MARK POE (SB. #223714) mpoe@gawpoe.com VICTOR MENG (SB. #254102) vmeng@gawpoe.com GAW 1 POE LLP 4 Embaroadero Center, Suite 1400 Sg?fng?jg?f?g??a? San Francisco, CA 94311 01/13/2017 Telephone: (415) 766-7451 Clerk of the Court Facsimile: (415) 737-0642 33:: cm Aitomeys for Defendant FARADAY FUTURE INC, d/b/a FARADAY FUTURE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DOMAINSCABLE INC, 3. Delaware Case No.2 CGC-16-555444 corpcration, and SURAJ RAJWANI, an individual DEFENDANT FARADAY FUTURE ANSWER TO PLAINTIF Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT vs. Complaint Filed: November 18, 2016 FARADAY FUTURE INC, d/b/a/ FARADAY FUTURE, a California corparat'ion; and DOES IMIOO, Defendants. DEFENDANT FARADAY 85 FUTURE ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CASE NO CGC 36-555444 Defendant Faraday Future Inc., d/b/a/ Faraday Future (?Faraday Future?), by and through its attorney of record, answers the unveri?ed complaint of plaintiffs Domains Cable Inc. and Suraj Rajwani (?Rajwani?) as follows: GENERAL DENIAL 1. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section Faraday Future denies, generally and speci?cally, each and every allegation and cause of action in Rajwani?s complaint. 2. Faraday Future further denies, generaily and speci?cally, that Rajwani is entitled to the relief requested, or that Rajwani has been or will be damaged in any sum, or at all, by reason of any act or omission on the part of Faraday Future, or any of its past or present agents, representatives, or employees. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Without admitting any facts alleged by Rajwani, Faraday Future also pleads the following separate and affirmative defenses to the complaint: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (F aiitlre to State a Claim for Relief All Canses of Action) 3. The complaint, and each of its causes of action, fails to state facts suf?cient to constitute a cause of action. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver All Causes of Action) 4. Rajwani has waived the right to pursue the complaint, and each of its causes of action, by reasons of his own actions and course of conduct. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Laches All Causes of Action) 5. The complaint and each of its causes of action is barred, in Whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches. DEFENDANT FARADAY 81; FUTURE - ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CASE NO CGC i6-555444 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel All Causes of Action) 6. Rajwani is estopped from pursuing the complaint, and each of its causes of action, by reasons of his own actions and course of conduct. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands - All Causes of Action) 7. The complaint, and each of its causes of action and requests for relief, is barred by the doctrine of unciean hands. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Good Faith - All Causes of Action) 8. The complaint, and each of its causes of action, is barred because all of Faraday Future?s actions With respect to Rajwani were done in good faith and/or in a manner consistent with business necessity. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Legitimate Business Reasons um All Causes of Action) 9. The complaint, and each of its causes of action, is barred because all of Faraday Future?s actions with respect to Rajwani were taken solely for legitimate, business seasons. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Take Preventative Opportunities All Causes of Action) 10. The complaint is barred, in whole or in part, because Rajwani unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by Faraday Future or to otherwise avoid harm. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Mitigate Damages All Causes of Action) 11. Rajwani has failed to mitigate, or reasonably attempt to mitigate, his damages, if any, as required by law. DEFENDANT EARADAY 81; FUTURE 2 - ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CASE NO CGC l2. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unjust Enrichment All Causes of Action) Rajwani may not recover damages in this action because, under the circumstances presented, it would constitute unjust enrichment. l3. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Excuse from Performance - First and Second Causes of Action) Rajwani is barred from claiming or recovering any relief on the grounds that Rajwani excused Faraday Future from performing certain duties or obligations set forth in said contract. Faraday Future reserves the right to supplement or amend these af?rmative defenses as may become known through continuing investigation and discovery. WHEREFORE, Faraday Future respectfully requests that this Court: 1. Dismiss the complaint in its entirety with prejudice; 2. Enter judgment in favor of Faraday Future; 3. Award Faraday Furure its costs, expenses, and attorneys? fees; and 4. Award such other and further relief that the Court may deem just and proper. DATED: January 12, 2017 GAW POE LLP Victor Men QWWM Attorneys for Defendant FARADAY FUTURE 1N0, d/b/a ARADAY FUTURE DEFENDANT FARADAY 81; FUTURE 3 - ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CASE NO CGC PROOF OF SERVICE 1 am over 18 years of age and not a party to the action. I hereby certify that on January 13, 2017, 1 served the following dooument(s) on the parties in the abovewentitled action: DEFENDANT FARADAY FUTURE ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Via Electronic Service: My business address is Gaw Poe LLP, 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400, San Francisco, CA 94111. My electronic service address is ymeng?ilgawooegcom. I electronically served DEFENDANT FARADAY FUTURE ANSWER TO COMPLAINT on Jeffrey D. Kirk at jeffga)joclaw.com on January 13, 2017 at 10:30 am. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is a true and correct statement. DATED: January 13, 201.7 Victor I DEFENDANT EARADAY 81; FUTURE 4 - ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CASE NO CGC 16-555444