Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
9
SUPERlOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTRAL DISTRlCT
11
12
Alan Rosenberg, et aI., No. BC406900
13
Plaintiffs, [Assigned to Hon. Judith C. Chirlin,
14 v. Dept 19]
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DOCUMENT PREPARED ON RECYCLED PAPER
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
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
10 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
13 2. The FAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against
14 SAG
16 (Lawful Conduct)
17 3. At all times pertinent to this action, SAG acted lawfully, including with respect
18 to the statutes and provisions of SAG's Bylaws that are cited in the FAC.
20 (Mootness)
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
2 (Advisory Opinion)
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
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.
16 (Preemption)
17 7 The Court lacksjurisdiction over the subject matter of the causes of action
18 alleged by Plaintiffs, which are preempted in whole or in part by the Labor Management
25 (Unclean Hands)
26 9. By reason of their wrongful and unfair acts and omissions, Plaintiffs have
27 unclean hands and are barred from asserting any of the claims asserted in the FAG
28
DOCUMENT PREPARED ON RECYCLED PAPER
2
DEFENDANT SCREEN ACTORS GUILD'S ANSWER
• '''·'''''''''n.,r
TO PLAINTIFF'S
"'''''''0 ,n nr.nl1'}'}.,'lt'l"
UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
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
7 (Estoppel)
8 11. By reason of their conduct, including but not limited to Plaintiffs' own use of
9 SAG's longstanding majority-vote written assent procedure, Plaintiffs are estopped from seeking
13 12. The relief sought by Plaintiffs interferes with SAG's rights of free speech and
17 13. The relief sought by Plaintiffs interferes with SAG's right to union self-
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
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
2 (Failure to Do Equity)
3 16. No relief may be obtained under the FAC by reason of Plaintiffs' failure to do
5 RESERVATION
6 17. SAG reserves the right to plead further answers, additional defenses, and/or
7 cross claims, third party claims or other claims as investigation and discovery may walTan!
13
14
17
18 Roland Tellis
Attorneys for Defendant
19 Screen Actors Guild
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DOCUMENT PREPARED ON RECYCLED PAPER
4
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,
3 1620 26th Street, Fourth Floor, North Tower, Santa Monica, California 90404-4060. On April 6,
2009, I served a true copy ofthe within documents:
4
DEFENDANT SCREEN ACTORS GUILD'S ANSWER TO
5 PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
6
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
7 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
10 facility regularly maintained by the overnight delivery service carrier, Federal
Express.
11
by emailing a pdf of the document to Plaintiff's counsel at the email address set
12 forth below.
25
26
27
28
BINGHAM
MCCUTCHEN PROOF OF SERVICE
LLP
Al72998956 1/3009810·0000337304