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
ARENT Fox LLP
ATTOKNay.-} A T L A W Lo*! ANCfel p."!

Harry 1. Johnson, III (SBN 200257) Stanley G. Stringfellow II (SBN 259047) ARENT FOX LLP 555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013-1065 Telephone: 213.629.7400 Facsimile: 213.629.7401 Email: johnson.harry(arentfox.com stringfellow. stanley{@arentfox.com Attorneys for Defendants PANDA EXPRESS, INC., PANDA EXPRESS, LLC, PANDA INN, INC., PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., HIBACHI-SAN, INC.

JUL 2 2 2 0 1 1
By:
f':"iiY[;:"'.x

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SOKPHY TIN, Plaintiff,

CASENO. 34-2010-00090959 ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PANDA EXPRESS, INC., PANDA EXPRESS, LLC, PANDA INN, INC., PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., AND HIBACHI-SAN, INC. TO PLAINTIFF SOKPHY TIN'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Action Filed: Nov. 4,2010 Trial Date: None yet Law & Mot. Judge: Kevin R. Culhane (Dept. 53) Case Mgmt. Progr.: Robert C. Hight (Dept. 44)

PANDA EXPRESS, INC., PANDA EXPRESS, LLC, PANDA INN, INC., PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., HIBACHI-SAN, INC., and DOES 1-100, inclusive. Defendants.

ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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
ARENT Fox LLP
ATTORNEYS A t L A W Los ANGELES

Defendants Panda Express, Inc., Panda Express, LLC, Panda Inn, Inc., Panda Restaurant Group, Inc., and Hibachi-San, Inc. ("Defendants") answer plaintiff Solcphy Tin's ("Plaintiffs") unverified First Amended Complaint for Damages ("First Amended Complaint") as follows: GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, Defendants deny each and all of the allegations of the First Amended Complaint, and every purported cause of action alleged therein. Defendants fiirther deny that Plaintiffhas suffered any damages whatsoever as a result of Defendants' conduct. SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES By way of separate and affirmative defenses to the First Amended Complaint, and each and every cause of action alleged by Plaintiff therein, Defendants allege as follows. By alleging the defenses below, Defendants in no way agree or concede that they bear the burden of proof or persuasion on any of these issues: FIRST SEPARATE OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The First Amended Complaint and each and every purported cause of action contained therein fails to state facts sufficient to constitule any cause of action against Defendants. SECOND SEPARATE OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE All of Plaintiff s claims and causes of action are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, including, but not limited to, Califomia Code of Civil Procedure sections 337, 338, 339, 340 and 343, and Califomia Business and Professions Code section 17208. THIRD SEPARATE OR AFFIRMATTVE DEFENSE Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that all of Plaintiff s claims and causes of action are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. FOURTH SEPARATE OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that all of Plaintiff s claims and causes of action are barred by the doctrine of in pari delicto. FIFTH SEPARATE OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that all of PlaintifPs claims and 4:
ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

causes of action are barred by the doctrine of waiver.

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
AI^ENT FOX LLP
ATTORNPfs A T L A W
Los A N G F L E S

SIXTH SEPARATE OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that all of Plaintiffs claims and causes of action are barred by the doctrine of laches. SEVENTH SEPARATE OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that all of Plaintiff s claims and causes of action are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. EIGHTH SEPARATE OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The First Amended Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred in whole or in part by Plaintiffs failure to satisfy her FEHA claim filing requirements. NINTH SEPARATE OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The First Amended Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred in whole or in part by Plaintiffs failure to timely exhaust her administrative remedies. TENTH SEPARATE OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The First Amended Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred in whole or in part by Plaintiffs failure to timely exhaust Defendants' internal grievance procedures. ELEVENTH SEPARATE OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As to each of Plaintiff s causes of action, the alleged conduct of which Plaintiff complains, if committed, was not willful or malicious, but rather, was made in good failh, honestly, and in the exercise of Defendants' good faith business judgment. TWELFTH SEPARATE OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs damages, if any, are limited by the doctrine of avoidable consequences. THIRTEENTH SEPARATE OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that all of Plaintiff s claims and causes of action are barred by the doctrine of consent. FOURTEENTH SEPARATE OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any damages which Plaintiff alleges she sustained were the result of her own negligence -2ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

and/or intentional actions and not the result of any action undertaken or omission by Defendants.

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
ARENT Fox LLP
A1T0RNKYS AT L A W LOS ANCBLE5

FIFTEENTH SEPARATE OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As to all of Plaintiff s Causes of Action, Defendants ai-e informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Plaintiffhas failed, refused, or neglected to mitigate or avoid the damages complained of in Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff is barred, in whole or in part, from recovering monetary damages from Defendants. Alternatively, any damages or other relief awarded to Plaintiff must be reduced or limited to the extent of Plaintiffs failure to mitigate. SIXTEENTH SEPARATE OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As to Plaintiffs request for equitable relief, those claims and prayer for relief are barred because Plaintiff has adequate remedies at law. SEVENTEENTH SEPARATE OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The First Amended Complaint does not state a claim against Defendants because Defendants' actions complied with all applicable law. EIGHTEENTH SEPARATE OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The First Amended Complaint does not state a claim against Defendanls because Plaintiff has nol established that she had an employment relationship with Defendants, or any of them. NINETEENTH SEPARATE OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Although Defendants deny that they have committed or have responsibility for any act that could support the irecovery of punitive damages in this action, if and to the extent that any such act is found, recovery of punitive damages against Defendants is unconstitutional under various provisions of the United States Constitution including, but not limited to, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition, the recovery of pimitive damages against Defendant is unconstitutional under various provisions of the California Constitution, including, but not limited to, the excessive fines clause of Section 17 of Article I and the Due Process Clause of Section 1 of Article I. TWENTIETH SEPARATE OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiff s own wrongful conduct. Plaintiffs right to -3ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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
ARENT Fox LLP
ATToaNHYf A T L A W Los ArJCEi.FS

recovery is wholly or partially barred. TWENTY-FIRST SEPARATE OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The First Amended Complaint, and each cause of action contained therein, is barred on the ground that any damages sustained by Plaintiff, which Defendants deny, were not proxintately caused or contributed to by Defendants. TWENTY-SECOND SEPARATE OR AFFIRMATFVE DEFENSE The First Amended Complaint, and each cause of action contained therein, is barred because any conduct complained of by Plaintiff was justified or privileged. TWENTY-THIRD SEPARATE OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs claim is barred because Plaintiffs damages, if any, resulted from the acts or omissions of third parties over whom Defendants had no control. The acts of such third parties constitute intervening or superseding causes of the harm, if any, suffered by Plaintiff TWENTY-FOURTH SEPARATE OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants currently have insufficient information upon which to form a belief as to whether it has additional affirmative defenses available. Defendants therefore reserve the righl to assert addifional affirmative defenses in the event that investigation and discovery indicate that hey would be appropriate.

-4ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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
ARENT FOX LLP
ATTOKNBYS AT LAW Los ANGELES

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray forjudgment as follows: 1. That Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint and all claims and causes of action therein be dismissed with prejudice; 2. 3. 4. That Plaintiff take nothing by this action; That judgment be entered against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendants; That Defendants be awarded their costs incurred in this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees; and 5. That this Court grant Defendants such other and further legal or equitable relief as

the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: July 22, 2011

ARENT FO

Stanley G. Stringfellow III Attomeys for Defendants PANDA EXPRESS, INC., ^ANDA EXPRESS, LLC, PANDA INN, INC., PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., HIBACHI-SAN, INC.

ANSWERTO UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

SOKPHY TIN V. PANDA EXPRESS, INC., ETAL. Sacramento Superior Court Case No.: 34-2010-00090959 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
A R C N T I'OX LLP ATTOKNHy. A T L A W Los A N t . n LS

PROOF OF SERVICE I am a citizen of the United States. My business address is Arent Fox LLP, 555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90013-1065. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles where this service occurs. I am over the age of 18 yeai-s, and not a party to the within cause. On the date set forth below, according to ordinary business practice, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS PANDA EXPRESS, INC., PANDA EXPRESS, LLC, PANDA INN, INC., PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., AND HIBACHI-SAN, INC. TO PLAINTIFF SOKPHY TIN'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES II '' (BY FAX) I transmitted via facsimile, from facsimile number 213.629.7401, the document(s) to the person(s) on the attached service list at the fax number(s) set forth therein, on this date before 5:00 p.m. A statement that this transmission was reported as complete and properly issued by the sending fax machine without error is attached to this Proof of Service. (BY E-MAIL) On this date, I personally transmitted the foregoing document(s) via electronic mail lo the e-mail address(es) of the person(s) on the attached service list. (BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with my employer's business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the U.S. Postal Service, and that practice is that correspondence is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service the same day as the day of collection in the ordinary course of business. On this date, T placed the document(s) in envelopes addressed to the person(s) on the attached service list and sealed and placed the envelopes for collection and mailing following ordinary business practices. rI ' r-| ' (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) On this date, I delivered by hand envelope(s) containing the document(s) to the persons(s) on the attached service list. (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) On this date, I placed the documents in envelope(s) addressed to the person(s) on the attached service list, and caused those envelopes to be delivered to an overnight delivery carrier, with delivery fees provided for, for next-business-day delivery to whom it is to be served. (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on Juiy 22,2011 at Los Angeles, California.

II '

rie Spencert

PROOF OF SERVICE

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
ARENT Fox LLP
ATTORNPY!. A T L A W Los ANI..H F _ S

SOKPHY TIN V. PANDA EXPRESS INC., ETAL. Sacramento Superior Court Case No.: 34-2010-00090959 SERVICE LIST Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq. Bianca N. Smith, Esq. BOHM LAW GROUP 4600 Northgate Blvd. Suite 210 Sacramento.CA 95834 PHONE: 916-927-5574 FAX: 916-927-2046

PROOF OF SERVICE