IDefendantScreenActorsGuild("SAG"),answeringforitselfandnot
on
behalf
of
2anyotherdefendant,herebyanswerstheunverifiedFirstAmendedComplaint("FAC")of3plaintiffsAlanRosenberg,Anne-MarieJohnson,DianeLaddandKentMcCord(collectively,4"Plaintiffs")asfollows:5
GENERALDENIAL
6
L
Pursuant
to
CaliforniaCode
of
CivilProcedureSection431.30(d),SAGdenies7generallyandspecificallyeachandeveryallegation
of
theFAC,andfurtherdeniesthatPlaintiffs8havesufferedanydamageorinjuryorthatPlaintiffsareentitled
to
anyrelief9Asseparateaffirmativedefenses,SAGallegesasfollows:
10
AFFIRMATIVEDEFENSES
II
FIRSTAFFIRMATIVEDEFENSE
12
(Failure
to
StateaClaim)TheFACfails
to
statefactssufficienttoconstituteacause
of
actionagainst
.
3
14
SAG
15
SECONDAFFIRMATIVEDEFENSE
16
(LawfulConduct)
17
3.
Atalltimespertinent
to
thisaction,SAGactedlawfully,includingwithrespect
18
to
thestatutesandprovisions
of
SAG'sBylawsthatarecitedintheFAC.
19
THIRDAFFIRMATIVEDEFENSE
20
(Mootness)
21
4.
TheFAC
is
barredinwhole
or
inpartbythedoctrineof
moot
ness.Plaintiffs'
22
twocausesofactionpurport
to
challengethevalidity
of
awrittenassentapprovedbyamajority
23
of
SAG'sBoard
of
Directors(the"Board")
on
January26,2009(the"WrittenAssent").
24
However,onFebruary
8,
2009,thesameactspreviouslypassedbytheWrittenAssentwere
25
lawfullyreaffirmedandreadoptedbyamajority
of
theBoardatadulynoticedmeeting.
As26
such,theFAChasbeenrenderedlegallymoot
by
subsequentevents.
27
III
28
III
DOCUMENTPREPAREDONRECYCLEDPAPER
DEFENDANTSCREENACTORSGUILD'SANSWERTOPLAINTIFF'SUNVERIFIEDFIRSTAMENDEDCOMPLAINT
A
''''''''"'"10'1:
1I'H'l"OQH\.nonnl1.i'H"I,f
Add a Comment