PhoneDog, LLC v. Kravitz
Filing
41
ANSWER to Counterclaim byPhoneDog, LLC. (Kirke, John) (Filed on 3/6/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
JOHN C. KIRKE, #175055
SOPHIA E.C. SCHWARTZ, #272915
DONAHUE GALLAGHER WOODS LLP
Attorneys at Law
1999 Harrison Street, 25th Floor
Oakland, California 94612-3520
P.O. Box 12979
Oakland, California 94604-2979
Telephone:
(510) 451-0544
Facsimile:
(510) 832-1486
6
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff and CounterDefendant
PHONEDOG, LLC
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
PHONEDOG, LLC, a Delaware
corporation,
ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM
13
14
15
16
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474-MEJ
Plaintiff,
[JURY TRIAL DEMANDED]
v.
NOAH KRAVITZ, an individual,
Defendant.
17
18
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PHONEDOG’S ANSWER TO KRAVITZ’S COUNTERCLAIM
CASE NO. 11-03474MEJ
1
In answer to the Counterclaim ("Counterclaim") filed by NOAH KRAVITZ ("Kravitz")
2
on February 14, 2012, Plaintiff PHONEDOG, LLC ("PhoneDog"), by and through its attorney,
3
responds as follows:
4
The Parties
5
1.
Answering the allegations in paragraph 1 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog lacks
6
sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained therein and on that basis denies
7
them.
8
9
2.
Answering the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Counterclaim,
PhoneDog admits that it is the plaintiff in this litigation. The remaining allegations of paragraph
10
2 state legal conclusions and as such do not require PhoneDog to answer.
11
PhoneDog is required to answer, PhoneDog denies the allegations contained therein.
12
13
14
15
16
Jurisdiction And Venue
3.
Answering the allegations in paragraph 3 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog denies
the allegations contained therein.
4.
Answering the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog admits
the allegations contained therein.
17
18
19
Factual Background
5.
Answering the allegations in paragraph 5 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog admits
the allegations contained therein.
20
21
To the extent
General Allegations
6.
Answering the allegations in paragraph 6 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog admits
22
that Kravitz continued to contribute to PhoneDog for a number of years after April 2006 and held
23
the following titles at PhoneDog: Cell Phone Editor, Senior Editor and Editor-in-Chief.
24
PhoneDog admits that Kravitz was one of PhoneDog's most prominent and heavily trafficked
25
contributors. PhoneDog admits that it entered into an agreement with Kravitz effective June 1,
26
2008 ("Commission Agreement").
27
allegations contained in the said paragraph.
Except as so admitted, PhoneDog denies the remaining
28
-1PHONEDOG’S ANSWER TO KRAVITZ’S COUNTERCLAIM
CASE NO. 11-03474MEJ
1
2
7.
Answering the allegations in paragraph 7 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog denies
the allegations contained therein.
3
8.
Answering the allegations in paragraph 8 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog admits
4
that at all times Kravitz was paid on a 1099 basis- not with W-2s. PhoneDog is without sufficient
5
knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that while Kravitz was
6
contributing to blog posts to PhoneDog and managing the work of other editors, Kravitz and a
7
friend spent a number of months working on a start-up venue and on that basis denies the
8
allegations. Except as so admitted, PhoneDog denies the remaining allegations contained in the
9
said paragraph.
10
9.
Answering the allegations in paragraph 9 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog is
11
without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
12
contained in said paragraph, and on that basis denies them.
13
10.
Answering the allegations in paragraph 10 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog admits
14
that in December 2010, it issued Kravitz a check in the amount of approximately $8,261.64 and
15
admits that it cancelled the aforementioned check. PhoneDog admits that on June 8, 2011 Kravitz
16
filed suit against PhoneDog in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. Except as
17
so admitted, PhoneDog denies the remaining allegations contained in the said paragraph.
18
11.
Answering the allegations in paragraph 11 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog admits
19
that it filed a lawsuit in this court on July 15, 2011. Except as so admitted, PhoneDog denies the
20
remaining allegations contained in the said paragraph.
21
12.
Answering the allegations in paragraph 12 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog admits
22
that Federal Court litigation raises four claims against Kravitz. Except as so admitted, PhoneDog
23
denies the remaining allegations contained in the said paragraph.
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
-2PHONEDOG’S ANSWER TO KRAVITZ’S COUNTERCLAIM
CASE NO. 11-03474MEJ
1
2
3
4
The Twitter Account
13.
Answering the allegations in paragraph 13 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog denies
the allegations contained therein.
14.
Answering the allegations in paragraph 14 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog admits
5
that Kravitz's tweets had the effect of driving traffic to PhoneDog's website. PhoneDog denies
6
that under the Commission Agreement Kravitz was entitled to 15% of the revenue generated from
7
all sources applicable to Kravitz. As to remaining allegations of paragraph 14, PhoneDog is
8
without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
9
contained in said paragraph, and on that basis denies them.
10
15.
Answering the allegations in paragraph 15 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog admits
11
that the identity of the Account's followers was public information accessible to PhoneDog and
12
anyone else with access to Twitter. PhoneDog admits that all of Kravitz's tweets were publicly
13
available. Except as so admitted, PhoneDog denies the remaining allegations contained in the said
14
paragraph.
15
16.
Answering the allegations in paragraph 16 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog denies
16
that the Account does not belong to either Kravitz or PhoneDog and that Kravitz is the individual
17
with the right to use the Services under the Terms. As to the remaining allegations of paragraph
18
16, PhoneDog is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of
19
the allegations contained in said paragraph, and on that basis denies them.
20
17.
Answering the allegations in paragraph 17 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog is
21
without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
22
contained in said paragraph, and on that basis denies them.
23
24
Use Of The Account By Kravitz
18.
Answering the allegations in paragraph 18 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog admits
25
that when Kravitz began using the Account, it did not have many followers. As to the remaining
26
allegations of paragraph 18, PhoneDog is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a
27
belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said paragraph, and on the basis denies them.
28
-3PHONEDOG’S ANSWER TO KRAVITZ’S COUNTERCLAIM
CASE NO. 11-03474MEJ
1
19.
Answering the allegations in paragraph 19 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog admits
2
that in October 2010, Kravitz resigned from PhoneDog. PhoneDog admits that Kravitz changed
3
the handle of the Account from @PhoneDog_Noah to @noahkravitz. PhoneDog admits that
4
when a Twitter handle changes, the user that followed the account under its previous handle
5
automatically continues following the account on its new handle.
6
PhoneDog denies the remaining allegations contained in the said paragraph.
7
8
9
10
11
20.
Except as so admitted,
Answering the allegations in paragraph 20 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog denies
the allegations contained therein.
21.
Answering the allegations in paragraph 21 of the Counterclaim, denies the
allegations contained therein.
22.
Answering the allegations in paragraph 22 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog is
12
without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that
13
Kravitz has sent almost 27,000 tweets, and on that basis denies the allegation. PhoneDog denies
14
the remaining allegations of paragraph 22.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
PhoneDog's Amended Complaint
23.
Answering the allegations of paragraph 23 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog admits
the allegations contained therein.
24.
Answering the allegations of paragraph 24 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog admits
the allegations contained therein.
25.
Answering the allegations of paragraph 25 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog denies
the allegations contained therein.
26.
Answering the allegations of paragraph 26 of the Counterclaim, paragraph 26
23
states a legal conclusion and as such does not require PhoneDog to answer. To the extent
24
PhoneDog is required to answer, PhoneDog denies the allegations contained therein.
25
26
27
28
-4PHONEDOG’S ANSWER TO KRAVITZ’S COUNTERCLAIM
CASE NO. 11-03474MEJ
1
COUNT ONE
2
Declaratory Judgment that—Subject to the Rights Retained by Twitter—Kravitz has all
Rights to and Interest in the Services
3
4
27.
Answering the allegations of paragraph 27 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog
5
realleges and reincorporates by reference as if set forth in full herein its answers to paragraphs 1
6
through 26.
7
28.
Answering the allegations of paragraph 28 of the Counterclaim, paragraph 28
8
states a legal conclusion and as such does not require PhoneDog to answer. To the extent
9
PhoneDog is required to answer, PhoneDog denies the allegations contained therein.
10
29.
Answering the allegations of paragraph 29 of the Counterclaim, paragraph 29
11
states a legal conclusion and as such does not require PhoneDog to answer. To the extent
12
PhoneDog is required to answer, PhoneDog denies the allegations contained therein.
13
14
15
16
30.
Answering the allegations of paragraph 30 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog denies
the allegations contained therein.
31.
Answering the allegations of paragraph 31 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog denies
the allegations contained therein.
17
COUNT TWO
18
Promissory Estoppel
19
32.
Answering the allegations of paragraph 32 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog
20
realleges and reincorporates by reference as if set forth in full herein its answers to paragraphs 1
21
through 31.
22
23
24
25
26
27
33.
Answering the allegations of paragraph 33 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog denies
the allegations contained therein.
34.
Answering the allegations of paragraph 34 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog denies
the allegations contained therein.
35.
Answering the allegations of paragraph 35 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog denies
the allegations contained therein.
28
-5PHONEDOG’S ANSWER TO KRAVITZ’S COUNTERCLAIM
CASE NO. 11-03474MEJ
1
2
36.
Answering the allegations of paragraph 36 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog denies
the allegations contained therein.
3
COUNT THREE
4
False Promise (Fraud)
5
37.
Answering the allegations of paragraph 37 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog
6
realleges and reincorporates by reference as if set forth in full herein its answers to paragraphs 1
7
through 36.
8
9
10
11
12
13
38.
Answering the allegations of paragraph 38 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog denies
the allegations contained therein.
39.
Answering the allegations of paragraph 39 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog denies
the allegations contained therein.
40.
Answering the allegations of paragraph 40 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog denies
the allegations contained therein.
14
COUNT FOUR
15
Negligent Misrepresentation
16
41.
Answering the allegations of paragraph 41 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog
17
realleges and reincorporates by reference as if set forth in full herein its answers to paragraphs 1
18
through 40.
19
20
21
22
23
24
42.
Answering the allegations in paragraph 42 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog denies
the allegations contained therein.
43.
Answering the allegations of paragraph 43 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog denies
the allegations contained therein.
44.
Answering the allegations of paragraph 44 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog denies
the allegations contained therein.
25
26
27
28
-6PHONEDOG’S ANSWER TO KRAVITZ’S COUNTERCLAIM
CASE NO. 11-03474MEJ
1
COUNT FIVE
2
Unauthorized Use of Likeness in Violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 and Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code § 17200 et seq.
3
4
45.
Answering the allegations of paragraph 45 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog
5
realleges and reincorporates by reference as if set forth in full herein its answers to paragraphs 1
6
through 44.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
46.
Answering the allegations of paragraph 46 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog denies
the allegations contained therein.
47.
Answering the allegations of paragraph 47 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog denies
the allegations contained therein.
48.
Answering the allegations of paragraph 48 of the Counterclaim, PhoneDog denies
the allegations contained therein.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
14
These paragraphs set forth the statement of relief requested by Kravitz to which no
15
response is required. PhoneDog denies that Kravitz is entitled to any of the requested relief and
16
denies any allegations contained in the Prayer for Relief to which a response is required.
17
18
19
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
As and for separate and distinct affirmative defenses to the Counterclaim, PhoneDog
alleges as to all of the allegations contained in the Counterclaim:
20
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21
(Attorneys' Fees Barred)
22
As and for a separate and distinct defense to Kravitz's Counterclaim, and to each claim for
23
relief contained therein, PhoneDog alleges that Kravitz is precluded from recovering attorneys'
24
fees from PhoneDog under the applicable provisions of law.
25
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26
(Failure to State a Claim)
27
28
All of Kravitz's claims fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a claim for relief for which
relief may be granted against PhoneDog.
-7PHONEDOG’S ANSWER TO KRAVITZ’S COUNTERCLAIM
CASE NO. 11-03474MEJ
1
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2
(Additional Affirmative Defenses)
3
4
PhoneDog reserve the right to assert additional affirmative defenses in the event that
additional defenses become apparent during the course of this litigation.
5
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6
(Unclean Hands)
7
Kravitz comes to this Court with unclean hands and is therefore barred from recovery.
8
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9
(Speculative Damages)
10
11
The damages, if any, claimed by Kravitz are wholly speculative and are not susceptible to
determination.
12
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13
(Breach of Contract)
14
As and for a separate and distinct defense to Kravitz's Counterclaim, and to each cause of
15
action contained therein, PhoneDog alleges that each of Kravitz's claims are barred because
16
Kravitz substantially and materially breached the contract between the parties prior to the
17
commencement of this action, which conduct extinguishes the right to maintain the instant action.
18
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19
(Business Justification/Privilege)
20
The conduct complained of in Kravitz's Counterclaim was a just and proper exercise of
21
management discretion undertaken for a fair and honest reason regulated by good faith under the
22
circumstances then existing, and undertaken by PhoneDog in a manner in which it believed in
23
good faith that it was justified and/or privileged to act.
24
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25
(Business Necessity)
26
Kravitz's Counterclaim as a whole, and each and every cause of action alleged therein, is
27
barred in whole or in part because any and all actions taken by PhoneDog were justified by
28
business necessity and were for legitimate non-discriminatory business reasons.
-8PHONEDOG’S ANSWER TO KRAVITZ’S COUNTERCLAIM
CASE NO. 11-03474MEJ
1
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2
(Consent of Kravitz)
3
4
Kravitz acknowledged, ratified, consented to, and acquiesced in the alleged acts or
omissions, if any, of PhoneDog thus barring Kravitz from any relief as prayed for herein.
5
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6
(Estoppel)
7
8
Kravitz is, by virtue of his own inequitable conduct, estopped from recovery on all of the
Causes of Action of the Counterclaim, and each of them.
9
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10
(Failure to Mitigate)
11
As and for a separate and distinct defense to Kravitz's Counterclaim, and to each cause of
12
action contained therein, PhoneDog alleges that, on information and belief, Kravitz's alleged
13
injuries, if any there were, were aggravated by Kravitz's failure to use reasonable diligence to
14
mitigate them.
15
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16
(Fraud/Misrepresentation)
17
As and for a separate and distinct defense to Kravitz's Counterclaim, and to each cause of
18
action contained therein, PhoneDog alleges that each of Kravitz's claims is barred because the
19
incidents, if any, which are the subject of Kravitz's Counterclaim were procured by the fraud and
20
misrepresentations by Kravitz, thereby voiding any obligations allegedly owed by PhoneDog to
21
Plaintiff.
22
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23
(Laches)
24
The claims asserted in Kravitz's Counterclaim, and each of them, are barred by laches.
25
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26
(Lack of Justifiable Reliance)
27
28
Kravitz's third cause of action for intentional misrepresentation and fourth cause of action
for negligent misrepresentation are barred due to a lack of justifiable reliance by Kravitz.
-9PHONEDOG’S ANSWER TO KRAVITZ’S COUNTERCLAIM
CASE NO. 11-03474MEJ
1
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2
(No False Promise)
3
4
Kravitz's Counterclaim is barred because PhoneDog made no promises to Kravitz with the
concurrent intent to defraud Kravitz.
5
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6
(Set-Off)
7
As a proximate result of the wrongful acts of Kravitz, PhoneDog has suffered damage in
8
an amount equal to or in excess of the amounts claimed by Kravitz herein, which damage bars
9
Plaintiff's recovery on the third, fourth and fifth Causes of Action of the Counterclaim, and each
10
of them.
11
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12
(Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction)
13
Kravitz's claims are barred because, based on the allegations in Kravitz's Counterclaim,
14
the amount in controversy here is less than $75,000 and therefore, this Court does not have
15
subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
16
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17
(Waiver)
18
The claims for relief are barred by Kravitz's prior waiver of the claims alleged therein.
19
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20
(Willful Misconduct)
21
Kravitz was, at all times and places set forth in each of the claims for relief of the
22
Counterclaim, guilty of willful misconduct in and about the matters alleged therein, which willful
23
misconduct bars Kravitz from recovery on each claim for relief in the Counterclaim.
24
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25
(Statute of Limitations)
26
27
PhoneDog affirmatively alleges that each claim for relief in the Counterclaim is barred by
the applicable statute of limitations.
28
-10PHONEDOG’S ANSWER TO KRAVITZ’S COUNTERCLAIM
CASE NO. 11-03474MEJ
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?