Kim v. Coach, Inc, et al

Filing 53

ANSWER to 4 Amended Complaint by Coach Services Inc.(Keehnel, Stellman)

THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10
11

GINA KIM, on behalf of a class consisting
of herself and all other persons similarly
situated,

12
13
14
15

v.

Plaintiffs, and as to Ms.
Kim, counterclaim
defendant,

NO. 2:11-cv-00214-RSM
COACH SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER,
DEFENSES, AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES TO FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT

COACH, INC., a Maryland corporation,
and COACH SERVICES, INC., a
Maryland corporation,

16

Defendants and, as to
Coach, Inc., counterclaim
plaintiff.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1)(A)(ii), defendant Coach Services,
Inc. (“Coach”) hereby submits its answer to the First Amended Complaint1 (the “Amended
Complaint”) filed by plaintiff Gina Kim on behalf of a putative class consisting of Ms. Kim and
all other Washington residents similarly situated, and filed by plaintiffs Jay Carlson, Carlson
Legal, Christopher Carney, Carney Gillespie & Isitt PLLC, Jason B. Moore, and Van Eyk &

24
25
26

1

On March 22, 2011, counsel for Ms. Kim filed a stipulated request for leave to file a second amended complaint.
(Dkt. No. 20.) The Court has not yet entered the second amended complaint. For purposes of Coach’s answer,
defenses, and affirmative defenses, the second amended complaint is identical to the first amended complaint. For
this reason, Coach directs its answer, defenses, and affirmative defenses at whichever complaint is currently
extant.
COACH SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER, DEFENSES,
DLA Piper LLP (US)
AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7000
AMENDED COMPLAINT – 1
Seattle, WA 98104-7044 ● Tel: [phone]
NO. 2:11-CV-00214-RSM
WEST\223567129.1

1

Moore, PLLC. Coach’s answer, defenses, and affirmative defenses are based on information

2

and knowledge thus far secured by Coach, and Coach reserves the right to amend or

3

supplement its answer, defenses, and affirmative defenses based on facts later discovered,

4

pleaded, or offered. To the extent that any express or implied allegations in the Amended

5

Complaint are not specifically admitted herein, Coach hereby denies any such allegations.
ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

6
7

SUMMARY

8

Coach denies each and every allegation in plaintiffs’ “Summary,” except to admit that

9

its law firm Gibney, Anthony & Flaherty, LLP (“Gibney”) monitors certain items listed for sale

10

on eBay, that Gibney alerts eBay when counterfeit Coach products are detected, that Gibney

11

delivers communications to sellers when counterfeit Coach products are detected, and that

12

Ms. Kim is a former employee of Coach, Inc. Coach specifically denies that it “is trying to

13

force all consumers to purchase Coach products” only in Coach’s retail stores. Coach

14

specifically denies that it “wantonly accuses consumers of infringing its trademarks . . . .”

15

Coach specifically denies that it makes any accusations of counterfeiting “[w]ithout

16

investigating the validity of its allegations . . . .” Coach specifically denies that it “fails to

17

conduct even a minimally reasonable investigation into its counterfeiting claims . . . .”

18

I.

NATURE OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

19

To the extent that this section contains allegations of fact, Coach denies the allegations

20

contained therein, except to state that counsel for Coach indicated to counsel for Ms. Kim that

21

counsel for Ms. Kim had committed actionable defamation that would be the subject of a claim.

22

Coach specifically denies that any threats were made.

23

II.

PARTIES

24

1.

Coach denies that Ms. Kim is representative of any purported class in this

25

matter. As to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 1, Coach lacks sufficient knowledge or

26
COACH SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER, DEFENSES,
AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT - 2
NO. 2:11-CV-00214-RSM
WEST\223567129.1

DLA Piper LLP (US)
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7000
Seattle, WA 98104-7044 ● Tel: [phone]

1

information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, on that

2

basis, denies such allegations.

3

2.

Coach denies that the putative class described in Paragraph 2 is valid under

4

Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. As to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 2, Coach lacks sufficient

5

knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein

6

and, on that basis, denies such allegations.

7

3.

Coach admits that Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc. are Maryland

8

corporations and that their principal places of business are not in Washington. The meaning of

9

the term “extensive” is undefined and, on that basis, Coach denies the remaining allegations in

10
11

Paragraph 3.
4.

Coach denies that counsel for Ms. Kim “have been directly threatened with a

12

defamation lawsuit by Coach’s counsel.” As to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4,

13

Coach lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the

14

allegations contained therein and, on that basis, denies such allegations, except to acknowledge

15

that Ms. Kim’s lawyers have been made named plaintiffs in this lawsuit.

16

III.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

17

1.

Answering Paragraph 1, Coach lacks sufficient knowledge or information to

18

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, on that basis, denies such

19

allegations.

20

2.

Paragraph 2 contains legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. To

21

the extent that Paragraph 2 contains allegations of fact, Coach admits that the Amended

22

Complaint purports to invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1367, and 2201-02.

23
24
25
26

3.

Coach admits that its affiliates market and sell trademarked goods in

Washington. Coach denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 3.
4.

Paragraph 4 contains legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. To

the extent that Paragraph 4 contains allegations of fact, Coach admits that the Amended
COACH SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER, DEFENSES,
AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT - 3
NO. 2:11-CV-00214-RSM
WEST\223567129.1

DLA Piper LLP (US)
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7000
Seattle, WA 98104-7044 ● Tel: [phone]

1

Complaint purports to invoke venue under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(a), (b), & (c).

2

IV.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

3

1.

Answering Paragraph 1, Coach lacks sufficient knowledge or information to

4

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, on that basis, denies such

5

allegations.
2.

6

Answering Paragraph 2, Coach lacks sufficient knowledge or information to

7

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, on that basis, denies such

8

allegations.

9

1.

1.

12

Coach incorporates and realleges the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully

2.

10
11

“VIOLATION OF THE WASHINGTON CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT”

Paragraph 2 contains legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. To

herein.

13

the extent that Paragraph 2 contains allegations of fact, Coach lacks sufficient knowledge or

14

information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, on that

15

basis, denies such allegations.

16

3.

Coach admits that, in October 2010, Gibney notified eBay that Gibney believed,

17

on the basis of Ms. Kim’s eBay listing, that a handbag listed for sale by Ms. Kim is counterfeit

18

and infringed Coach’s trademarks. Coach denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 3.

19

Coach specifically denies that it acted “without conducting any reasonable investigation.”

20

4.

Coach admits that the listing referenced in the preceding paragraph was briefly

21

removed from eBay but denies that Ms. Kim’s characterization, which implies that the listing

22

was never re-instated, is accurate. Coach further denies that it made any claims at all. As to

23

the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4, Coach lacks sufficient knowledge or information to

24

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, on that basis, denies such

25

allegations.

26
COACH SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER, DEFENSES,
AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT - 4
NO. 2:11-CV-00214-RSM
WEST\223567129.1

DLA Piper LLP (US)
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7000
Seattle, WA 98104-7044 ● Tel: [phone]

5.

1

Coach admits that, on or about October 8, 2010, Gibney sent a letter to Ms. Kim

2

regarding her eBay listing. Coach denies that Ms. Kim’s characterization of the letter is

3

accurate or complete, and submits that the letter is the best evidence of its contents.
6.

4

Answering Paragraph 6, Coach lacks sufficient knowledge or information to

5

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, on that basis, denies such

6

allegations.

7

7.

Coach denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 7.

8

8.

Coach denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 8.

9

9.

Coach denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 9.

10

10.

Coach denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 10.

11

11.

Coach denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11.

12
13

“MISREPRESENTATION OF TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT IN
VIOLATION OF 17 U.S.C. 512(f), AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT”

14

1.

Coach incorporates and realleges the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully

16

2.

Coach admits the allegations in Paragraph 2.

17

3.

Coach admits that, in October 2010, Gibney notified eBay that Gibney believed,

15

2.

herein.

18

on the basis of Ms. Kim’s eBay listing, that a handbag listed for sale by Ms. Kim is counterfeit

19

and infringed Coach’s trademarks. Coach denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 3.

20

4.

Coach admits that, on October 8, 2010, Gibney sent a letter to Ms. Kim

21

regarding her eBay listing. Coach denies that Ms. Kim’s characterization of the letter is

22

accurate or complete, and submits that the letter is the best evidence of its contents. Coach

23

denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4.

24

5.

Answering Paragraph 5, Coach lacks sufficient knowledge or information to

25

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, on that basis, denies such

26

allegations.
COACH SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER, DEFENSES,
AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT - 5
NO. 2:11-CV-00214-RSM
WEST\223567129.1

DLA Piper LLP (US)
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7000
Seattle, WA 98104-7044 ● Tel: [phone]

1

6.

Coach denies the allegations in Paragraph 6.

2

7.

Coach denies the allegations in Paragraph 7.

3

8.

Coach denies the allegations in Paragraph 8.

4

9.

Coach denies the allegations in Paragraph 9.

5

3.

1.

10

Coach admits that, in October 2010, Gibney notified eBay that Gibney believed,

herein.

8
9

Coach incorporates and realleges the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully

2.

6
7

“DEFAMATION BY DEFENDANT AGAINST PLAINTIFF”

on the basis of Ms. Kim’s eBay listing, that a handbag listed for sale by Ms. Kim is counterfeit
and infringed Coach’s trademarks. Coach denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 2.

11

3.

Coach denies the allegations in Paragraph 3.

12

4.

Answering Paragraph 4, Coach lacks sufficient knowledge or information to

13

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, on that basis, denies such

14

allegations.

15

5.

Coach denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.

16

6.

Coach denies the allegations in Paragraph 6.

17

7.

Coach denies the allegations in Paragraph 7.

18

4.

1.

21

Coach incorporates and realleges the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully

2.

19
20

“TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A BUSINESS EXPECTANCY”

Coach admits that, in October 2010, Gibney notified eBay that Gibney believed,

herein.

22

on the basis of Ms. Kim’s eBay listing, that a handbag listed for sale by Ms. Kim is counterfeit

23

and infringed Coach’s trademarks. Coach denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 2.

24

3.

Coach admits that, on October 8, 2010, Gibney sent a letter to Ms. Kim

25

regarding her eBay listing. Coach denies that Ms. Kim’s characterization of the letter is

26

accurate or complete, and submits that the letter is the best evidence of its contents.
COACH SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER, DEFENSES,
AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT - 6
NO. 2:11-CV-00214-RSM
WEST\223567129.1

DLA Piper LLP (US)
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7000
Seattle, WA 98104-7044 ● Tel: [phone]

1

4.

Coach denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.

2

5.

Coach denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.

3
4

5.

“DECLARATION OF NO DEFAMATION BY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL”
1.

Coach admits that Coach, Inc. hired counsel named Stellman Keehnel, who

5

practices at DLA Piper in Seattle. Coach further admits that Mr. Keehnel has been in

6

communication with counsel for Ms. Kim. Coach further admits that, as of the filing of the

7

Amended Complaint, Mr. Keehnel had not yet filed a notice of appearance in this matter

8

because there was no occasion to do so, as the time for Coach, Inc. to appear and respond,

9

following service of process, had not run, and Coach had not yet been served. Coach denies the

10

remaining allegations in Paragraph 1. Coach specifically denies that Mr. Keehnel has been in

11

“regular communication” with counsel for Ms. Kim. Coach specifically denies that Mr.

12

Keehnel was under any obligation to appear in this case because of “repeated written and oral

13

requests” to appear.

14

2.

Coach denies that Mr. Keehnel sent counsel for Ms. Kim a letter dated February

15

27, 2011. Coach denies that counsel for Ms. Kim’s characterization of any letter sent by

16

Mr. Keehnel is accurate or complete, and submits that the best evidence of the contents of any

17

letter sent to Ms. Kim’s counsel is such letter.

18

3.

Coach again denies that Mr. Keehnel sent counsel for Ms. Kim a letter dated

19

February 27, 2011. Coach admits that, in a February 17, 2011 letter, Mr. Keehnel informed

20

counsel for Ms. Kim that they committed defamation. Coach denies that counsel for Ms. Kim’s

21

characterization of any letter sent by Mr. Keehnel is accurate or complete, and submits that the

22

best evidence of the contents of any letter sent to Ms. Kim’s counsel is such letter.

23

4.

Coach denies that any “threat” was made. Coach admits that Mr. Keehnel

24

informed counsel for Ms. Kim that counsel for Ms. Kim committed defamation and that a claim

25

would be filed. Coach denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4.

26

5.

Coach denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.

COACH SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER, DEFENSES,
AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT - 7
NO. 2:11-CV-00214-RSM
WEST\223567129.1

DLA Piper LLP (US)
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7000
Seattle, WA 98104-7044 ● Tel: [phone]

1

6.

Coach denies that the description of counsel for Ms. Kim’s actions during the

2

interview – that they “repeated the allegations in the Complaint and answered questions about

3

the case” – is accurate or complete. As to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 6, Coach

4

lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations

5

contained therein and, on that basis, denies such allegations.

6

7.

Coach admits that Gibney sent Ms. Kim a letter, although Coach denies that

7

counsel for Ms. Kim’s characterization of the letter is accurate or complete, and submits that

8

the letter is the best evidence of its contents. Coach admits that Ms. Kim is a former Coach,

9

Inc. employee. Coach lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth

10

of the allegation that “[t]he actual product was depicted in photographs taken by Ms. Kim and

11

posted in the eBay.com advertisement . . . .” Coach denies the remaining allegations in

12

Paragraph 7. Coach specifically denies that the defamatory statements by counsel for Ms. Kim

13

were substantially true. Coach specifically denies that Coach “failed to reasonably investigate”

14

the authenticity of the product. Coach specifically denies that “[i]f Coach had reasonably

15

investigated that issue, they could have easily discovered that the product was genuine.” Coach

16

specifically denies that counsel for Ms. Kim had a “good faith basis to assert that Coach failed

17

to investigate, and the statement was substantially true.” Coach specifically denies that “[t]here

18

has been no defamation against Coach.”

19

8.

Coach admits that its brand is famous. Coach lacks sufficient knowledge or

20

information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation regarding “the reason the media

21

was interested in this Complaint in the first place . . . .” The meaning of the phrase “great deal

22

of money” is undefined and, on that basis, Coach denies the allegation regarding the amount of

23

money it spends on marketing. Coach denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 8.

24

9.

Coach denies the allegations in Paragraph 9.

25
26
COACH SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER, DEFENSES,
AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT - 8
NO. 2:11-CV-00214-RSM
WEST\223567129.1

DLA Piper LLP (US)
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7000
Seattle, WA 98104-7044 ● Tel: [phone]

1

V.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

2

1.

Paragraph 1 contains legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. To

3

the extent that Paragraph 1 contains allegations of fact, Coach denies the allegations in

4

Paragraph 1.

5

2.

Coach denies the allegations in Paragraph 2.

6

3.

Paragraph 3 contains legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. To

7

the extent that Paragraph 3 contains allegations of fact, Coach denies the allegations in

8

Paragraph 3.

9

4.

Coach denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.

10

5.

Coach denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.

11

6.

Coach denies the allegations in Paragraph 6.

12

7.

Coach denies the allegations in Paragraph 7.

13

8.

No response is necessary to Paragraph 8.

14

VI.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

15

Coach denies that Ms. Kim is entitled to the relief sought in the Amended Complaint or

16

to any other relief.
DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

17
18

As separate and distinct defenses and affirmative defenses to the Amended Complaint,

19

Coach further alleges as follows, without admission that Coach carries the burden of proof on

20

any of the defenses set forth below:

21
22
23
24
25
26

1.

Failure to State a Claim. The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for

which relief can be granted.
2.

Unclean Hands. Ms. Kim is not entitled to obtain recovery for damages she has

incurred, if any, arising out of her own wrongful conduct.
3.

Prior Breach. Each and every one of Ms. Kim’s causes of action in the

Amended Complaint is barred by the doctrine of prior breach.
COACH SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER, DEFENSES,
AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT - 9
NO. 2:11-CV-00214-RSM
WEST\223567129.1

DLA Piper LLP (US)
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7000
Seattle, WA 98104-7044 ● Tel: [phone]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

4.

Intervening Cause. Each and every one of Ms. Kim’s causes of action in the

Amended Complaint is barred by the doctrine of intervening cause.
5.

Kim’s Own Conduct. Each and every one of Ms. Kim’s causes of action in the

Amended Complaint is barred by Ms. Kim’s own conduct.
6.

Estoppel. Each and every one of Ms. Kim’s causes of action in the Amended

Complaint is barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
7.

Justification. Each and every one of Ms. Kim’s causes of action in the

Amended Complaint is barred by the doctrine of justification.

9

8.

Truth. Ms. Kim’s claim for defamation is barred by the doctrine of truth.

10

9.

Lack of Damages. The Amended Complaint, and each purported claim by

11

Ms. Kim for relief therein, is barred because Ms. Kim has not suffered any damages as a result

12

of any acts, conduct, or omissions by Coach.

13

10.

Failure to Mitigate. Ms. Kim is precluded from pursuing her Amended

14

Complaint and each claim for relief therein because Ms. Kim has failed to mitigate her

15

damages, if any, which she seeks to recover.

16

11.

Successful Mitigation of Damages. Ms. Kim is precluded from pursuing her

17

Amended Complaint and each claim for relief therein because Ms. Kim has successfully

18

mitigated her damages, such that there are no damages to recover.

19

12.

Justifiable Reliance. Coach justifiably relied on Ms. Kim’s false statement that

20

the subject bag is “NEW.” In fact, the subject bag was six or seven years old at the time

21

Ms. Kim falsely represented that the bag is “NEW.”

22

13.

No Typicality. Ms. Kim is not typical of the class she purports to represent.

23

14.

No Numerosity. The putative class does not satisfy the numerosity

24
25
26

requirement.
15.

Counsel Not Qualified. Ms. Kim’s selected counsel are not qualified to serve

as class counsel.
COACH SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER, DEFENSES,
AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT - 10
NO. 2:11-CV-00214-RSM
WEST\223567129.1

DLA Piper LLP (US)
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7000
Seattle, WA 98104-7044 ● Tel: [phone]

16.

1
2

No Predominance. Individual issues predominate, rendering class treatment

inappropriate.
17.

3

Concession that Case Cannot Proceed as Class Action. Coach and Coach,

4

Inc. filed a motion to strike all class allegations, for reasons stated in the motion. Plaintiff and

5

her counsel affirmatively acknowledged in a court filing that they do not oppose Coach and

6

Coach, Inc.’s motion to strike class allegations. Plaintiff and her counsel have conceded that

7

the lawsuit cannot proceed as a class action.
18.

8
9

Failure to Join Necessary Party. Each and every one of Ms. Kim’s causes of

action in the Amended Complaint is barred by Ms. Kim’s failure to join a necessary party.
19.

10

Right to Assert Additional Defenses. The above defenses and affirmative

11

defenses are based on the facts and information currently known to Coach. Coach reserves the

12

right to amend or add defenses or affirmative defenses based on facts later discovered, pleaded

13

or offered.

14
REQUEST FOR RELIEF

15
16

Coach requests the following relief:

17

1.

Dismissal of the Amended Complaint with prejudice;

18

2.

An award of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in this lawsuit; and

19

3.

An award of any such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and

20

proper.

21
22
23
24
25
26
COACH SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER, DEFENSES,
AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT - 11
NO. 2:11-CV-00214-RSM
WEST\223567129.1

DLA Piper LLP (US)
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7000
Seattle, WA 98104-7044 ● Tel: [phone]

1

Dated this 31st day of May, 2011.

2

DLA Piper LLP (US)

3
By: s/ Stellman Keehnel
Stellman Keehnel, WSBA No. 9309
R. Omar Riojas, WSBA No. 35400
Patrick Eagan, WSBA No. 42679
DLA Piper LLP (US)
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7000
Seattle, WA 98104
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for defendants Coach, Inc. and Coach
Services, Inc., and counter claim plaintiff Coach,
Inc.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

COACH SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER, DEFENSES,
AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT - 12
NO. 2:11-CV-00214-RSM
WEST\223567129.1

DLA Piper LLP (US)
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7000
Seattle, WA 98104-7044 ● Tel: [phone]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1
2

I hereby certify that on May 31, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk

3

of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all counsel

4

of record.

5

Dated this 31st day of May, 2011.

6
/s/ Stellman Keehnel
Stellman Keehnel, WSBA No. 9309

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
COACH SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER, DEFENSES,
AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT - 13
NO. 2:11-CV-00214-RSM
WEST\223567129.1

DLA Piper LLP (US)
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7000
Seattle, WA 98104-7044 ● Tel: [phone]