
7
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Cerritos, California 90703-8597 Telephone: (562) 653-3200 • (714) 826-5480 Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
9 10 11
Western University denies each and every, all and singular, generally and
specifically, the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint.
5
8
Western University denies each and every, all and singular, generally and
23.
Western University repleads and incorporates herein by this reference, as though
fully set forth, each and every admission, denial and allegation made in this answer in response to the paragraphs incorporated by reference into paragraph 23 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint. 24.
To the extent the allegations in paragraph 24 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint
12
constitute legal argument or legal conclusions, no answer is required. Western University repleads
13
and incorporates herein by this reference, as though fully set forth, each and every admission,
14
denial and allegation made in response to Paragraphs 13 and 14. Western University denies each
15
and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the remaining allegations contained in
16
paragraph 24.
17
25.
To the extent the allegations in paragraph 25 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint
18
constitute legal argument or legal conclusions, no answer is required. Western University denies
19
each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the remaining allegations contained in
20
paragraph 25.
21
26.
To the extent the allegations in paragraph 26 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint
22
constitute legal argument or legal conclusions, no answer is required. Western University denies
23
each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the remaining allegations contained in
24
paragraph 26.
25
27.
Western University lacks sufficient information and belief with which to admit or
26
deny that Hugh has suffered and is suffering severe and extreme emotional distress, and on that
27
basis, Western University denies said allegation, generally and specifically. Western University
28 29 08227.014/419940v1
30
-7-
VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the remaining allegations
2
contained in paragraph 27 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint.
3 4 5 6
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Cerritos, California 90703-8597 Telephone: (562) 653-3200 • (714) 826-5480 Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
7
28.
Western University denies each and every, all and singular, generally and
specifically, the allegations contained in paragraph 28 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint. 29.
Western University denies each and every, all and singular, generally and
specifically, the contained in paragraph 29 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint. 30.
Western University repleads and incorporates herein by this reference, as though
8
fully set forth, each and every admission, denial and allegation made in response to Paragraphs 13
9
and 14. Western University denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the
10 11
allegations contained in paragraph 30 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint. 31.
Western University repleads and incorporates herein by this reference, as though
12
fully set forth, each and every admission, denial and allegation made in response to Paragraphs 13
13
and 14. Western University denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the
14
remaining allegations contained in paragraph 31 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint.
15 16 17 18
32.
specifically, the allegations contained in paragraph 32 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint. 33.
21 22
Western University denies each and every, all and singular, generally and
specifically, the allegations contained in paragraph 33 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint.
19 20
Western University denies each and every, all and singular, generally and
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF EXPRESS CONTRACT OF CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT 34.
Western University repleads and incorporates herein by this reference, as though
23
fully set forth, each and every admission, denial and allegation made in this answer in response to
24
the paragraphs incorporated by reference into paragraph 34 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint.
25
35.
Western University admits that Hugh and Western University entered into a series
26
of one-year written “Agreement[s] of Employment.” Western University further admits that
27
Hugh’s “Agreement of Employment” with Western University had a term that expired on June 30,
28
2003. Western University admits that the document annexed to the complaint and marked as
29 08227.014/419940v1
30
-8-
VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
Exhibit C is a copy of the “Agreement of Employment” between Hugh and Western University
2
effective July 1, 2002. On information and belief, Western University denies that, pursuant to
3
Western University’s written policies, Hugh would receive ninety days of additional
4
compensation should Western University choose not to renew Hugh’s contract without notice.
5
Save and except as expressly admitted or denied herein or denied herein based on information and
6
belief, Western University denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the
7
remaining allegations contained in paragraph 35 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Cerritos, California 90703-8597 Telephone: (562) 653-3200 • (714) 826-5480 Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
8
36.
Western University denies that Hugh at all times fulfilled his duties and conditions
9
under the “Agreement of Employment,” in that following a thorough investigation Western
10
University found that (a) Hugh failed to report alleged violations of law to his supervisor, (b)
11
Hugh shared confidential and private information regarding Western University and current and
12
former employees of Western University, including but not limited to confidential salary
13
information, with Hugh’s subordinate employees and others both inside and outside the
14
University who were not governmental agencies, and (c) Hugh’s behavior exposed Western
15
University to potential liability from non-governmental third parties due to the disclosure of
16
private information, including but not limited to current and former employee salary information;
17
Western University considered Hugh’s conduct to be a breach of confidentiality, a breach of
18
Hugh’s management responsibilities, and demonstrative of a serious lack of judgment. Western
19
University lacks sufficient information and belief with which to admit or deny the remaining
20
allegations contained in paragraph 36 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint, and on that basis, Western
21
University denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, said allegations.
22
37.
Western University admits that Western University terminated Hugh’s
23
employment on or about May 2, 2003 following a thorough investigation during which Western
24
University found that (a) Hugh failed to report alleged violations of law to his supervisor, (b)
25
Hugh shared confidential and private information regarding Western University and current and
26
former employees of Western University, including but not limited to confidential salary
27
information, with Hugh’s subordinate employees and others both inside and outside the
28
University who were not governmental agencies, and (c) Hugh’s behavior exposed Western
29 08227.014/419940v1
30
-9-
VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Cerritos, California 90703-8597 Telephone: (562) 653-3200 • (714) 826-5480 Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
1
University to potential liability from non-governmental third parties due to the disclosure of
2
private information, including but not limited to current and former employee salary information;
3
Western University considered Hugh’s conduct to be a breach of confidentiality, a breach of
4
Hugh’s management responsibilities, and demonstrative of a serious lack of judgment. Save and
5
except as expressly admitted herein, Western University denies each and every, all and singular,
6
generally and specifically, the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 37 of Hugh’s Verified
7
Complaint.
8
38.
9
specifically, the allegations contained in paragraph 38 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint.
10 11 12 13
Western University denies each and every, all and singular, generally and
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 39.
Western University repleads and incorporates herein by this reference, as though
14
fully set forth, each and every admission, denial and allegation made in this answer in response to
15
the paragraphs incorporated by reference into paragraph 39 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint.
16
40.
To the extent the allegations in paragraph 40 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint
17
constitute legal argument or legal conclusions, no answer is required. Western University denies
18
each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the remaining allegations contained in
19
paragraph 40.
20
41.
Western University denies that Hugh performed all the duties and conditions under
21
the “Agreement of Employment, ” in that following a thorough investigation Western University
22
found that (a) Hugh failed to report alleged violations of law to his supervisor, (b) Hugh shared
23
confidential and private information regarding Western University and current and former
24
employees of Western University, including but not limited to confidential salary information,
25
with Hugh’s subordinate employees and others both inside and outside the University who were
26
not governmental agencies, and (c) Hugh’s behavior exposed Western University to potential
27
liability from non-governmental third parties due to the disclosure of private information, including
28
but not limited to current and former employee salary information; Western University considered
29 08227.014/419940v1
30
-10-
VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
Hugh’s conduct to be a breach of confidentiality, a breach of Hugh’s management responsibilities,
2
and demonstrative of a serious lack of judgment.
3 4
42.
specifically, the allegations contained in paragraph 42 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint.
5
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Cerritos, California 90703-8597 Telephone: (562) 653-3200 • (714) 826-5480 Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
Western University denies each and every, all and singular, generally and
43.
To the extent the allegations in paragraph 43 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint
6
constitute legal argument or legal conclusions, no answer is required. Western University admits
7
Western University terminated Hugh following a thorough investigation during which Western
8
University found that (a) Hugh failed to report alleged violations of law to his supervisor, (b)
9
Hugh shared confidential and private information regarding Western University and current and
10
former employees of Western University, including but not limited to confidential salary
11
information, with Hugh’s subordinate employees and others both inside and outside the
12
University who were not governmental agencies, and (c) Hugh’s behavior exposed Western
13
University to potential liability from non-governmental third parties due to the disclosure of
14
private information, including but not limited to current and former employee salary information;
15
Western University considered Hugh’s conduct to be a breach of confidentiality, a breach of
16
Hugh’s management responsibilities, and demonstrative of a serious lack of judgment. Save and
17
except as expressly admitted herein, Western University denies each and every, all and singular,
18
generally and specifically, the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 43.
19
44.
To the extent the allegations in paragraph 44 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint
20
constitute legal argument or legal conclusions, no answer is required. Western University denies
21
each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the remaining allegations contained in
22
paragraph 44.
23
45.
Western University denies each and every, all and singular, generally and
24
specifically, the allegations contained in paragraph 45 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint.
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
29 08227.014/419940v1
30
-11-
VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2
FAILURE TO PAY WAGES [LABOR CODE §§ 201, 202, 218, 218.5]
3 4
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Cerritos, California 90703-8597 Telephone: (562) 653-3200 • (714) 826-5480 Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
Western University repleads and incorporates herein by this reference, as though
5
fully set forth, each and every admission, denial and allegation made in this answer in response to
6
the paragraphs incorporated by reference into paragraph 46 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint.
7
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
46.
47.
To the extent the allegations in paragraph 47 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint
8
constitute legal argument or legal conclusions, no answer is required. On information and belief,
9
Western University denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the
10 11
remaining allegations contained in paragraph 47. 48.
Western University admits that Hugh was terminated on May 2, 2003 following a
12
thorough investigation during which Western University found that (a) Hugh failed to report
13
alleged violations of law to his supervisor, (b) Hugh shared confidential and private information
14
regarding Western University and current and former employees of Western University, including
15
but not limited to confidential salary information, with Hugh’s subordinate employees and others
16
both inside and outside the University who were not governmental agencies, and (c) Hugh’s
17
behavior exposed Western University to potential liability from non-governmental third parties
18
due to the disclosure of private information, including but not limited to current and former
19
employee salary information; Western University considered Hugh’s conduct to be a breach of
20
confidentiality, a breach of Hugh’s management responsibilities, and demonstrative of a serious
21
lack of judgment.
22
49.
To the extent the allegations in paragraph 49 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint
23
constitute legal argument or legal conclusions, no answer is required. On information and belief,
24
Western University admits that it did not pay Hugh through June 30 nor did Western University
25
give Hugh ninety days pay. Save and except as expressly admitted herein, Western University
26
denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the remaining allegations
27
contained in paragraph 49.
28 29 08227.014/419940v1
30
-12-
VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
50.
2
constitute legal argument or legal conclusions, no answer is required. On information and belief,
3
Western University denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the
4
remaining allegations contained in paragraph 50.
5
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Cerritos, California 90703-8597 Telephone: (562) 653-3200 • (714) 826-5480 Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
To the extent the allegations in paragraph 50 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint
51.
On information and belief, Western University denies that any sums are due Hugh
6
under the terms of the “Agreement of Employment” and Western University’s written policy and
7
on that basis, Western University denies both generally and specifically the allegations contained
8
in paragraph 51 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint.
9
52.
To the extent the allegations in paragraph 52 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint
10
constitute legal argument or legal conclusions, no answer is required. On information and belief,
11
Western University denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the
12
remaining allegations contained in paragraph 52.
13
53.
Western University admits that, pursuant to Labor Code §218.5, Hugh requests
14
that the Court award Hugh reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred by Hugh in this action.
15
Save and except as expressly admitted herein, Western University denies each and every, all and
16
singular, generally and specifically, the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 53 of Hugh’s
17
Verified Complaint.
18
54.
To the extent the allegations in paragraph 54 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint
19
constitute legal argument or legal conclusions, no answer is required. On information and belief,
20
Western University denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the
21
remaining allegations contained in paragraph 54.
22
55.
To the extent the allegations in paragraph 55 of Hugh’s Verified Complaint
23
constitute legal argument or legal conclusions, no answer is required. On information and belief,
24
Western University denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the
25
remaining allegations contained in paragraph 55.
26
///
27
///
28
///
29 08227.014/419940v1
30
-13-
VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2 3
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES For its affirmative defenses, Western University alleges as follows:
4 5
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 56.
As a first, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University alleges that
6
the Verified Complaint, and each of its purported causes of action, fails to state facts sufficient to
7
constitute a cause of action against Western University.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Cerritos, California 90703-8597 Telephone: (562) 653-3200 • (714) 826-5480 Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
8 9 10
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 57.
As a second, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University alleges
11
that the liability, if any, of Western University, with respect to the Verified Complaint herein,
12
which liability is expressly denied by Western University, arose wholly or in part by reason of the
13
acts, errors, omissions, and/or negligence of Hugh, or Hugh’s breach or breaches of obligations to
14
Western University, and, as such, Hugh is entitled to no relief whatsoever from Western
15
University.
16 17 18
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 58.
As a third, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University alleges
19
that the injuries and damages, if any, sustained by Hugh as alleged in the Verified Complaint
20
herein, were proximately caused by the acts, errors, omissions, negligence and/or breaches of
21
obligation of individuals or entities other than Western University and, as such, Western
22
University is not responsible for any such injuries or damages.
23 24 25
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 59.
As a fourth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University alleges
26
that Western University has suffered damage by reason of Hugh’s conduct and, therefore, has the
27
right to offset any amount of money owed or due to Hugh by way of said damage.
28 29 08227.014/419940v1
30
-14-
VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 60.
As a fifth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University alleges that
3
Hugh, by reason of his acts, omissions, representations, and courses of conduct which indicate a
4
waiver of any claim against Western University, is barred from any recovery herein by the doctrine
5
of waiver.
6 7
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Cerritos, California 90703-8597 Telephone: (562) 653-3200 • (714) 826-5480 Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
8
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 61.
As a sixth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University is
9
informed and believes, and based on that information and belief alleges, that the damages, if any,
10
sustained by Hugh, were caused by the acts, omissions, or negligence of Hugh, and any damages
11
awarded to Hugh should be diminished in proportion to that amount attributed to Hugh.
12 13 14
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 62.
As a seventh, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University alleges
15
that Hugh, by reason of his acts, omissions, representations, and courses of conduct by which
16
Western University was led to rely to its detriment, is barred from any recovery herein by virtue
17
of the doctrine of estoppel.
18 19 20
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 63.
As an eighth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University alleges
21
that if any equitable relief is claimed to be owed to the Hugh as a result of the Verified Complaint
22
on file herein, it is barred as a result of Hugh’s own unclean hands.
23 24 25
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 64.
As a ninth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University alleges
26
that if any equitable relief is claimed to be owed to the Hugh as a result of the Verified Complaint
27
on file herein, it is barred as a result of the doctrine of laches.
28 29 08227.014/419940v1
30
-15-
VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 65.
As a tenth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University is
3
informed and believes, and based on that information and belief alleges, that Hugh failed and has
4
failed to mitigate damages by failing to take such actions as are reasonably necessary to minimize
5
any loss which may have, or in the future may be, sustained.
6 7
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Cerritos, California 90703-8597 Telephone: (562) 653-3200 • (714) 826-5480 Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
8
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 66.
As an eleventh, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University is
9
informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief alleges, that the relief prayed
10
for in the Verified Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, specifically,
11
California Civil Procedure Code §§ 336-349; California Labor Code § 203 and any other applicable
12
statutes of limitations and any other requirements relative to the giving of notice to the filing of
13
actions.
14 15 16
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 67.
As a twelfth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University is
17
informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief alleges, that the damages, if any,
18
sustained by Hugh, were caused by acts, omissions, or negligence of third parties other than
19
Western University, and any damage awarded to Hugh should be diminished and proportioned to
20
that amount attributed to said third parties.
21 22 23
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 68.
As a thirteenth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University
24
alleges that the Verified Complaint, and each of its causes of action, are frivolous as to Western
25
University, and Western University is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees incurred in defending this
26
action pursuant to California Civil Procedure Code § 128.7, and other applicable laws.
27 28 29 08227.014/419940v1
30
-16-
VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 69.
As a fourteenth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University
3
alleges that to the extent that Hugh’s Verified Complaint, or any cause of action therein, alleges
4
physical or emotional injury, any recovery by Hugh for these injuries is barred by the exclusivity
5
of remedy of the California Workers’ Compensation Act, Labor Code § 3200, et. seq.
6 7
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Cerritos, California 90703-8597 Telephone: (562) 653-3200 • (714) 826-5480 Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
8
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 70.
As a fifteenth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University is
9
informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that any recovery on the Verified Complaint, or
10
any purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred because Western University’s disputed
11
conduct was privileged and/or justified.
12 13 14
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 71.
As a sixteenth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University alleges
15
that it is not liable for any of the alleged actions since Hugh consented to the actions set forth in
16
the Verified Complaint.
17 18 19
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 72.
As a seventeenth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University
20
alleges that Hugh has not pled conduct sufficient to justify the imposition of punitive damages
21
against Western University.
22 23 24
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 73.
As an eighteenth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University
25
alleges that if the trier of fact should find that any agent of Western University engaged in any
26
allegedly unlawful conduct, then such conduct by the agent of Western University was done
27
outside the course and scope of such agent’s authority. Accordingly, Hugh is barred from
28
asserting any cause of action against Western University based on said allegedly unlawful conduct.
29 08227.014/419940v1
30
-17-
VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 74.
As a nineteenth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University
3
alleges that as to each and every contract alleged in Hugh’s Verified Complaint and any purported
4
cause of action thereon, Hugh has failed to fulfill conditions precedent to the enforcement of any
5
contract.
6 7
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Cerritos, California 90703-8597 Telephone: (562) 653-3200 • (714) 826-5480 Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
8
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 75.
As a twentieth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University
9
alleges that as to each and every contract alleged in Hugh’s Verified Complaint and any purported
10
cause of action thereon, Hugh committed a prior breach thereof, excusing any duty of further
11
performance by Western University.
12 13 14 15
TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 76.
As a twenty-first, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University
alleges that Hugh’s employment was at-will.
16 17 18
TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 77.
As a twenty-second, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University
19
is informed and believes, and on that information and belief alleges, that the terms and/or
20
conditions of any agreement or contract entered into between Hugh and Western University are
21
not specifically set forth and cannot be ascertained and thus, bar or diminish Hugh’s recovery.
22 23 24
TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 78.
As a twenty-third, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University is
25
informed and believes, and on that information and belief alleges, that to the extent Hugh seeks
26
recovery herein based upon any alleged oral modification or agreement, said recovery is barred by
27
reason of the parole evidence rule.
28 29 08227.014/419940v1
30
-18-
VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2
79.
As a twenty-fourth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University
3
is informed and believes, and on that information and belief alleges, that Hugh’s Verified Complaint
4
is barred by the Statute of Frauds.
5 6
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Cerritos, California 90703-8597 Telephone: (562) 653-3200 • (714) 826-5480 Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
7
80.
As a twenty-fifth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University is
8
informed and believes, and on that information and belief alleges, that if it is determined that
9
Western University has failed to perform one or more of its obligations under any contract or
10
agreement described in the Verified Complaint, performance of each obligation was excused due to
11
impossibility or impracticability in each instance.
12 13
TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14
81.
As a twenty-sixth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University
15
alleges that any adverse action that Hugh allegedly suffered was based on a legitimate business
16
reason.
17 18 19
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 82.
As a twenty-seventh, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University
20
is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Hugh’s claims are barred by the doctrine of after
21
acquired evidence.
22 23 24
TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 83.
As a twenty-eighth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University
25
is informed and believes that any remedy sought by Hugh must be reduced as a result of the
26
doctrine of after acquired evidence.
27 28 29 08227.014/419940v1
30
-19-
VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2
84.
As a twenty-ninth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University is
3
informed and believes and thereon alleges that Western University did not willfully or intentionally
4
fail or refuse to pay any sum owing to Hugh.
5 6
THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Cerritos, California 90703-8597 Telephone: (562) 653-3200 • (714) 826-5480 Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
7
85.
As a thirtieth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University alleges
8
that the claims alleged in the Verified Complaint against Western University are barred by the
9
doctrine of in pari delicto.
10 11
THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12
86.
As a thirty-first, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University
13
alleges that the actions of Hugh are arbitrary and capricious and violate implied-by-law duties of
14
good faith and fair dealing.
15 16
THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17
87.
As a thirty-second, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University
18
alleges that as between Hugh and Western University, the equities do not preponderate in favor of
19
Hugh, and accordingly, Hugh is barred from any recovery herein.
20 21
THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22
88.
As a thirty-third, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University
23
alleges that it is not liable to any Hugh for any monetary damages alleged in the Verified
24
Complaint.
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
29 08227.014/419940v1
30
-20-
VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2
89.
As a thirty-fourth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University
3
alleges that its conduct was not the cause in fact or the proximate cause of any of the damages or
4
potential damages alleged by Hugh.
5 6
THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Cerritos, California 90703-8597 Telephone: (562) 653-3200 • (714) 826-5480 Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
7
90.
As a thirty-fifth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University
8
alleges that the allegations of the Verified Complaint allege allegations non-existent, not contracted
9
for, and outside of any agreement of the parties and, accordingly, Hugh is limited or barred to any
10
recovery herein.
11 12
THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13
91.
As a thirty-sixth, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University
14
alleges that at the time and places mentioned in Hugh’s Verified Complaint, Hugh did commit
15
willful misconduct in and about the matters and things alleged in Hugh’s Verified Complaint, which
16
said willful misconduct concurred in point of time with the alleged misconduct of Western
17
University, if any there may have been, and proximately caused and contributed to whatever
18
injury and/or damage Hugh may have sustained, if any.
19 20
THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21
92.
As a thirty-seventh, separate and distinct affirmative defense, Western University
22
alleges that it presently has insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as
23
to whether it may have additional, as yet unstated, affirmative defenses available.
24
University reserves herein the right to assert additional defenses in the event that discovery
25
indicates that they would be appropriate.
26
///
27
///
28
///
29 08227.014/419940v1
30
-21-
Western
VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
WHEREFORE, Western University prays for judgment against Hugh as follows:
2
1.
That Hugh take nothing by his Verified Complaint;
3
2.
For reasonable attorneys’ fees;
4
3.
For costs of suit incurred herein; and
5
4.
For such other and further relief the Court deems just and proper.
6 7
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Cerritos, California 90703-8597 Telephone: (562) 653-3200 • (714) 826-5480 Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
8 9 10 11 12
DATED: June 13, 2003
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
By:
Joanna L. Blake Attorneys for Defendant WESTERN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
08227.014/419940v1
30
-22-
VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
VERIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Cerritos, California 90703-8597 Telephone: (562) 653-3200 • (714) 826-5480 Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
3 4
I have read the foregoing VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT WESTERN
5
UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
6
DAMAGES and know its contents.
7
I am an officer of Western University of Health Sciences, a party to this action, and am
8
authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for that
9
reason.
10 11
[ ] I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true.
12
[X] The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as
13
to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them
14
to be true.
15 16 17
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June ____, 2003 at _____________________, California.
18 19 20 21
GEORGE CHARNEY, DO Executive Vice President of Academic Affairs/ C h i e f A c a d e m i c Officer Western University of Health Sciences
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 08227.014/419940v1
30
-23-
VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
PROOF OF SERVICE 1013A(3) CCP
2 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
4
I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party of the within action; my business address is: 17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200, Cerritos, California 90703.
5 6 7
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 17871 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Cerritos, California 90703-8597 Telephone: (562) 653-3200 • (714) 826-5480 Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
On June 13, 2003, I served the foregoing document described as: VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT WESTERN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES on all interested parties in this action: by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached Mailing List: by placing follows:
the original
a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as
Russell J. Thomas, Jr., Esq. THOMAS & ASSOCIATES 2532 Dupont Drive Irvine, CA 92612 I deposited such envelope in the mail at
, California.
15
The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid.
16
As follows: I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under the practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Cerritos, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
17 18 19 20
Executed on June 13, 2003, at Cerritos, California.
21
(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the addressee. Executed on at , California.
22
(STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and of my own personal knowledge that the above is true and correct.
23 24
FLORENCE M. HANSEN
___________________________________
25 26 27 28 29 08227.014/419940v1
30
-24-
VERIFIED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES