DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
PAGE 1
4844-1160-2190/02415-101
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
HILARY LONGSTREET, individually and
on behalf of similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff,
GEORGE CRAMER, JR., JOE TILLOTSON,
PLANO AMIGOS LP d/b/a Banditos Tex-
Mex Cantina, PLANO AMIGOS GP LLC, UP
PLAZA AMIGOS LLC d/b/a Banditos Tex-
Mex Cantina, KATY TRAIL ICE HOUSE GP
LLC, and KATY TRAIL ICE HOUSE LP,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:13-cv-01461-G
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendants George Cramer, Jr., Joe Tillotson, Plano Amigos LP d./b/a Banditos Tex Mex
Cantina, Plano Amigos GP LLC, UP Plaza Amigos LLC d/b/a Banditos Tex-Mex Cantina, Katy
Trail Ice House GP LLC, and Katy Trail Ice House LP, and Katy Trail Ice House LP, file this
Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Request for Disclosure (hereinafter referred to as
“Complaint”):
DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL ANSWER
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b), Defendants respond to the allegations
in each corresponding paragraph of the Complaint as follows:
I.
SUMMARY
Defendants deny the allegations contained within the Summary of the Complaint.
Case 3:13-cv-01461-G Document 8 Filed 04/25/13 Page 1 of 9 PageID 182
DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
PAGE 2
4844-1160-2190/02415-101
II.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Defendants admit that this Court has original jurisdiction to hear this Complaint
under the Fail Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et. seq. and that venue is proper in this
Court.
III.
PARTIES
2. Defendants admit only so much of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint that alleges that
George Cramer is an individual. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 2 of
the Complaint.
3. Defendants admit only so much of Paragraph 3 of the Complaint that alleges that
Joe Tillotson is an individual. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 3 of the
Complaint.
4. Defendants admit only so much of Paragraph 4 of the Complaint that alleges that
Plano Amigos LP is a Limited Partnership. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of
paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
5. Defendants admit only so much of Paragraph 5 of the Complaint that alleges that
Plano Amigos GP LLC is a Limited Liability Company. Defendants deny the remaining
allegations of paragraph 5 of the Complaint.
6. Defendants admit only so much of Paragraph 6 of the Complaint that alleges that UP
Plaza Amigos LLC is a Limited Liability Company. Defendants deny the remaining allegations
of paragraph 6 of the Complaint.
7. Defendants admit only so much of Paragraph 7 of the Complaint that alleges that
Case 3:13-cv-01461-G Document 8 Filed 04/25/13 Page 2 of 9 PageID 183
DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
PAGE 3
4844-1160-2190/02415-101
Katy Trail Ice House LP is a Limited Partnership. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of
paragraph 6 of the Complaint.
8. Defendants admit only so much of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint that alleges that
Katy Trail Ice House GP, LLC is a Limited Liability Company. Defendants deny the remaining
allegations of paragraph 8 of the Complaint.
9. Defendants admit only so much of Paragraph 9 of the Complaint that alleges that
Plaintiff is a resident of Texas and works at Banditos Tex-Mex Cantina in Plano, Texas.
Defendants deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
10. The allegations of paragraph 10 of the Complaint require no answer of Defendants
but to the extent that they require an answer, Defendants deny those allegations.
IV.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
11. Defendants admit only so much of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint that alleges that
it has paid their hourly employees and hourly rate for each hour they worked. Defendants deny
the remaining allegations of paragraph 11 of the Complaint.
12. The allegations of paragraph 12 of the Complaint state legal conclusions that
require no answer of Defendants, but to the extent that such allegations require an answer, they
are denied.
13. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
14. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
15. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
16. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 16 of the Complaint.
Case 3:13-cv-01461-G Document 8 Filed 04/25/13 Page 3 of 9 PageID 184
DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
PAGE 4
4844-1160-2190/02415-101
17. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 17 of the Complaint.
18. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Complaint.
19. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Complaint.
20. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 20 of the Complaint.
21. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 21 of the Complaint.
22. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 22 of the Complaint.
23. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 23 of the Complaint.
24. The allegations of paragraph 24 of the Complaint state legal conclusions that
require no answer of Defendants, but to the extent that such allegations require an answer, they
are denied.
25. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 25 of the Complaint.
26. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 26 of the Complaint.
27. The allegations of the first sentence of paragraph 27 of the Complaint state legal
conclusions that require no answer of Defendants, but to the extent that such allegations require
an answer, they are denied. Defendants deny the allegations of the second sentence of paragraph
27 of the Complaint.
28. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 28 of the Complaint.
29. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 29 of the Complaint.
30. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 30 of the Complaint.
31. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 31 of the Complaint.
32. The allegations of paragraph 32 of the Complaint require no answer of
Defendants but to the extent that they require an answer, Defendants deny those allegations.
Case 3:13-cv-01461-G Document 8 Filed 04/25/13 Page 4 of 9 PageID 185
DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
PAGE 5
4844-1160-2190/02415-101
33. The allegations of paragraph 33 of the Complaint require no answer of
Defendants but to the extent that they require an answer, Defendants deny those allegations.
V.
JURY DEMAND
34. Defendants hereby request a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
VI. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
First Affirmative Defense
1. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Second Affirmative Defense
2. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of
limitations.
Third Affirmative Defense
1. Defendants invoke the defenses, protections and limitations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §201 et seq. (“FLSA”).
Case 3:13-cv-01461-G Document 8 Filed 04/25/13 Page 5 of 9 PageID 186
-6-
Fourth Affirmative Defense
4. At all times, Defendants acted in good faith and had reasonable grounds for
believing their actions were in compliance with the FLSA.
Fifth
Affirmative Defense
5. Defendants did not know or show reckless disregard for whether their conduct
was prohibited by the FLSA.
Sixth Affirmative Defense
6. This action is barred to the extent Plaintiff seeks recovery for time that is not
compensable time, i.e. “hours worked” under the FLSA.
Seventh Affirmative Defense
7. In the alternative, Defendants are entitled to offset monies or other consideration
paid or provided to Plaintiff by Defendants for periods in which Plaintiff was not engaged to
work.
Eight Affirmative Defense
8. To the extent that Plaintiff may seek punitive damages, Plaintiff’s recovery is
limited by applicable provisions of the FLSA and the Texas and/or United States Constitutions.
Any award of punitive damages to Plaintiff in this case would be in violation of the FLSA and
the constitutional safeguards provided to Defendants under the Constitution of the United States
and/or the laws of the State of Texas.
Ninth Affirmative Defense
9. Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive/liquidated damages as Defendants did not act or
fail to act in a manner sufficient to give rise to punitive/liquidated damages liability.
Case 3:13-cv-01461-G Document 8 Filed 04/25/13 Page 6 of 9 PageID 187
-7-
Tenth Affirmative Defense
10. Plaintiff’s action is barred because he seeks to recover for time that is de minimus
work time and thus not compensable under the FLSA.
Eleventh Affirmative Defense
11. To the extent Plaintiff seeks damages not recoverable under the FLSA, Plaintiff is
barred from such recovery.
Twelfth Affirmative Defense
12. Without assuming the burden of proof, Plaintiffs were compensated for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in any particular workweek (as Plaintiffs themselves reported their
time worked) at a rate not less than that set forth by the overtime provisions of the FLSA.
Thirteenth Affirmative Defense
13. Without assuming the burden of proof, Defendants complied with all
recordkeeping requirements of the FLSA.
Fourteenth Affirmative Defense
14. The Plaintiff’s claims are estopped by the submission of his/their own time
records, for which Defendants compensated them for all overtime worked and claimed.
Fifteenth Affirmative Defense
15. The alleged time for which Plaintiffs seek compensation is irregular as well as
practically and administratively difficult to record.
Sixteenth Affirmative Defense
16. Without assuming the burden of proof, Plaintiffs and members of the purported
class or collective action are not similarly situated. The potential claims of the purported class
members reflect variability.
Case 3:13-cv-01461-G Document 8 Filed 04/25/13 Page 7 of 9 PageID 188
-8-
Seventeenth Affirmative Defense
17. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their alleged damages.
Eighteenth Affirmative Defense
18. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and/or laches.
Nineteenth Affirmative Defense
19. Some or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred by accord and satisfaction, settlement
and/or payment and release.
Twentieth Affirmative Defense
20. Plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
Twenty First Affirmative Defense
21. Defendants’ actions were in good faith conformity with and/or reliance on
administrative regulation, order, ruling, approval, interpretation, or practice of the Department of
Labor.
Twenty Second Affirmative Defense
22. Defendants reserve the right to assert further affirmative defenses as they become
evident through discovery investigation.
Twenty Third Affirmative Defense
23. All actions taken by Defendants with respect to Plaintiff were supported by
legitimate business reasons.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants pray that their answer be
deemed good and sufficient and all claims by Plaintiff against Defendants be dismissed, with
Case 3:13-cv-01461-G Document 8 Filed 04/25/13 Page 8 of 9 PageID 189
-9-
prejudice, and such other and further relief, legal and equitable, including attorney’s fees, be
awarded Defendants.
Dated: April 25, 2013 Respectfully submitted,
Jeff Tillotson
State Bar No.
Alan Dabdoub
State Bar No. 24056836
LaKeisha F. Harmon
State Bar No. 24042237
L
YNN TILLOTSON PINKER & COX, LLP
2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 981-3800 - telephone
(214) 981-3839 – telecopier
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned does hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this Defendants’
Certificate of Interested Persons was duly served upon Robert J. Wiley, Esq. and Justin G.
Manchester, ROB WILEY, P.C., 1825 Market Center Blvd., Suite 385, Dallas, Texas 75207 via
ECF, this 25th
day of April, 2013.
/s/ Alan Dabdoub
ALAN DABDOUB
Case 3:13-cv-01461-G Document 8 Filed 04/25/13 Page 9 of 9 PageID 190
