1 BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
2 Roger L. Scott (SBN 247165)
18400 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
3 Irvine, CA 92612-0514
Telephone: 949.760.1121
4 Fax: 949.720.0182
Email: rscott@buchalter.com
5
Attorneys for Defendant
6 Terra Tech Corp.
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 SCHAWK USA, INC., Case No. 2:18-CV-02571-FMO-AGR
11 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT TERRA TECH
CORP.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF
12 vs. SCHAWK USA, INC.’S
COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR
13 TERRA TECH CORP., JURY TRIAL
14 Defendant.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BUCHALTER
A PROFES SION AL CORPORAT ION
IRVINE
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Case No. 2:18-CV-02571-FMO-AGR
BN 33100563v1
Case 2:18-cv-02571-FMO-AGR Document 14 Filed 06/01/18 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:27
1 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
2 Without assuming the burden of proof on any matters that would otherwise
3 rest with Plaintiff, and expressly denying any and all wrongdoing, Defendant
4 asserts the following affirmative defenses.
5 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 Unclean Hands
7 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of
8 unclean hands. Specifically, Plaintiff deliberately billed for amounts in excess of
9 those agreed upon by the parties.
10 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 Laches
12 2. Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of
13 laches. Specifically, Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in the bringing of this
14 Complaint for nearly four years after the alleged breach.
15 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 Unconscionability
17 3. Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of
18 unconscionability. Specifically, Plaintiff’s claims for interest exceed the amounts
19 permitted under applicable usury laws.
20 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 Estoppel
22 4. Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of
23 estoppel. Specifically, Plaintiff, by its words or conduct, communicated that no
24 further amounts were due and owing from Defendant, or, in the alternative, that
25 Defendant was not required to remit payment within 30 days, and Defendant relied
26 on those representations.
27
28
BUCHALTER
6
A PROFES SION AL CORPORAT ION DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Case No. 2:18-CV-02571-FMO-AGR
IRVINE
BN 33100563v1
Case 2:18-cv-02571-FMO-AGR Document 14 Filed 06/01/18 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:32
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above
3 and foregoing document has been served on June 1, 2018, to all counsel of record
4 who are deemed to have consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF
5 system per Civil Local Rule 5.4. Any counsel of record who have not consented to
6 electronic service through the Court’s CM/ECF system will be served by electronic
7 mail, first class mail, facsimile and/or overnight delivery.
8
9 /s/Roger L. Scott________________
10 Roger L. Scott
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BUCHALTER
9
A PROFES SION AL CORPORAT ION DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Case No. 2:18-CV-02571-FMO-AGR
IRVINE
BN 33100563v1