Entrepreneur Media Inc v. Rieva Lesonsky et al

Filing 11

ANSWER to Complaint - (Discovery) 1 filed by Defendants Rieva Lesonsky, Maria Anton, Allbusiness.Com Inc.(Byers, Stephen)

1 RICHARD ZAITLEN # 63283
STEPHEN BYERS # 223330
2 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
PITTMAN LLP
3 725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2800
Los Angeles, California 90017-5406
4 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
5 Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
6
Attorneys for Defendants
7 RIEVA LESONSKY d/b/a SMB
CONNECTS, MARIA ANTON, and
8 ALLBUSINESS.COM, INC
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SOUTHERN DIVISION

12
13
ENTREPRENEUR MEDIA, INC., a
14 California corporation,

CASE NO. SACV 08-1066 DOC (ANx)

15

DEFENDANTS RIEVA LESONSKY’S
d/b/a SMB CONNECTS, MARIA
ANTON’S, AND ALLBUSINESS.COM,
INC.’S ANSWERS TO ENTREPRENEUR
MEDIA, INC’S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff,

16
17

vs.

18 RIEVA LESONSKY d/b/a SMB
CONNECTS, an individual, MARIA
19 ANTON, an individual,
ALLBUSINESS.COM, INC., a
20 California corporation, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive,
21
Defendants.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. SACV-08-1066-DOC(ANx)
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
400959926 v1

1

Defendants RIEVA LESONSKY d/b/a SMB CONNECTS (“Lesonsky”),

2 MARIA ANTON CONLEY(“Anton”), and ALLBUSINESS.COM, INC.
3 (“AllBusiness”), (collectively, “Defendants”) by and through their counsel of
4 record, hereby answer and assert their affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint
5 as follows:
6
7

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.

The Defendants admit that the Complaint purports to bring an action

8 for injunctive relief and damages for federal trademark infringement and false
9 designation of origin, as well as breach of contract, misappropriation of trade
10 secrets, intentional interference with prospective business advantage and unfair
11 competition under California law. Except as expressly admitted, the Defendants
12 are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of
13 the remaining allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny
14 each and every allegation.
15

2.

The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to

16 form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 2 of the
17 Complaint, and on that basis deny each and every allegation.
18

3.

Defendants Lesonsky and Anton admit that they reside in this District.

19 Except as expressly admitted, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
20 information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in
21 Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny each and every allegation.
THE PARTIES

22
23

4.

The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to

24 form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4 of the
25 Complaint, and on that basis deny each and every allegation.
26

5.

Defendant Lesonsky admits that she resides in Orange County,

27 California and that she is doing business as SMB Connects with an office located
28
1
400959926 v1

Case No. SACV-08-1066-DOC(ANx)
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1 at 17526 Von Karman Ave, Suite A, Irvine California 92614. Except as expressly
2 admitted, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form
3 a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 5 of the
4 Complaint, and on that basis deny each and every allegation.
5

6.

Defendant Maria Anton Conley, misidentified in Plaintiff’s Complaint

6 as Maria Anton, admits that she resides in Orange County, California and that she
7 works with Lesonsky at SMB Connects. Except as expressly admitted, The
8 Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to
9 the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, and on that
10 basis deny each and every allegation.
11

7.

Defendant AllBusiness admits that it is a California corporation with a

12 principle place of business at 650 Townsend St., Suite 675, San Francisco,
13 California 94103. AllBusiness further admits that, according to its website,
14 AllBusiness is an online media and e-commerce company. Except as expressly
15 admitted, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form
16 a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 7 of the
17 Complaint, and on that basis deny each and every allegation.
18

8.

The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to

19 form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 8 of the
20 Complaint, and on that basis deny each and every allegation.
21

9.

The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to

22 form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 9 of the
23 Complaint, and on that basis deny each and every allegation.
24

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

25

EMI and Its Business

26

10.

The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to

27 form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 10 of the
28 Complaint, and on that basis deny each and every allegation.
2
400959926 v1

Case No. SACV-08-1066-DOC(ANx)
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1

11.

The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to

2 form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 11 of the
3 Complaint, and on that basis deny each and every allegation.
4

12.

The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to

5 form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 12 of the
6 Complaint, and on that basis deny each and every allegation.
7

13.

The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to

8 form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 13 of the
9 Complaint, and on that basis deny each and every allegation.
10

14.

The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to

11 form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 14 of the
12 Complaint, and on that basis deny each and every allegation.
13

15.

The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to

14 form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 15 of the
15 Complaint, and on that basis deny each and every allegation.
16

16.

The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to

17 form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 16 of the
18 Complaint, and on that basis deny each and every allegation.
19

17.

The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to

20 form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 17 of the
21 Complaint, and on that basis deny each and every allegation.
Rieva Lesonsky

22
23

18.

Lesonsky admits that in or about November 1983, she became an

24 employee of Chase Revel, Inc. (“Chase Revel”), a predecessor company of EMI.
25 Except as expressly admitted, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or
26 information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in
27 Paragraph 18 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny each and every allegation.
28

19.

Lesonsky admits that she remained an employee of EMI and its
3

400959926 v1

Case No. SACV-08-1066-DOC(ANx)
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1 predecessor companies for a continuous period of over 22 years, eventually
2 becoming Senior Vice President and Editorial Director. Lesonsky admits that she
3 resigned from EMI effective April 7, 2008. Except as expressly admitted, the
4 Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to
5 the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, and on that
6 basis deny each and every allegation.
7

20.

Lesonsky admits that during her employment with EMI and its

8 predecessors, she was involved in the Franchise 500®, including the use of a
9 formula for the evaluation and compilation of that information, and publication of
10 the results thereof. Except as expressly admitted, the Defendants are without
11 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the
12 remaining allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny
13 each and every allegation.
14

21.

Lesonsky admits that after leaving EMI, Lesonsky formed SMB

15 Connects, and that she is the registered owner of the domain name
16 smbconnects.com. Except as expressly admitted, the Defendants are without
17 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the
18 remaining allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny
19 each and every allegation.
20

22.

Lesonsky and AllBusiness admit that Lesonsky works with

21 AllBusiness as an editor-at-large, where she writes weekly columns and hosts
22 weekly podcasts. Lesonsky and AllBusiness admit that SMB Connects also
23 provides services to AllBusiness. Except as expressly admitted, the Defendants are
24 without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the
25 remaining allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny
26 each and every allegation.
27

23.

Lesonsky admits that SMB Connects contacted franchises asking

28 them if they would like to participate in a ranking of the top 300 franchise
4
400959926 v1

Case No. SACV-08-1066-DOC(ANx)
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1 companies by AllBusiness, and to fill out an application if they were. Except as
2 expressly admitted, the Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 23 of the
3 Complaint.
4

24.

Lesonsky admits that she has contacted the certified public accountant

5 which EMI has used in the past to evaluate the financial data provided by the
6 franchisors wishing to be ranked in the Franchise 500®. Except as expressly
7 admitted, the Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 24 of the Complaint.
8

25.

AllBusiness admits it has registered to attend the International

9 Franchise Expo which is scheduled to take place on November 7, 2008.
10 AllBusiness admits it has not attended this Expo before. Except as expressly
11 admitted, the Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 25 of the Complaint.
12
13

Maria Anton
26.

Anton admits that in or about January 1985, she commenced

14 employment with Chase Revel. Except as expressly admitted, the Defendants are
15 without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the
16 remaining allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny
17 each and every allegation.
18

27.

Anton admits that she was involved with producing and maintaining a

19 database of franchises for her employer, in evaluating information received from
20 franchises wishing to be involved in the Franchise 500®, and developing a formula
21 for ranking those franchises. Except as expressly admitted, the Defendants are
22 without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the
23 remaining allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint, and on that basis deny
24 each and every allegation.
25

28.

Anton admits that she resigned from EMI on or about March 7, 2008

26 and that she now works with Lesonsky at SMB Connects. Except as expressly
27 admitted, the Defendants deny each and every allegation of Paragraph 28 of the
28 Complaint.
5
400959926 v1

Case No. SACV-08-1066-DOC(ANx)
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

(Lanham Act – False Designation of Origin – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); Against All

3

Defendants)

4

29.

The Defendants incorporate and reallege their responses to Paragraphs

5 1 through 28, as set forth above, as though fully set forth herein.
6

30.

The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to

7 form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint,
8 and on that basis deny each and every allegation.
9

31.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 31 of the

10 Complaint.
11

32.

The Defendants admit that there is no connection or association or

12 licensing relationship between EMI and the Defendants, nor has EMI ever
13 authorized, licensed or given permission to Defendants to use the Franchise 500®
14 Marks or any marks similar thereto in any manner whatsoever.
15

33.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 33 of the

16 Complaint.
17

34.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 34 of the

18 Complaint.
19

35.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 35 of the

20 Complaint.
21

36.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 36 of the

22 Complaint.
23

37.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 37 of the

24 Complaint.
25

38.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 38 of the

26 Complaint.
27
28
6
400959926 v1

Case No. SACV-08-1066-DOC(ANx)
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

(Lanham Act – Federal Trademark Infringement – 15 U.S.C. § 1114; Against

3

All Defendants)

4

39.

The Defendants incorporate and reallege their responses to Paragraphs

5 1-38, as set forth above, as though fully set forth herein.
6

40.

The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to

7 form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint,
8 and on that basis deny each and every allegation.
9

41.

The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to

10 form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint,
11 and on that basis deny each and every allegation.
12

42.

The Defendants admit that EMI has not authorized, licensed, or given

13 permission to the Defendants to use the “Franchise 300” name. Except as
14 expressly admitted, the Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 42 of the
15 Complaint.
16

43.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 43 of the

17 Complaint.
18

44.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 44 of the

19 Complaint.
20

45.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 45 of the

21 Complaint.
22

46.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 46 of the

23 Complaint.
24

47.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 47 of the

25 Complaint.
26

48.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 48 of the

27 Complaint.
28
7
400959926 v1

Case No. SACV-08-1066-DOC(ANx)
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

(Misappropriation of Trade Secrets – Cal. Civ. Code § 3426 et seq.; Against

3

All Defendants)

4

49.

The Defendants incorporate and reallege their responses to Paragraphs

5 1- 48, as set forth above, as though fully set forth herein.
6

50.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 50 of the

7 Complaint.
8

51.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 51 of the

9 Complaint.
10

52.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 52 of the

11 Complaint.
12

53.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 53 of the

13 Complaint.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

14

15 (Unfair Competition – California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.;
Against All Defendants)

16
17

54.

The Defendants incorporate and reallege their responses to Paragraphs

18 1- 53, as set forth above, as though fully set forth herein.
19

55.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 55 of the

20 Complaint.
21

56.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 56 of the

22 Complaint.
23

57.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 57 of the

24 Complaint.
25

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

26

(Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; Against All

27

Defendants)

28

58.

The Defendants incorporate and reallege their responses to Paragraphs
8

400959926 v1

Case No. SACV-08-1066-DOC(ANx)
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1 1- 57, as set forth above, as though fully set forth herein.
2

59.

The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to

3 form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 59 of the Complaint,
4 and on that basis deny each and every allegation.
5

60.

The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to

6 form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 60 of the Complaint,
7 and on that basis deny each and every allegation.
8

61.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 61 of the

9 Complaint.
10

62.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 62 of the

11 Complaint.
12

63.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 63 of the

13 Complaint.
14

64.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 64 of the

15 Complaint.
16

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

17

(Breach of Contract; Against Lesonsky and Anton)

18

65.

The Defendants incorporate and reallege their responses to Paragraphs

19 1- 64, as set forth above, as though fully set forth herein.
20

66.

The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to

21 form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 66 of the Complaint,
22 and on that basis deny each and every allegation.
23

67.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 67 of the

24 Complaint.
25

68.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 68 of the

26 Complaint.
27
28
9
400959926 v1

Case No. SACV-08-1066-DOC(ANx)
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1
2

AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES
The Defendants allege the following affirmative and other defenses to the

3 allegations contained in the Complaint.
4

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

5

(Failure to State a Claim)

6

69.

The Complaint, and each and every purported cause of action alleged

7 therein, fails to state a cause of action for which relief may be obtained against the
8 Defendants
9

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

10

(Contracts Violate Public Policy)

11

70.

The alleged contracts between Plaintiff and Lesonsky and Anton

12 violate public policy.
13

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

14

(Contracts Void for Lack of Consideration)

15

71.

The alleged contracts between Plaintiff and Lesonsky and Anton are

16 void for lack of consideration.
17
18 Dated: October 15, 2008
19
20

RICHARD H. ZAITLEN
STEPHEN BYERS
PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
PITTMAN LLP

21
By: /s/ Richard H. Zaitlen

22

Attorneys for Defendants
Rieva Lesonsky d/b/a SMB Connects,
Maria Anton, and AllBusiness.com

23
24
25
26
27
28

10
400959926 v1

Case No. SACV-08-1066-DOC(ANx)
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT