Answer - Koh V SC Johnson

Case5:09-cv-00927-RMW Document49
Filed01/20/10 Page1 of 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Nickolas A. Kacprowski, Bar No. 242684 e-mail: nkacprowski@kirkland.com KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 555 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 439-1400 Facsimile: (415) 439-1500 Jeffery L. Willian, P.C. (admitted Pro Hac Vice) e-mail: jeffery.willian@kirkland.com Robert B. Ellis, P.C. (admitted Pro Hac Vice) e-mail: robert.ellis@kirkland.com Bradley H. Weidenhammer (admitted Pro Hac Vice) e-mail: bradley.weidenhammer@kirkland.com KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-2000 Facsimile: (312) 862-2200 Attorneys for Defendant S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION WAYNE KOH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 09-cv-00927 RMW Judge Ronald M. Whyte DEFENDANT S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC.S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
18 vs. 19 S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC., 20 Defendant. 21 22 23
NATURE OF THE CASE 24 25 26 27 28 1. This is a proposed class action against SC Johnson & Son, Inc. (SC Johnson or Defendant) for misleading consumers about the environmental safety and soundness of its leading household cleaning products the glass cleaner Windex and the stain remover Shout. ANSWER: S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. (SC Johnson or Defendant) admits that this suit is a proposed class action against SC Johnson, but denies that certification of plaintiffs proposed class is appropriate and denies the remainder of paragraph 1. Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint Case No. 09-cv-00927 RMW
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
2. In recent years, consumers have become significantly more aware and sensitive to their impact on the environment through the products they purchase and use. As a result, a movement has developed demanding consumer products that are made from natural ingredients and environmentally sound, i.e. that do not harm the environment through the products ingredients, manufacture, use or disposal. The term Green is commonly used to describe these products, and the environmental movement that led to them. ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that many American consumers are concerned about the environmental effects of the products they use, but lacks knowledge or information sufficient to answer the specific allegations of this paragraph, and on that basis, denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 2. 3. Looking to profit off the growing environmental green movement, and to regain its market share lost to truly Green products, starting in January, 2008 and continuing to the present (the Class Period), SC Johnson has prominently placed a deceptive seal of approval label on the front of its Windex product as follows:
ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that it began placing the following Greenlist label on certain of its products that are marketed under the brand name Windex, including Windex Original Glass Cleaner (Windex), beginning in January 2008:
SC Johnson denies that remainder of paragraph 3.
Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint
-2-
Case No. 09-cv-00927 RMW
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
4. Additionally, on the reverse side of the label that is read through the back of the Windex packaging it states that Greenlist is a rating system that promotes the use of environmentally responsible ingredients. ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that one side of its label reads Greenlist is a rating system that promotes the use of environmentally responsible ingredients. For additional information, visit www.scjohnson.com. SC Johnson denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 4. 5. On information and belief, at some point after January 1, 2009, Defendant also starting placing the misleading Greenlist label on its Shout stain remover line of products. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies that the Greenlist label was misleading, but admits that SC Johnson began placing the Greenlist label on certain Shout line of products. SC Johnson denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 5. 6. By making these representations, Defendant represents that its products bearing the Greenlist label are made with natural ingredients and are environmentally safe and sound. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 6.
7. Additionally, by making these representations on its products packaging, SC Johnson conveys to Plaintiff and other consumers that the product has been subjected to a neutral, third partys testing regime that had determined that the product is environmentally friendly. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 7.
8. Unfortunately for consumers, these representations by Defendant are false. Based upon counsels investigation, the truth is that the Greenlist seal of approval is not a designation bestowed by a non-profit environmental group, or even a neutral third-party, but instead is the creation of Defendant SC Johnson itself. In other words, the Greenlist seal of approval is nothing more than SC Johnson touting its own product. ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that Greenlist is SC Johnsons rating system for ingredients. SC Johnson denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 8. 9. Additionally, ingredients that constitute Windex are not environmentally sound nor natural, but rather pose a real risk to the environment. Despite the statement that Windex contains Greenlist ingredients, Defendant has not changed the ingredients of Windex to remove all environmentally harmful chemicals. Namely, one of the key ingredients of Windex ethylene glycol n-hexyl ether is not naturally derived and poses serious danger, including death, if ingested by wildlife and small children. Moreover, because the taste of ethylene glycol n-hexyl ether is sweet, the risk of it being ingested by wildlife (or, again, small children) is multiplied. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 9.
10. The type of deception engaged in by Defendant here is becoming so rampant that the term Greenwash has been coined to describe this type of conduct. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing (Greenwash is a term used to describe the perception
-3-
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
of consumers that they are being misled by a company regarding the environmental practices of the company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.). ANSWER: SC Johnson denies that it engaged in any deception. SC Johnson lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of plaintiffs assertion regarding the use of the alleged term Greenwash and, on that basis, denies the allegation. SC Johnson denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 10. 11. Plaintiff brings this suit to now end Defendants deceptive practice and to recover the ill-gotten gains obtained by Defendant through this deception. ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that plaintiff brought this suit, but denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to plaintiffs motive for doing so and, on that basis, denies the allegation. SC Johnson denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 11. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12. This Court has jurisdiction over all causes of action asserted herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), because the aggregate claims of the Class exceed the sum or value of $5,000,000.00, and there is diversity of citizenship between plaintiff, who, as alleged below, is a citizen of California, and Defendant, which, as alleged below, is a citizen of Wisconsin. ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that this Court has jurisdiction over this case, but denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to plaintiffs citizenship. SC Johnson denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 11. 13. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(1) and (2). Substantial acts in furtherance of the alleged improper conduct occurred within this District. Plaintiff resides within this District and bought Defendants products within this District. ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(1) and (2). SC Johnson denies that any improper conduct occurred within this or any other District. SC Johnson lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of plaintiffs residency or alleged purchase of any product in this District. 14. Defendant is authorized to do business in California, have sufficient minimum contacts with California, and/or otherwise has intentionally availed itself of the markets in California through the promotion, marketing, and sale of Windex in California, to render the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court permissible under traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that it does business in California, and that this Court has jurisdiction over this case. SC Johnson denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 14. PARTIES 15. Plaintiff Wayne Koh (Plaintiff) is a resident of Santa Cruz, California. Plaintiff purchased Defendants Windex product at its premium price on or about September, 2008 from a Safeway store on 41st Street in Soquel, California based upon the representations that Windex was environmentally friendly with natural ingredients that had been given the Greenlist seal of approval. Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint -4Case No. 09-cv-00927 RMW
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
Plaintiff relied upon these misrepresentations in making his decision to purchase Windex. Plaintiff suffered injury in that he would not have bought the Greenlist-labeled Windex at its premium price had he known the truth that Greenlist was the creation of SC Johnson, and not a neutral party, and that Windex was not environmentally friendly. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny plaintiffs place of residence or whether plaintiff has ever purchased Windex. SC Johnson denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 15. 16. Defendant SC Johnson is a citizen of Racine County, Wisconsin. Defendant SC Johnson describes itself as one of the worlds leading manufacturers of household cleaning products and products for home storage, air care, personal care and insect control. In 2007, Defendant had more than $7.5 billion in sales. ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that it is headquartered in Racine County, Wisconsin, that it describes itself as one of the worlds leading manufacturers of household cleaning products and products for home storage, air care, personal care and insect control, and in 2007, it had more than $7.5 billion in sales. SC Johnson denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 16. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS The Green Movement 17. In recent years, consumers have become significantly more aware and sensitive to their impact on the environment through the products they purchase and use. As a result, a movement has developed demanding consumer products that contain natural ingredients and are environmentally sound, i.e. that do not harm the environment through the products ingredients, manufacture, use or disposal. The term Green is commonly used to describe these products, and the environmental movement that led to them. ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that many American consumers are concerned about the environmental effects of the products they use, but lacks knowledge or information sufficient to answer the specific allegations of this paragraph, and on that basis, denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 17. 18. Unfortunately for consumers, false claims of environmental soundness have grown along with the demand for green products. In a recently released study (available at http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/), the environmental consulting group TerraChoice Environmental Marketing found that 98% of more than 2,000 products it surveyed in North America made false and misleading environmental claims by committing one or more of what it classified as the Seven Sins of Greenwashing: The Sin of the Hidden Trade-off committed by suggesting a product is green based on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without attention to other important environmental issues; The Sin of No Proof committed by an environmental claim that cannot be substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable third-party certification; Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint -5Case No. 09-cv-00927 RMW
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
The Sin of Vagueness committed by every claim that is so poorly defined or broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer; The Sin of Irrelevance committed by making an environmental claim that may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking environmentally preferable products; The Sin of Lesser of Two Evils committed by claims that may be true within the product category but that risk distracting the consumer from the greater environmental impacts of the category as a whole; The Sin of Fibbing committed by making environmental claims that are simply false; and The Sin of Worshipping False Labels committed by a product that, through either words or images, gives the impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement actually exists; fake labels in other words. ANSWER: SC Johnson lacks knowledge or information sufficient to answer the allegations in this paragraph and, on that basis, denies the allegations of paragraph 18. 19. The TerraChoice study found that in response to calls for independent certification of Green claims due to widespread Greenwashing, false labeling that takes the form of an image that looks like an official stamp or seal of approval are on the rise. ANSWER: SC Johnson lacks knowledge or information sufficient to answer the allegations in this paragraph and, on that basis, denies the allegations of paragraph 19. 20. In an effort to halt false environmental marketing claims, the Federal Trade Commission has issued Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (the Green Guides), 16 C.F.R. 260 et seq., to protect consumers from deceptive environmental marketing in labeling and advertising. ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that the Federal Trade Commission has issued Green Guides. SC Johnson lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 20. 21. The Green Guides provide that in order to avoid deception, [a]n environmental marketing claim should be presented in a way that makes clear whether the environmental attribute or benefit being asserted refers to the product, the products packaging, a service or to a portion or component of the product, package or service, and that it does not overstate the environmental attribute expressly or by implication. 16 C.F.R. 260.6(b), (c). ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that the quoted language in paragraph 21 is an excerpt from 16 CFR 260.6(b) and denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 21. 22. Further, the Green Guides provide that [i]t is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product, package or service offers a general environmental benefit. In this regard, the Green Guides provide that because [u]nqualified general claims of environmental Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint -6Case No. 09-cv-00927 RMW
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
benefit are difficult to interpret, and depending on their context, may convey a wide range of meanings to consumers . . . [i]n many cases, such claims may convey that the product, package or service has specific and far-reaching environmental benefits when, in fact, this is not the case. 16 C.F.R. 260.7(a). The Green Guides offer the following examples of deceptive environmental product labeling: Example 1: A brand name like Eco-Safe would be deceptive if, in the context of the product so named, it leads consumers to believe that the product has environmental benefits which cannot be substantiated by the manufacturer. The claim would not be deceptive if Eco-Safe were followed by clear and prominent qualifying language limiting the safety representation to a particular product attribute for which it could be substantiated, and provided that no other deceptive implications were created by the context. Example 5: A product label contains an environmental seal, either in the form of a globe icon, or a globe icon with only the text Earth Smart around it. Either label is likely to convey to consumers that the product is environmentally superior to other products. If the manufacturer cannot substantiate this broad claim, the claim would be deceptive. The claims would not be deceptive if they were accompanied by clear and prominent qualifying language limiting the environmental superiority representation to the particular product attribute or attributes for which they could be substantiated, provided that no other deceptive implications were created by the context. ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that the quoted language and examples from paragraph 22 are excerpts from 16 CFR Part 260.7, and denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 22.
SC Johnsons Greenwashing in Response to Growing Competition from Independently Certified Green Products 23. A number of new companies, such as SimpleGreen and Seventh Generation, have started to provide Green products to consumers in recent years. Because of the high demand for these products, Green products often command a premium price while simultaneously taking away market share from products that serve similar functions but are not Green. ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that SimpleGreen and Seventh Generation manufacture products for consumer use, but lacks knowledge or information sufficient to answer the remainder of this paragraph, and on that basis, denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 23. 24. These new Green companies and products pose a threat to older established companies, like Defendant, that produce the same type of product only without being Green. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 24. -7Case No. 09-cv-00927 RMW
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
25. Defendant SC Johnson is one of the oldest manufacturers of household cleaning products in the United States. In 2007, Defendant SC Johnson had over $7.5 billion in sales. ANSWER: Admit.
26. Windex is one of Defendants leading household cleaning products. Windex is advertised as a multi-purpose cleaner that specializes in cleaning glass and other reflective and shiny surfaces. ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that it advertises Windex for use on glass and other surfaces. SC Johnson denies the remaining allegation of paragraph 26. 27. Shout is also one of Defendants leading brands. Shout is advertised as a stain remover with powerful cleaning agents. Defendant refuses to make the ingredients of Shout known to the public. ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that Shout is advertised as a stain remover. SC Johnson denies the remaining allegation of paragraph 27. 28. In recent years, Windex, and other SC Johnson products have faced stiff competition from a number of Green products that claim to perform the same function as these products, but do so in an environmentally friendly fashion. These products include brands made by SimpleGreen and Seventh Generation. ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that SimpleGreen and Seventh Generation manufacture products that purport to compete with Windex. SC Johnson denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 28. 29. Starting in 2005, faced with this competition, Windex began to lose market share to these and other eco-friendly cleaners. See http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_/ai_ n27230492. Then in early January 2008, the threat to SC Johnson, its Windex brand and other SC Johnson products increased dramatically when its major competitor Clorox, Co. of Oakland, California announced that it was launching a line of Green Works cleaning products that had received a seal of approval from the Sierra Club. ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that Clorox launched its Green Works line of products in 2008, and that Green Works products bear the Sierra Club logo. SC Johnson denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 29. 30. In response to these market threats, and to garner a corner of the Green market for itself, on January 16, 2008, Defendant SC Johnson began marketing and selling Windex in packaging that prominently displayed the Greenlist label on the front to represent that the product contains natural ingredients and is environmentally sound:
-8-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ANSWER: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint -9Case No. 09-cv-00927 RMW 34. Unfortunately for consumers, however, the Greenlist designation used by SC Johnson to describe Windex, Shout and other SC Johnson products has not been conferred by a non-profit environmental group or neutral third party as is conveyed by the label. Instead, it is merely the creation of Defendant. ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that it designed and administers the Greenlist rating system. SC Johnson denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 34. 35. Furthermore, despite the representation on its label that Windex contains environmentally friendly Greenlist ingredients, Defendant has, in fact, not changed the ingredients of Windex to remove all environmentally harmful ingredients. Namely, one of the key ingredients of Windex is ethyl glycol n-hexyl ether. This chemical is not natural and poses serious danger, including death, if ingested by wildlife and small children. Moreover, because the taste of ethyl glycol n-hexyl ether is sweet, the risk of it being ingested by wildlife and small children is multiplied. SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 33. ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that it began placing the Greenlist label (reproduced in part above in SC Johnsons Answer to paragraph 3) on certain of its Windex products beginning in January 2008. SC Johnson denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 30. 31. Since January 16, 2008, Defendant has expanded its misleading labeling to other SC Johnson products, including, but not limited to, its Shout line of stain remover products. ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that certain its products other than Windex bear the Greenlist label. SC Johnson denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 31. 32. The use of the word Greenlist is also meant to convey that the product has received the approval of a non-profit environmental group or other neutral third party. In fact, several environmental groups use the term Greenlist to describe environmentally sound products, programs or people. See e.g. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/emeraldcity/ 2007/10/greenlist-cali.html (Los Angeles Times column Emerald City She Follows the Road to Green Living that posts a Greenlist of companies that have environmentally sound practices); http://www.greenlivingonline.com/tag/Green List/ (use of term Greenlist by the magazine GreenLiving to commemorate people who have dedicated their lives to protecting the environment). ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 32.
33. Defendant is able to charge consumers a premium for its Greenlist products, as much as 50% than its competitors products that are not falsely portrayed as green.
1 2 3 4
ANSWER:
SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 35.
36. In other words, Windex and other SC Johnson products bearing the Greenlist label are not environmentally responsible or sound as the Greenlist labeling leads one to believe. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 36. CLASS ALLEGATIONS
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint -10Case No. 09-cv-00927 RMW ANSWER: (b) Whether Defendant misrepresented material facts in connection with the sales of its Windex and Shout products; (c) Whether Defendant participated in and pursued the common course of conduct complained of herein; (d) Whether Defendants labeling, marketing, advertising and/or selling of its Windex and Shout products with a Greenlist label constitutes an unfair or deceptive consumer sales practice; and (e) Whether Defendant was unjustly enriched. ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that the plaintiff purports to bring this action as a class action, but denies that class certification is appropriate and denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 37. 38. At this time, Plaintiff does not know the exact number of Class members; however, given the immense sales volume of Windex and Shout, Plaintiff believes that Class members are so numerous that joinder of all members of the Class is impracticable. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 38. 37. Plaintiff brings this action as a California statewide class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all residents of California who purchased any Windex or Shout product bearing the Greenlist label during the period January 17, 2008 to present (the Class). Excluded from the Class are officers and directors of the Defendant, members of the immediate families of the officers and directors of the Defendant, and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which they have or have had a controlling interest.
39. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact involved in this case. Questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class which predominate over questions which may affect individual Class members include: (a) Whether Defendant labeled, marketed, advertised and/or sold its Windex and Shout products to Plaintiff and those similarly situated using false, misleading and/or deceptive statements or representations, including statements or representations concerning the environmental soundness of Windex and Shout;
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
40. Plaintiffs claims are typical of those of the Class because Plaintiff, like all members of the Class, purchased a SC Johnson product bearing the Greenlist label in a typical consumer setting and sustained damages from Defendants wrongful conduct. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 40.
41. Plaintiff will adequately protect the interests of the Class and has retained counsel who are experienced in litigating complex class actions. Plaintiff has no interests that conflict with those of the Class. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 41.
42. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 42.
43. The prerequisites to maintaining a class action for injunctive or equitable relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) are met as Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class thereby making appropriate final injunctive or equitable relief with respect to the Class as a whole. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 43.
44. The prosecution of separate actions by members of the Class would create a risk of establishing inconsistent rulings and/or incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant. For example, one court might enjoin Defendant from performing the challenged acts, whereas another might not. Additionally, individual actions may be dispositive of the interests of the Class, although certain Class members are not parties to such actions. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 44.
45. Defendants conduct is generally applicable to the Class as a whole and Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, equitable remedies with respect to the Class as a whole. As such, Defendants systematic policies and practices make declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole appropriate. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 45. CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq. Unlawful Business Acts and Practices) 46. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and incorporates such allegations by reference herein.
-11-
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
ANSWER: SC Johnson incorporates and realleges its answers to the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 47. As set forth above, the Greenlist label is false, deceptive and misleading because it causes consumers to believe that Defendants products are from natural ingredients that are environmentally safer than the non-Greenlist label versions of these products and that products carrying the Greenlist label have been independently tested and approved as such. In fact, however, as described above, Greenlist is nothing more than a deceptive marketing ploy designed by Defendant to increase sales of its products in this environmentally conscious time. Products bearing the Greenlist label have not been independently tested and have not been reformulated to be environmentally friendly. To the contrary, products bearing the Greenlist label contain the same non-natural toxic chemicals harmful to the environment and animals as are present in Defendants products without the Greenlist label. ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that it designed and administers the Greenlist rating system. SC Johnson denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 47. 48. Defendant designed the false, misleading and deceptive Greenlist label with intent to sell, distribute and increase the consumption of its products bearing the Greenlist label including Windex and Shout. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 48.
49. Defendant designed the false, misleading and deceptive Greenlist label with intent to sell, distribute and increase the consumption of its products bearing the Greenlist label including Windex and Shout. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 49.
50. Defendants violation constitutes unlawful business acts and practices, which caused Plaintiff and Class members to suffer pecuniary loss. Specifically, Defendants false, deceptive and misleading Greenlist label caused consumers to purchase Defendants products believing they were environmentally friendly when, in fact, they were not. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 50.
51. In this regard, Defendants manufacturing, marketing, advertising, packaging, labeling, distributing and selling products bearing the Greenlist label violates Californias Business and Professions Code. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 51.
52. The business acts and practices alleged above are unlawful under the Consumers Legal Remedy Act, Cal. Civ. Code 1750, et seq. (CLRA), which forbids deceptive advertising. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 52.
53. The business acts and practices alleged above are unlawful under 17200, et seq. by virtue of violating 17500, et seq., which forbids untrue advertising and misleading advertising. Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint -12Case No. 09-cv-00927 RMW
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
ANSWER:
54. As a result of the business acts practices described above, Plaintiff and the Class, pursuant to Business and Professions Code 17203, are entitled to an order enjoining such future conduct on the part of the Defendant and such other orders and judgments which may be necessary to disgorge Defendants ill-gotten gains and to restore to any person in interest any money paid for products bearing the Greenlist label as a result of the wrongful conduct of the Defendant. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 54.
55. The above-described unlawful business acts and practices of the Defendant present a threat and reasonable likelihood of deception to Plaintiff and members of the Class in that Defendant has systematically perpetrated and continue to perpetrate such acts or practices upon members of the Class by means of its misleading manufacturing, marketing, advertising, packaging, labeling, distributing and selling of products bearing the Greenlist label. ANSWER: 56. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 55. THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below. SC Johnson denies that plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief set forth below. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq. Unfair Business Acts and Practices) 57. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and incorporates such allegations by reference herein. ANSWER: SC Johnson incorporates and realleges its answers to the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 58. practices. ANSWER: Such acts of the Defendant, as described above, constitute unfair business acts and SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 58.
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint -13Case No. 09-cv-00927 RMW 59. Plaintiff, and other members of the Class who purchased Defendants Windex or Shout products bearing the Greenlist label, suffered a substantial injury by virtue of buying a product they would not have purchased absent Defendants unfair marketing, advertising, packaging and labeling or by paying an excessive premium price for the unfairly marketed, advertised, packaged and labeled products bearing the Greenlist label. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 59.
60. There is no benefit to consumers or competition by deceptively marketing, advertising, packaging and labeling water beverages. Indeed, the harm to consumers and competition is substantial.
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
ANSWER: SC Johnson lacks knowledge or information sufficient to answer any allegations related to the marketing, advertising, packaging, and labeling of water beverages. SC Johnson denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 60. 61. Plaintiff and other members of the Class who purchased Defendants products bearing the Greenlist label had no way of reasonably knowing that the product they bought was not as marketed, advertised, packaged and labeled. Thus, they could not have reasonably avoided the injury each of them suffered. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 61.
62. The gravity of the consequences of Defendants conduct as described above outweighs any justification, motive or reason therefore, particularly considering the available legal alternatives which exist in the marketplace, and is immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, offends established public policy or is substantially injurious to Plaintiff and other members of the Class. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 62.
63. As a result of the business acts and practices described above, Plaintiff and the Class, pursuant to Business and Professions Code 17203, are entitled to an order enjoining such future conduct on the part of the Defendant, and such other orders and judgments which may be necessary to disgorge Defendants ill-gotten gains and to restore to any person in interest any money paid for products bearing the Greenlist label as a result of the wrongful conduct of the Defendant. ANSWER: 64. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 63. THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below. SC Johnson denies that plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief set forth below. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq. Fraudulent Business Acts and Practices) 65. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and incorporates such allegations by reference herein. ANSWER: SC Johnson incorporates and realleges its answers to the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 66. Such acts of the Defendant, as described above, constitute fraudulent business practices under California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 66.
67. As more fully described above, Defendants misleading marketing, advertising, packaging and labeling of products bearing the Greenlist label is likely to deceive reasonable California consumers. Indeed, Plaintiff and other members of the Class were unquestionably deceived regarding the characteristics of Defendants product, as Defendants marketing, Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint -14Case No. 09-cv-00927 RMW
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
advertising, packaging and labeling of products bearing the Greenlist label misrepresent and/or omit the true nature and quality of its product. Said acts are fraudulent business acts and practices. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 67.
68. This fraud and deception caused Plaintiff and members of the Class to purchase more of Defendants product than they would have or pay more than they would have for the product had they known the true nature and quality of its product. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 68.
69. As a result of the business acts and practices described above, Plaintiff and the Class, pursuant to Business and Professions Code 17203, are entitled to an order enjoining such future conduct on the part of the Defendant, and such other orders and judgments which may be necessary to disgorge Defendants ill-gotten gains and to restore to any person in interest any money paid for products bearing the Greenlist label as a result of the wrongful conduct of the Defendant. ANSWER: 70. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 69. THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below. SC Johnson denies that plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief set forth below. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq. Misleading and Deceptive Advertising) 71. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and incorporates such allegations by reference herein. ANSWER: SC Johnson incorporates and realleges its answers to the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 72. Plaintiff asserts this cause of action for violations of California Business and Professions Code 17500, et seq. for misleading and deceptive advertising against the Defendant. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 72.
73. At all material times, the Defendant engaged in a scheme of offering its products bearing the Greenlist label for sale to Plaintiff and other members of the Class by way of, inter alia, commercial marketing and advertising, product packaging and labeling and other promotional materials. These materials misrepresented and/or omitted the true nature and quality of Greenlist Windex and Shout. Said advertisements and inducements were made within the State of California and come within the definition of advertising as contained in Business and Professions Code 17500, et seq. in that such promotional materials were intended as inducements to purchase products bearing the Greenlist label and are statements disseminated by the Defendant to Plaintiff and the Class and were intended to reach members of the Class. Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that these statements were misleading and deceptive. Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint -15Case No. 09-cv-00927 RMW
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
ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that certain of its products sold in California bore the Greenlist label. SC Johnson denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 73. 74. In furtherance of said plan and scheme, Defendant has prepared and distributed within the State of California via commercial marketing and advertising, product packaging and labeling, and other promotional materials, statements that misleadingly and deceptively represent the environmental soundness of Windex and Shout. Consumers, including Plaintiff, necessarily and reasonably relied on these materials, believing the products bearing the Greenlist label were environmentally friendly when, in fact, they were not. Consumers, including Plaintiff and the Class, were among the intended targets of such representations. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 74.
75. The above acts of the Defendant, in disseminating said misleading and deceptive statements throughout the State of California to consumers, including Plaintiff and members of the Class, were and are likely to deceive reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff and other members of the Class, by obfuscating the true nature and quality of Windex and Shout, all in violation of the misleading prong of California Business and Professions Code 17500. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 75.
76. As a result of the above violations of the misleading prong of Business and Professions Code 17500, et seq., Defendant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff and the other members of the Class. Plaintiff and the Class, pursuant to Business and Professions Code 17535, are entitled to an order of this Court enjoining such future conduct on the part of the Defendant, and such other orders and judgments which may be necessary to disgorge Defendants ill-gotten gains and restore to any person in interest any money paid for products bearing the Greenlist label as a result of the wrongful conduct of the Defendant. ANSWER: 77. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 76. THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below. SC Johnson denies that plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief set forth below. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq. - Untrue Advertising) 78. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and incorporates such allegations by reference herein. ANSWER: SC Johnson incorporates and realleges its answers to the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 79. Plaintiff asserts this cause of action for violations of California Business and Professions Code 17500, et seq., for untrue advertising against the Defendant. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 79. -16Case No. 09-cv-00927 RMW
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
80. At all material times, Defendant has engaged in a scheme of offering products bearing the Greenlist label for sale to Plaintiff and other members of the Class by way of, inter alia, commercial marketing and advertising, product packaging and labeling, and other promotional materials. These materials misrepresented and/or omitted the true nature of Windex and Shout. Said advertisements and inducements were made within the State of California and come within the definition of advertising as contained in Business and Professions Code 17500, et seq. in that such promotional materials were intended as inducements to purchase products bearing the Greenlist label and are statements disseminated by the Defendant to Plaintiff and the Class and were intended to reach members of the Class. Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that these statements were untrue. ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that certain of its products sold in California bore the Greenlist label. SC Johnson denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 80. 81. In furtherance of said plan and scheme, Defendant has prepared and distributed within the State of California via commercial marketing and advertising, the World Wide Web (Internet), product packaging and labeling, and other promotional materials, statements that falsely advertise the environmental soundness of Windex and Shout. Consumers, including Plaintiff and the Class, are among the intended targets of such representations and would reasonably be deceived by such promotional materials. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 81.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint -17Case No. 09-cv-00927 RMW 83. As a result of the above violations of the untrue prong of Business and Professions Code 17500, et seq., Defendant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff and the other members of the Class. Plaintiff and the Class, pursuant to Business and Professions Code 17535, are entitled to an order of this Court enjoining such future conduct on the part of the Defendant, and such other orders and judgments which may be necessary to disgorge Defendants ill-gotten gains and restore to any person in interest any money paid for products bearing the Greenlist label as a result of the wrongful conduct of the Defendant. ANSWER: 84. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 83. THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below. SC Johnson denies that plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief set forth below. 82. The above acts of the Defendant in disseminating said untrue advertising throughout the State of California deceived Plaintiff and the other members of the Class by obfuscating the nature and quality of Windex and Shout, all in violation of the untrue prong of California Business and Professions Code 17500. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 82.
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
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Consumers Legal Remedies Act - Cal.Civ.Code 1750, et seq.) 85. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the paragraphs stated above in this Class Action Complaint as if set forth herein. ANSWER: SC Johnson incorporates and realleges its answers to the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 86. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code 1750, et seq. (the CLRA). ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that plaintiff brings this cause of action pursuant to the CLRA, but denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 86. 87. Defendants actions, representations and conduct have violated, and continue to violate the CLRA, because they extend to transactions that are intended to result, or which have resulted, in the sale or lease of goods or services to consumers. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 87.
88. Plaintiff and other Class Members are consumers as that term is defined by the CLRA in Cal. Civ. Code 1761(d). ANSWER: SC Johnson lacks knowledge or information sufficient to answer the allegations of this paragraph, and on that basis, denies the allegations of paragraph 88. 89. The products bearing the Greenlist label that Plaintiff and other members of the Class purchased from Defendant were goods within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code 1761(a). ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that certain of its products are goods within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code 1761 (a). SC Johnson lacks sufficient knowledge or information to answer the remaining allegations of this paragraph, and on that basis, denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 89. 90. By engaging in the actions, misrepresentations and misconduct set forth in this Class Action Complaint, Defendant has violated, and continues to violate, 1770(a)(7) of the CLRA. Specifically, in violation of Cal. Civ. Code 1770(a)(7), Defendants acts and practices constitute unfair methods of competition and unfair or fraudulent acts or practices in that they misrepresent the particular standard, quality or grade of the goods. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 90.
91. By engaging in the actions, misrepresentations and misconduct set forth in this Class Action Complaint, Defendant has violated, and continues to violate, 1770(a)(16) of the CLRA. Specifically, in violation of Cal. Civ. Code 1770(a)(16), Defendants acts and practices constitute unfair methods of competition and unfair or fraudulent acts or practices in that they represent that a subject of a transaction has been supplied in accordance with a previous representation when they have not. Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint -18Case No. 09-cv-00927 RMW
1 2 3 4
ANSWER:
92. Plaintiff requests that this Court enjoin the Defendant from continuing to employ the unlawful methods, acts and practices alleged herein pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code 1780(a)(2). If Defendant is not restrained from engaging in these types of practices in the future, Plaintiff and other members of the Class will continue to suffer harm. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 92.
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 98. Defendant, through its labeling, advertising and marketing of products bearing the Greenlist label, make uniform representations and offers regarding the nature and quality of Windex and Shout as described above. Defendant engaged in, and continues to engage in, such fraudulent, Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint -19Case No. 09-cv-00927 RMW ANSWER: SC Johnson admits that it received a letter from plaintiffs sent on March 20, 2009, purporting to be notice letter pursuant to the CLRA. SC Johnson denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 93. 94. Pursuant to California Civil Code 1780(a)(3), Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other members of the Classes, seek compensatory damages, punitive damages and restitution of any ill-gotten gains due to Defendants acts and practices. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies that plaintiff or any purported class members are entitled to any relief and denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 94. 95. Plaintiffs also request that this Court award their costs and reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code 1780(d). ANSWER: SC Johnson denies that plaintiff or any purported class members or their attorneys are entitled to any relief and denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 95. 96. ANSWER: THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below. SC Johnson denies that plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief set forth below. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraud, Deceit and/or Misrepresentation) 97. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and incorporates such allegations by reference herein. ANSWER: SC Johnson incorporates and realleges its answers to the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 93. CLRA 1782 NOTICE. On March 20, 2009, Plaintiffs sent Defendants a CLRA notice letter that provided notice of Defendants violation of the CLRA and demanded that within thirty (30) days from that date, Defendants correct, repair, replace or otherwise rectify the unlawful, unfair, false and/or deceptive practices complained of herein. The letter also stated that if Defendants refused to do so, Plaintiffs would amend their complaint to seek damages in accordance with the CLRA. Defendants failed to comply with the letter and rectify the practices.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
misrepresentative, false and/or deceptive acts with full knowledge that such acts were, and are, in fact, misrepresentative, false or deceptive. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 98.
99. The aforementioned fraud, misrepresentations, deceptive, and/or false acts and omissions concern material facts that are essential to the analysis undertaken by Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, in deciding whether to purchase Defendants products bearing the Greenlist label. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 99.
100. Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, would have acted differently had they not been misled i.e. they would not have paid money for the product in the first place. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 100.
101. Defendant has a duty to correct the misinformation it disseminated through its advertising of products bearing the Greenlist label. By not informing Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, Defendant has breached this duty. Defendant also gained financially from, and as a result of this breach. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 101.
102. By and through such fraud, deceit, misrepresentations and/or omissions, Defendant intended to induce Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, to alter their position to their detriment. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 102.
103. Plaintiff and those similarly situated, justifiably and reasonably relied on Defendants misrepresentations, and, as such, were damaged by Defendant. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 103.
104. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentations, Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, have suffered damages in an amount equal to the amount they paid for Defendant products bearing the Greenlist label. The exact amount of this difference will be proven at trial. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 104.
22 23 24 25 26 27 107. 28 Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint -20Case No. 09-cv-00927 RMW THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below. 105. Defendant acted with intent to defraud, or with reckless or negligent disregard of the rights of, Plaintiff, and those similarly situated. ANSWER: 106. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 105. Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, are entitled to punitive damages. SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 106.
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
ANSWER:
SC Johnson denies that plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief set forth below. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Unjust Enrichment)
108. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and incorporates such allegations by reference herein. ANSWER: SC Johnson incorporates and realleges its answers to the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 109. As a result of Defendants deceptive, fraudulent and misleading labeling, advertising, marketing and sales of products bearing the Greenlist label, Defendant was enriched, at the expense of Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, through the payment of the purchase price of Defendants products. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 109.
110. Under the circumstances, it would be against equity and good conscience to permit the Defendant to retain the ill-gotten benefits that it received from Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, in light of the fact that the products bearing the Greenlist label purchased by Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, were not what the Defendant purported them to be. Thus, it would be unjust or inequitable for Defendant to retain the benefit without restitution to Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, for the monies paid to Defendant for such products bearing the Greenlist label. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 110.
111. Accordingly, equity and good conscience demand that Defendant should return the benefit conferred by Plaintiff and Class members. ANSWER: 112. ANSWER: SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 111. THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below. SC Johnson denies that plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief set forth below. PRAYER FOR RELIEF THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: Certification of the Class, certifying Plaintiff as representative of the Class, and designating his counsel as counsel for the Class; A declaration that Defendant has committed the violations alleged herein; For restitution and disgorgement pursuant to, without limitation, the California Business & Professions Code 17200, et seq. and 17500, et seq.;
-21-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to, without limitation, the California Business & Professions Code 17200, et seq. and 17500, et seq.; For restitution and disgorgement pursuant to, without limitation, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code 1750, et seq.; For declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to, without limitation, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code 1780; An award of compensatory damages, the amount of which is to be determined at trial; For punitive damages; For interest at the legal rate on the foregoing sums; For their costs and reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to, without limitation, Cal. Civ. Code 1780(d); and For such further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. SC Johnson denies that plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief set forth above. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 4. Plaintiffs claims and the claims of any purported class member are barred for lack of standing to 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 grounds that Plaintiff and any purported class members have not incurred any damages. 28 Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint -22Case No. 09-cv-00927 RMW assert such claims. 5. Plaintiffs claims and the claims of any purported class member are barred to the extent that they are preempted. 6. Plaintiffs claims and the claims of any purported class member for damages, which Defendant denies, are too speculative to permit recovery. 7. Plaintiffs claims and the claims of any purported class member for damages are barred on the ANSWER:
1. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 2. Plaintiffs claims and the claims of any purported class members are barred to the extent that the doctrines of waiver and/or estoppel apply. 3. To the extent Plaintiff or any purported class member seeks recovery for alleged conduct occurring beyond any applicable statute of limitations, such recovery is time-barred.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
8. Plaintiffs claims and the claims of any purported class member are barred to the extent that he or any purported class member has or in the future fails to mitigate his or her alleged damages. 9. Plaintiffs claims and the claims of any purported class member for equitable relief are barred by the availability of an adequate legal remedy. 10. Plaintiffs claims and the claims of any purported class member are barred because there is no causal connection between the alleged wrongdoing and any alleged harm. 11. Plaintiffs or any purported class members cause of action for alleged unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive or untrue acts are barred because Defendants business practices and acts were not unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive or untrue within the meaning of the California Business and Professions Code 17200. 12. Plaintiffs claims and the claims of any purported class members are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. 13. Defendant reserves the right to assert additional affirmative and other defenses which become
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint Attorneys for S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. -23Case No. 09-cv-00927 RMW Jeffery L. Willian, P.C. Robert B. Ellis, P.C. Bradley H. Weidenhammer 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-2000 Facsimile: (312) 862-2200 Date: January 20, 2010 s/Nickolas A. Kacprowski KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Nickolas A. Kacprowski, Bar No. 242684 555 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 439-1400 Facsimile: (415) 439-1500 apparent through the course of discovery and investigation in these proceedings.
1 2 3 4 5 CM/ECF participants. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Date: January 20, 2010 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of the foregoing document either via the CM/ECF system and Electronic Mail on January 20, 2010, or via overnight delivery (Federal Express) to the non-
Michael R. Reese Kim E. Richman REESE RICHMAN LLP 875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor New York, New York 10001 Telephone: (212) 579-4625 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 Attorneys for Plaintiff Koh and the Proposed Class Sheptim Ademi ADEMI & OREILLY LLP 3620 East Lyton Avenue Cudahy, Wisconsin 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 Attorneys for Plaintiff Koh and the Proposed Class
Deborah Clark-Weintraub WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS LLC 1540 Broadway, 37 Floor New York, New York 10036 Telephone: (212) 447-7070 Facsimile: (212) 447-7077 Attorneys for Plaintiff Koh and the Proposed Class
s/Nickolas A. Kacprowski KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Nickolas A. Kacprowski, Bar No. 242684 555 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 439-1400 Facsimile: (415) 439-1500 Jeffery L. Willian, P.C. Robert B. Ellis, P.C. Bradley H. Weidenhammer 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-2000 Facsimile: (312) 862-2200 Attorneys for S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.
Reply In Support of Motion To Dismiss
-24-

Answer - Koh V SC Johnson

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Answer - Koh V SC Johnson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case5:09-cv-00927-RMW Document49

18 vs. 19 S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC., 20 Defendant. 21 22 23

SC Johnson denies that remainder of paragraph 3.

Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint

Case No. 09-cv-00927 RMW

Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint

Case No. 09-cv-00927 RMW

Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint

Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint

Case No. 09-cv-00927 RMW

SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 35.

SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 39.

Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint

Case No. 09-cv-00927 RMW

SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 53.

Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint

SC Johnson denies the allegations of paragraph 91.

Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint

Case No. 09-cv-00927 RMW

1 2 3 4 5 CM/ECF participants. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Date: January 20, 2010 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reply In Support of Motion To Dismiss

Case No. 09-cv-00927 RMW

You might also like