koper-v-davert_answer

8/2/2019 Koper-v-Davert_Answer

1/14

NEMECEK&COLE

APROFESSIONALCORPORATION

15260VENTURABOULEVARD,

SUITE920,

SHERMAN

OAKS,

CALIFORNIA9

1403-5344

TEL

EPHONE(818)788-9500

FACSIMILE

(818)501-0328

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

JONATHAN B. COLE (70460)CLAUDIA STONE (110739)NEMECEK & COLEA Professional Corporation15260 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 920Sherman Oaks, California 91403-5399

(818)788-9500 Tel. / (818)501-0328 [email protected]@nemecek-cole.com

Attorneys for DefendantsDAVERT & LOE, LAWYERS; DOUGLASS S. DAVERT;DAVID C. LOE; and BENJAMIN N. FLINT III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASOUTHERN DIVISION

BRITTANY B. KOPER, an individual,

Plaintiff,

-vs-

DAVERT & LOE, LAWYERS, apartnership; DOUGLASS S. DAVERT,an individual; DAVID C. LOE, anindividual; and BENJAMIN N. FLINT

III, an individualDefendants.

_______________________________

)))))))))))

))))

Case No.: SACV12-00160 DOC(RNBx)

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BYDAVERT & LOE, LAWYERS;DOUGLASS S. DAVERT;DAVID C. LOE; and BENJAMINN. FLINT III

1

650603P.3 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Case 8:12-cv-00160-DOC-RNB Document 14 Filed 03/02/12 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:62


2/14

NEMECEK&COLE



SUITE920,

SHERMAN

OAKS,

CALIFORNIA9

1403-5344

TEL

EPHONE(818)788-9500

FACSIMILE

(818)501-0328

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

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Defendants DAVERT & LOE, LAWYERS, DOUGLASS S. DAVERT, DAVID

C. LOE, and BENJAMIN N. FLINT III (Defendants) respond to and answer the

complaint (Complaint) of plaintiff BRITTANY B KOPER (Plaintiff or MsKoper) filed on January 23, 2012. To the extent the Complaint asserts factual

allegations in its headings, Defendants deny them. To the extent that any matters

alleged in the Complaint are not expressly admitted, they are denied

JURISDICTION & VENUE

1. Answering paragraph 1, Defendants admit that they are citizens of

California. Defendants are without sufficient information to for a belief as to the

citizenship of Plaintiff and, therefore, deny those allegations. Although the remaining

allegations in paragraph 1 purport to state legal conclusions to which no response is

required, Defendants deny these allegations to the extent that a response is required.

2. Answering paragraph 2, Defendants admit they reside in California.

Although the remaining allegations in paragraph 2 purport to state legal conclusions t

which no response is required, Defendants deny these allegations to the extent that a

response is required.3. Answering paragraph 3, Defendants admit that Plaintiff was a citizen of

California. Defendants are without sufficient information to for a belief as to the truth

of the remaining allegations of paragraph 3 and on that basis deny them.

4. Answering paragraph 4, Defendants admit that defendant Davert & Loe,

Lawyers (D&L Firm) was and is a citizen of the State of California and a partnershi

engaged in the practice of law and organized under the State of California. Defendant

also admit that defendants Douglass S. Davert (Mr. Davert) and David C. Loe (Mr

Loe) are partners of the D&L Firm. Defendants deny that the principal place of

business of the D&L Firm is in Orange County, California. Defendants are without

sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of

paragraph 4 and on that basis deny them.

2




3/14

NEMECEK&COLE



SUITE920,

SHERMAN

OAKS,

CALIFORNIA9

1403-5344

TEL

EPHONE(818)788-9500

FACSIMILE

(818)501-0328

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

5. Answering paragraph 5, Defendants admit the allegations of that

paragraph.


paragraph.7. Answering paragraph 7, Defendants admit the allegations of that

paragraph.

8. Answering paragraph 8, Defendants admit that Mr Davert and Mr. Loe

were and are partners of the D&L Firm and that Benjamin N. Flint III (Mr Flint) wa

and is an associate of the D&L Firm. Although the remaining allegations in paragrap

8 purport to state legal conclusions to which no response is required, Defendants deny

these allegations to the extent that a response is required.

9. Answering paragraph 9, Defendants admit that the D&L Firm represente

Ms. Koper as an employee of Trinity Christian Center of Santa Ana, Inc. doing

business as Trinity Broadcasting Network, a California religious non-profit corporatio

(TBN) in a case entitledRivera v. TBNfiled in 2008 and ordered to arbitration and i

a case entitledBrandt vs. TBNfiled in 2011. Except as expressly admitted, Defendan

deny the allegations in that paragraph.GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

10. Answering paragraph 10, Defendants deny that Mr. Loe engaged in the

alleged conduct and deny the allegations in that paragraph.

11. Answering paragraph 1l, Defendants deny that Mr. Loe engaged in the






3




4/14

NEMECEK&COLE



SUITE920,

SHERMAN

OAKS,

CALIFORNIA9

1403-5344

TEL

EPHONE(818)788-9500

FACSIMILE

(818)501-0328

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




alleged conduct and deny the allegations in that paragraph.16. Answering paragraph 16, Defendants deny that Mr. Loe engaged in the


17. Answering paragraph 17, Defendants are without sufficient information t

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in that paragraph and on that basis deny

them.



them.



them.

20. Answering paragraph 20, Defendants deny the allegations in that

paragraph.21. Answering paragraph 21, Defendants deny the allegations in that

paragraph.


paragraph.



them.


paragraph.


paragraph.

4




5/14

NEMECEK&COLE



SUITE920,

SHERMAN

OAKS,

CALIFORNIA9

1403-5344

TEL

EPHONE(818)788-9500

FACSIMILE

(818)501-0328

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


paragraph.


form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in that paragraph and on that basis denythem.

28. Answering paragraph 28, Defendants admit that they represented Trinity

Broadcasting Network, Inc., Trinity Christian Center of Santa Ana Inc., and Plaintiff,

as an employee of TBN, in litigation filed by Horst Brandt, an individual, and

Dataworks of Orange County, Inc. filed as Case No. 30-2011 00488263 in the Superio

Court of the State of California, County of Orange (Brandt Litigation). Except as

expressly admitted, Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 28.

29. Answering paragraph 29, the allegation regarding potential conflicts of

interest is a legal conclusion to which no response is required; however, Defendants

deny these allegations to the extent that a response is required and deny the remaining

allegations of this paragraph.



paragraph.

32. Answering paragraph 32, Defendants admit that Plaintiff retained other

counsel to represent her in the Brandt Litigation. Defendants are without sufficient

information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in that paragraph

regarding the dismissal of Plaintiff in the Brandt Litigation and on that basis deny suc

allegations. Except as expressly admitted, Defendants deny the remaining allegations

in that paragraph.


paragraph.

5




6/14

NEMECEK&COLE



SUITE920,

SHERMAN

OAKS,

CALIFORNIA9

1403-5344

TEL

EPHONE(818)788-9500

FACSIMILE

(818)501-0328

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


paragraph.


paragraph.36. Answering paragraph 36, Defendants admit that they represented Plaintif

in the Brandt Litigation as an employee of TBN until January 10, 2012. Except as

expressly admitted, Defendants deny the allegations in that paragraph.


paragraph.


paragraph.


paragraph.


paragraph.



paragraph.


paragraph.


paragraph.


form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in that paragraph regarding

communications between John Casoria and Plaintiff and on that basis deny such

allegations. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in that paragraph.

6




7/14

NEMECEK&COLE



SUITE920,

SHERMAN

OAKS,

CALIFORNIA9

1403-5344

TEL

EPHONE(818)788-9500

FACSIMILE

(818)501-0328

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

46. Answering paragraph 46, Defendants admit Plaintiff returned cash and

property to TBN. Except as expressly admitted, Defendants are without sufficient

information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in that paragraph and on

that basis deny them.47. Answering paragraph 47, Defendants are without sufficient information t

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of that paragraph regarding the letters o

Christian contrition and on that basis deny them. Defendants deny the remaining

allegations of that paragraph.

48. Answering paragraph 48, Defendants admit that they formed Redemption

Strategies, Inc., a California corporation, (Redemption Strategies) on October 17,

2011. Except as expressly admitted, Defendants deny the allegations of that paragrap

49. Answering paragraph 49, Defendants admit that they filed the case

entitled Redemption Strategies, Inc. v. Michael Koper, etc. et. al. as Case No. 30-2011

00516179 in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange

(the Redemption Strategies Litigation) on October 18, 2011. Except as expressly

admitted, Defendants deny the allegations of that paragraph.

50. Answering paragraph 50, Defendants admit the allegations of thatparagraph.

51. Answering paragraph 51, Defendants admit that individuals identifying

themselves as Plaintiff and Michael Koper were served with the summons issued in th

Redemption Strategies litigation by a licensed New York process server. Except as

expressly admitted, Defendants deny the allegations of that paragraph.

52. Answering paragraph 52, Defendants admit that they served deposition

subpoenas for production of business records with notices to consumer in the

Redemption Strategies litigation. Except as expressly admitted, Defendants deny the

allegations of that paragraph.

7




8/14

NEMECEK&COLE



SUITE920,

SHERMAN

OAKS,

CALIFORNIA9

1403-5344

TEL

EPHONE(818)788-9500

FACSIMILE

(818)501-0328

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


paragraph except for the allegation that they advised Plaintiff in the Christian

contrition matter which is denied.

54. Answering paragraph 54, the allegations that Defendants acted withconflicts of interest is a legal conclusion to which no response is required; however,

Defendants deny these allegations to the extent that a response is required and deny th

other allegations of that paragraph.

55. Answering paragraph 55, Defendants admit that they filed the first

amended complaint in the Redemption Strategies Litigation naming Plaintiff as a

defendant on December 1, 2011 and that they remained Plaintiffs counsel of record in

the Brandt Litigation until January 10, 2012. Except as expressly admitted, Defendan

deny the allegations in this paragraph.

56. Answering paragraph 56, Defendants deny the allegations in this

paragraph.


paragraph.

58. Answering paragraph 58, Defendants deny the allegations in thisparagraph.

59. Answering paragraph 59, the allegations that Defendants acted with

conflicts of interest is a legal conclusion to which no response is required; however,


remaining allegations of this paragraph.

60. Answering paragraph 60, the allegations that Defendants acted with a

conflict of interest is a legal conclusion to which no response is required; however,


remaining allegations of this paragraph.

61. Answering paragraph 61, Defendants deny the allegations in ths

paragraph.

8




9/14

NEMECEK&COLE



SUITE920,

SHERMAN

OAKS,

CALIFORNIA9

1403-5344

TEL

EPHONE(818)788-9500

FACSIMILE

(818)501-0328

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


paragraph.


paragraph.64. Answering paragraph 64, Defendants deny the allegations in this

paragraph.


paragraph.

FIRST CLAIM FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES

66. Answering paragraph 66, Defendants re-allege and incorporate by

reference paragraphs 1 through 65 and 74 through 83, inclusive, of this answer as

though fully set forth herein.


paragraph.


paragraph.

69. Answering paragraph 69, Defendants deny the allegations in thisparagraph.


paragraph.


paragraph.


paragraph.


paragraph.

/ / /

/ / /

9




10/14

NEMECEK&COLE



SUITE920,

SHERMAN

OAKS,

CALIFORNIA9

1403-5344

TEL

EPHONE(818)788-9500

FACSIMILE

(818)501-0328

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

SECOND CLAIM FOR INTENTIONAL

INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS


reference paragraphs 1 through 73, inclusive, of this answer as though fully set forthherein.

75. Answering paragraph 75, Defendants deny the allegations of this

paragraph.


paragraph.


paragraph.


paragraph.


paragraph.


paragraph.81. Answering paragraph 81, Defendants deny the allegations of this

paragraph.


paragraph.


paragraph.

THIRD CLAIM FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE


reference paragraphs 1 through 65 of this answer, inclusive, as though fully set forth

herein.

10




11/14

NEMECEK&COLE



SUITE920,

SHERMAN

OAKS,

CALIFORNIA9

1403-5344

TEL

EPHONE(818)788-9500

FACSIMILE

(818)501-0328

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


paragraph.


paragraph.87. Answering paragraph 87, Defendants deny the allegations of this

paragraph.


paragraph.


paragraph.


paragraph.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

91. Answering paragraphs 1 though 6 of the Prayer for Relief, Defendants

deny all of the allegations in those paragraphs and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any

relief or that they are liable to Plaintiff for any damages.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL92. Answering Plaintiffs demand for a trial by jury, Defendants deny that

Plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial on the purported claims alleged against Defendants.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

93. Without admitting any of the allegations of the Complaint and without

admitting or acknowledging that Defendants have any burden to prove any of the

following allegations, Defendants allege the following as separate and independent

affirmative defenses.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to State a Claim for Relief)

94. The Complaint and each cause of action alleged in the Complaint fail to

state facts sufficient to constitute a claim against each of the Defendants.

11




12/14

NEMECEK&COLE



SUITE920,

SHERMAN

OAKS,

CALIFORNIA9

1403-5344

TEL

EPHONE(818)788-9500

FACSIMILE

(818)501-0328

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

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Comparative Fault)

95. Any damages incurred by Plaintiff are due solely and totally to the

carelessness, negligence and fault of Plaintiff that proximately caused the incident,injury, loss or damage alleged in the Complaint. Such comparative fault bars or

proportionately reduces any recovery by Plaintiff against Defendants.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Third Party Fault)

96. If Plaintiff suffered any damage as alleged in the Complaint, which

Defendants deny, Defendants contend that persons and/or entities other than

Defendants were responsible for such damages. Defendants also contend that if any

damages are awarded to the Plaintiff, these damages must be apportioned between

these other persons and/or entities pursuant to their percentage of liability and that

Plaintiffs right of recovery against Defendants, if any, must be reduced in that amoun

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Statute of Limitations)

97. The Complaint and each claim for relief alleged in the Complaint arebarred in whole or in part by Code of Civil Procedure 340.6 and/or any other

applicable statutes of limitations.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Laches)

98. Plaintiffs claims for relief are barred in whole or in part by the equitable

doctrine of laches.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Estoppel)

99. Plaintiffs causes of action and/or claims are barred in whole or in part by

the equitable doctrine of estoppel.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

12




13/14


14/14

NEMECEK&COLE



SUITE920,

SHERMAN

OAKS,

CALIFORNIA9

1403-5344

TEL

EPHONE(818)788-9500

FACSIMILE

(818)501-0328

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

RESERVATION OF OTHER DEFENSES

106. Defendants presently have insufficient knowledge upon which to form a

belief as to whether any additional, as yet unstated, affirmative defenses to the

Complaint are applicable. Defendants reserve the right to assert additional affirmativdefenses where appropriate.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, DEFENDANTS pray for judgment as follows:

1. That Plaintiff take nothing by virtue of her Complaint.

2. That judgment be entered in favor of Defendants.

DATED: March 2, 2012 NEMECEK & COLE

By: /S/ JONATHAN B. COLEJONATHAN B. COLECLAUDIA STONEAttorneys for DefendantsDAVERT & LOE, LAWYERS,DOUGLASS S. DAVERT,DAVID C. LOE, and BENJAMIN N.FLINT III

14


koper-v-davert_answer

Documents