1 2 .3 4 5 6
BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP Daniel Alberstone (SBN 105275) Roland Tellis (SBN 186269) Sara Jasper Epstein (SBN 240577) The Water Garden FOUlih Floor, North Tower 1620 26th Street Santa Monica, CA 90404-4060 Telephone: 310.907.1000 Facsimile: .310.907.2000 Email:
[email protected] [email protected]
CONFORMED COpy OF ORIGINAL FILED
L,,, <\n~elcs Superior Court /-Irr\
062009
7 8
Attorneys for Defendant Screen Actors Guild
9 SUPERlOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTRAL DISTRlCT
11 12 Alan Rosenberg, et aI., 13 Plaintiffs, 14 15 16
v.
Adam Arkin, et aI., Defendants.
No. BC406900 [Assigned to Hon. Judith C. Chirlin, Dept 19]
DEFENDANT SCREEN ACTORS GUILD'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
17 18
Complaint Filed: Trial Date:
February 3, 2009 None set
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DOCUMENT PREPARED ON RECYCLED PAPER
DEFENDANT SCREEN ACTORS GUILD'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
• ,"" .. " .. ., ..... '" "''''''''0 1f\ """"',]"7'1f'l"
I
Defendant Screen Actors Guild ("SAG"), answering for itself and not on behalf of
2
any other defendant, hereby answers the unverified First Amended Complaint ("FAC") of
3
plaintiffs Alan Rosenberg, Anne-Marie Johnson, Diane Ladd and Kent McCord (collectively,
4
"Plaintiffs") as follows:
5
GENERAL DENIAL L
6
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30(d), SAG denies
7
generally and specifically each and every allegation of the FAC, and further denies that Plaintiffs
8
have suffered any damage or injury or that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief
9
As separate affirmative defenses, SAG alleges as follows:
10
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
II
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12
(Failure to State a Claim)
13
14
2.
The FAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against
SAG
15
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16
(Lawful Conduct)
17 18
3.
At all times pertinent to this action, SAG acted lawfully, including with respect
to the statutes and provisions of SAG's Bylaws that are cited in the FAC.
19
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20
(Mootness)
21
4.
The FAC is barred in whole or in part by the doctrine ofmootness. Plaintiffs'
22
two causes of action purport to challenge the validity of a written assent approved by a majority
23
of SAG's Board of Directors (the "Board") on January 26, 2009 (the "Written Assent").
24
However, on February 8, 2009, the same acts previously passed by the Written Assent were
25
lawfully reaffirmed and readopted by a majority of the Board at a duly noticed meeting. As
26
such, the FAC has been rendered legally moot by subsequent events.
27
III
28
III DOCUMENT PREPARED ON RECYCLED PAPER
DEFENDANT SCREEN ACTORS GUILD'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
A ''''''''"'"10'1: 1I'H'l"OQH\ .nonnl1.i'H"I,f
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Advisory Opinion)
2
3
5.
The FAC is barred in whole or in part because it impemrissibly seeks an
4
advisory opinion from this Court. Plaintiffs' two causes of action purport to challenge the
5
validity of the Written Assent dated January 26, 2009. However, on February 8, 2009, the same
6
acts previously passed by the Written Assent were lawfully reaffirmed and readopted by a
7
majority of the Board at a duly noticed meeting. Because there is no longer any judiciable
8
controversy between the parties that is capable of specific relief, the FAC seeks nothing more
9
than an academic and hypothetical decision.
10
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
II
(Judicial Abstention)
12
6.
The FAC is barred in its entirety by the doctrine ofjudicial abstention, which
13
provides that Courts shall not interfere in the internal disputes of unions and other voluntary
14
associations.
15
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16
(Preemption)
17
The Court lacksjurisdiction over the subject matter of the causes of action
7
18
alleged by Plaintiffs, which are preempted in whole or in part by the Labor Management
19
Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 US.C §§ 401 et seq.
20
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21
(Failure to Comply with Pre-Filing Requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 425.15)
22
23
8.
No relief may be obtained under the FAC by reason of Plaintiffs' failure to
comply with Section 425.15 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
24
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25
(Unclean Hands)
26 27
9.
By reason of their wrongful and unfair acts and omissions, Plaintiffs have
unclean hands and are barred from asserting any of the claims asserted in the FAG
28
• '''·'''''''''n.,r
DOCUMENT PREPARED ON RECYCLED PAPER 2 DEFENDANT SCREEN ACTORS GUILD'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT "'''''''0 ,n nr.nl1'}'}.,'lt'l"
1
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2
(Waiver)
3
10.
By reason of their acts, representations and omissions, including but not limited
4
to Plaintiffs' own use of SAG's longstanding majority-vote written assent procedure, Plaintiffs
5
have waived any right to relief from SAG.
6
TENTH AFI1IRMATIVE DEFENSE
7
(Estoppel)
8 9 10
11.
By reason of their conduct, including but not limited to Plaintiffs' own use of
SAG's longstanding majority-vote written assent procedure, Plaintiffs are estopped from seeking or obtaining any relief from SAG.
11
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12
(Unconstitutional Interference With Freedom of Speech)
13
14
12.
The relief sought by Plaintiffs interferes with SAG's rights of free speech and
free association under the United States and California Constitutions.
15
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16
(Interference With Right to Union Self-Governance)
17
18
13.
The relief sought by Plaintiffs interferes with SAG's right to union self-
governance under applicable law and SAG's Constitution and Bylaws.
19
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20
(Anti-SLAPP Violation)
21
14.
The FAC arises from SAG's acts in furtherance of its right of petition or free
22
speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue, and
23
thus violates Section 425.16 of the Code of Civil Procedure
24
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25
(Justification)
26
15.
By statute, law and SAG's Constitution and Bylaws, SAG wasjustified in the
27
acts and omissions alleged in the FAC Accordingly, SAG cannot be liable for Plaintiffs' alleged
28
harm, if any there be.
3 AI"'l'lO'nO-'C
DOCUMENT PREPARED ON RECYCLED PAPER
DEFENDANT SCREEN ACTORS GUILD'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT I l':I(\fKHI In nnflrl1'1i1.nA
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 3 4
(Failure to Do Equity) 16.
No relief may be obtained under the FAC by reason of Plaintiffs' failure to do
equity in the matters alleged in the FAC.
RESERVATION
5 6 7
17.
SAG reserves the right to plead further answers, additional defenses, and/or
cross claims, third party claims or other claims as investigation and discovery may walTan!
8
WHEREFORE, SAG prays for judgment as follows:
9
L
That Plaintiffs take nothing by their FAC;
10
2.
That the FAC be dismissed with prejudice;
1I
3.
For costs of suit; and
12
4.
For general relief
13
14 I5
DATED: April 6, 2009
Bingham McCutchen LLP
16 17
18
Roland Tellis Attorneys for Defendant Screen Actors Guild
19 20
21
22 23 24
25 26 27
28 4
DOCUMENT PREPARED ON RECYCLED PAPER
DEFENDANT SCREEN ACTORS GUILD'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT An'JO..,.'Hl'" I I1nnORlfUlf\n01.1.TH'ld
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
2
I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is Bingham McCutchen LLP, The Water Garden, 1620 26th Street, Fourth Floor, North Tower, Santa Monica, California 90404-4060. On April 6, 2009, I served a true copy ofthe within documents:
3
4
DEFENDANT SCREEN ACTORS GUILD'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
5 6 7
x
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Santa Monica, California, addressed as set forth below.
8
by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the addressees) set forth below.
9
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope, with the overnight delivery charge prepaid, addressed as set forth below, and deposited in a box or facility regularly maintained by the overnight delivery service carrier, Federal Express.
10
11 12
13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22
by emailing a pdf of the document to Plaintiff's counsel at the email address set forth below. Eric M. George Sonia Y. Lee Keith Wesley BROWNE WOODS GEORGE LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, 24th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067
Vincent F. Pitta Barry N. Saltzman PITTA & GIBLIN LLP 499 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022
I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on April 6, 2009.
23
,
24
25 26 27 28 BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN
PROOF OF SERVICE
LLP
Al72998956 1/3009810·0000337304