The Fund Class Action

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

D

EFENDANT

FFPIR’

S

A

NSWER

TO

C

OMPLAINT

N

O

. C-06-7776

SC

sf

-

2285041

RAYMOND L. WHEELER

(BAR NO. 52886

)

RWheeler

@mofo.com

MORRISON & FOERSTER

LLP

755 Page Mill Road

Palo Alto, California 94304

-1018

Telephone: (650) 813

-

5600

Facsimile: (650) 494

-

0792

MAHOGANY PAULINO JENKINS (BAR NO. 235055)

MahoganyJenkins@mofo.com

MORRISON & FOERSTER

LLP

425 Market Street

San Francisco, California 94105

-

2482

Telephone: (415) 268

-

7000

Facsimile: (415) 268

-

7522

WALTER V. SIEBERT

(pro hac vice)

BSiebert@sah.com

SHERMAN & HOWARD

L

.

L

.

C

.

633 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3000

Denver, Colorado

80202-3622

Telephone: (303) 297

-

2900

Facsimile: (303) 298

-

0940

Attorneys for Defendant

FUND FOR PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO

DIVISION

RICHARD PRENTICE, CHRISTIAN MILLER,

a

nd TIFFNEY PETHERBRIDGE, on their own

behalf and on behalf of classes of those similarly

situated

,

Plaintiff

s,v.

FUND FOR PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH,INC.

,Defendant.

No.

C-06-7776

SC

CLASS ACTION

DEFENDANT FUND FOR PUBLIC

INTEREST RESEARCH, INC

.’S

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Case3:06-cv-07776-SC Document14 Filed03/16/07 Page1 of 14

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

D

EFENDANT

FFPIR’

S

A

NSWER

TO

C

OMPLAINT

N

O

. C-06-7776

SC

sf

-

2285041

1

COMES NOW Defendant, Fund for Public Interest Research, Inc. (“FFPIR” or

“Defendant”), by and through its counsel, and respectfully answers Plaintiffs’ Class andCollective Action Complaint and Jury Demand (“Complaint”):

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1.

FFPIR admits that Plaintiffs, and all those

who

they purport to bring this action onbehalf

of

(hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”), are bringing an action for unpaid

overtime compensation and related penalties and dam

ages. FFPIR, denies, however, that it has

engaged in any wrongdoing or violated any federal or state statute. FFPIR further denies allremaining allegations in paragraph 1 of the Complaint.

2.

FFPIR denies the allegations in paragraph 2 of the Complaint.

3.

FF

PIR denies the allegations in paragraph 3 of the Complaint.

4.

FFPIR denies the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Complaint.

JURISDICTION AND PAR

TIES

5.

FFPIR admits that this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ asserted claims, but

denies that a class actio

n is appropriate, the claims of any proposed class exceed $5,000,000 in

the aggregate or it has engaged in any wrongdoing or violated any federal or state statute. FFPIR

states affirmatively that any supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary with the Cou

rt.

6.

FFPIR admits this Court has personal jurisdiction, but denies the remaining

allegations in paragraph 6 of the Complaint.

7.

FFPIR admits that venue is proper, but denies the remaining allegations inparagraph 7 of the Complaint.

8.

FFPIR admits that intradis

trict assignment to the San Francisco /Oakland division

is proper.

THE PARTIES

9.

FFPIR admits that it employed Richard Prentice from September 2003 through

December 2003 as a canvasser and

he did not receive overtime compensation. FFPIR denies hewas employed as a “roaming solicitor” and is without sufficient information or knowledge to

Case3:06-cv-07776-SC Document14 Filed03/16/07 Page2 of 14

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

D

EFENDANT

FFPIR’

S

A

NSWER

TO

C

OMPLAINT

N

O

. C-06-7776

SC

sf

-

2285041

2

form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 9 of theComplaint, and therefore denies them.

10.

FFPIR admits that it employed Tiffney Petherbridge from January 2004 through

August 2005 and she did not receive overtime compensation. FFPIR denies she was employed asa roaming solicitor and is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the

truth or falsity of th

e remaining allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Complaint, and

therefore denies them.

11.

FFPIR admits that it employed Christian Miller from July 2002 through April

2006 and he did not receive overtime compensation. FFPIR denies he was employed as a

roaming solicitor, and is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the

truth or falsity of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Complaint, and

therefore denies them.

12.

FFPIR is without sufficient information o

r knowledge to form a belief as to thetruth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Complaint, and therefore denies

them.

13.

FFPIR admits that its corporate headquarters is located in Boston, Massachusetts,

but denies the remaining all

egations of paragraph 13 of the Complaint.

SUMMARY OF CLAIMS

14.

FFPIR admits that Plaintiffs are purporting to bring this action on behalf of

themselves and all persons who were, are, or will be employed by it nationwide as Canvassers orField Managers at any

time within the three years prior to this action’s filing date through the dateof the final disposition of this action, who have not been compensated at a rate not less than thefederal statutory minimum wage rate. FFPIR denies that the persons on whose behalf Plaintiffs

claim to bring the action

are

an appropriate class, that these persons are similarly situated, or thatthree years is the proper limitations period. FFPIR further denies that it has engaged in any

wrongdoing or violated any federal or s

tate statute, or that a collective action is appropriate.

15.

FFPIR admits that Plaintiffs are purporting to bring this action on behalf of all

persons who were, are, or will be employed by it in California as Canvassers or Field Managers at

Case3:06-cv-07776-SC Document14 Filed03/16/07 Page3 of 14