1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF ADVERSE PARTY AND STATE COURT OF REMOVAL OF ACTION 0.0 CAROTHERS DiSANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP CAROTHERS DISANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP Mark S. Spring, State Bar No. 155114 mspring@cdflaborlaw.com Teresa W. Ghali, State Bar No. 252961 tghali@cdflaborlaw.com 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 440 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 981-3233 Facsimile: (415) 981-3246 Mark W. Peters, TN State Bar No. 018422 (Pending Pro Hac Vice) mark.peters@wallenlaw.com P. Max Smith, TN State Bar No. 026602 (Pending Pro Hac Vice) Max.Smith@wallerlaw.com WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP 511 Union Street, Suite 2700 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-6380 Facsimile: (616) 244-6804 Attorneys for Defendant SJBH, LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA TARHONDA THORNABAR, Plaintiff, v. SJBH, LLC and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 18cv331235 USDC - Northern District Case No. DEFENDANT SJBH, LLC’S NOTICE OF ADVERSE PARTY AND STATE COURT OF REMOVAL OF ACTION 18-6443 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 10/22/2018 3:13 PM Reviewed By: E. Fang Case #18CV331235 Envelope: 2083888 18CV331235 Santa Clara - Civil E. Fang 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF ADVERSE PARTY AND STATE COURT OF REMOVAL OF ACTION 0.0 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant SJBH, LLC has removed this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A copy of the Notice of Removal filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Dated: October 22, 2018 CAROTHERS DISANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP By: Teresa W. Ghali Attorneys for Defendant SJBH, LLC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 DEFENDANT'S NO TICE O FADVERSE PARTY AND STATE CO URTO FREM O VAL O FACTIO N 0.0 CARO TH ERSDiSANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP PROOFOFSERVICE STATE OFCALIFORNIA, COUNTY O FSACRAM ENTO . I, th e undersigned, declare th atI am em ployed in th e aforesaid County, State ofCalifornia. I am over th e age of18 and nota partyto th e with in action. M ybusinessaddressis9 00 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacram ento, CA 9 5825. O n O ctober 22, 2018, I served upon th e interested party(ies)in th isaction th e following docum entdescribed as: DEFENDANTSJBH,LLC’SNOTICEOFADVERSEPARTY AND STATECOURT OFREMOVALOFACTION Byplacing a true copyth ereofenclosed in sealed envelope(s)addressed asstated below, for processing byth e following m eth od: Rom an Otk upm an M egh an M aertz OTKUPM AN LAW FIRM , A LAW CORPORATIO N 28632 Roadside Drive, Suite 203 Agoura H ills, CA 9 1301 Byplacing such envelope(s)designated byth e appropriate expressservice carrier with deliveryfeesprepaid or oth erwise provided for into Caroth ersDiSante & Freudenberger LLP’sinteroffice m ailfor collection and expressdeliverypursuantto ordinarybusiness practice . I am fam iliar with th e office practice ofCaroth ersDiSante & Freudenberge r LLP for collecting and processing expressdeliveries, wh ich practice isth atwh en express deliveriesare deposited with th e Caroth ersDiSante & Freudenberger LLPpersonnel responsible for h andling expressdeliveries, such m ailisdeposited th atsam e dayin a boxor oth er facsim ile regularlym aintained byFederalExpressor oth er lik e facilityregularly m aintained for overnigh tdelivery. I declare under penaltyofperjuryunder th e lawsofth e State ofCalifornia th atth e foregoing istrue and correct. Executed on O ctober 22, 2018, atSacram ento, California. M organ Krutulis (Type or printnam e) (Signature) X EXHIBIT A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANTSJBH , LLC’S NO TICE O F REM O VAL 139 3257.1 CARO TH ERSDiSANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP M ark S. Spring, State Bar No. 155114 m spring@ cdflaborlaw.com Teresa W . Gh ali, State Bar No. 2529 61 tgh ali@ cdflaborlaw.com CAROTH ERS DISANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP 600 M ontgom eryStre et, Suite 440 San Francisco, CA 9 4111 Teleph one : (415)9 81-3233 Facsim ile: (415)9 81-3246 M ark W . Peters, TN State Bar No. 018422 (Pending Pro Hac Vice) m ark .peters@ wallenlaw.com P. M axSm ith , TN State Bar No. 026602 (Pending Pro Hac Vice) M ax.Sm ith @ wallerlaw.com W ALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP 511 Union Street, Suite 2700 Nash ville, TN 37219 Teleph one : (615)244-6380 Facsim ile: (616)244-6804 Attorneysfor Defendant SJBH , LLC UNITED STATESDISTRICTCOURT NORTHERN DISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA TARH ONDA TH O RNABAR, Plaintiff, v. SJBH , LLC and DOES 1 TH ROUGH 100, inclusive, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. Santa Clara CountySuperior Court Case No. 18cv331235 DEFENDANTSJBH,LLC’SNOTICEOF REMOVAL 18-6443 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 1 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 DEFENDANTSJBH , LLC’S NO TICE O F REM O VAL 139 3257.1 TO THECLERK OFTHEUNITED STATESDISTRICTCOURTOFTHE NORTHERN DISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA: PLEASETAKENOTICEth at, pursuantto 28 U.S.C. §§1332 and 1441 et seq., Defendant SJBH , LLC (“SJBH ”) h e rebyprovidesnotice ofrem ovalofth isaction from th e Superior Courtof California, CountyofSanta Clara. In supportofrem oval, SJBH statesth e following: 1. O n July9 , 2018, an action wascom m enced in th e Superior Courtof California, CountyofSanta Clara, styled TaRhonda Thornabar v. SJBH, LLC, et al., Case No. 18CV331235. 2. Plaintiff attem pted to serve SJBH with th e Sum m onsand Com plaintth rough an im proper agentfor service ofprocesson July27, 2018. Declaration ofP. M axwellSm ith (“Sm ith Decl.”) at¶2;Ex. A. SJBH h ad no notice of th e lawsuituntilitrece ived a case m anagem ent statem entand notice of posting juryfeesfrom th e Superior Courtof California, Countyof Santa Clara, atitsTennessee businessaddresson O ctober 8, 2018. Id. SJBH ’sundersigned counselth en contacted Plaintiff’scounselto explain SJBH h ad notbeen served. Id. at¶3. SJBH ’scounselagreed to acceptservice ofth e Sum m onsand Com plainton be h alfofSJBH effective O ctober 15, 2018. Id. at¶3. A copyofth e Com plaintisattach ed asExhibit1to th isNotice ofRem oval. 3. SJBH isfiling th isNotice ofRem ovalwith in th irty(30)daysofrece iving notice of th e Sum m onsand Com plaint. Th isNotice ofRem ovalistim elyfiled under 28 U.S.C. §1446(b). 4. Th isaction isrem oved on th e basisofdiversityofcitizensh ip pursuantto 28 U.S.C. §1332 and 1441(b). Plaintiffassertsin th e Com plaintsh e isa citizen and residentofCalifornia. Com plaintat¶1 (Ex. 1). SJBH isa Delaware lim ited liabilitycom panywith itsprincipalplace of businessin Tennessee . Th e sole m em ber and 100% owner ofSJBH isAcadia H ealth care Com pany, Inc., a publiclytraded Delaware corporation with itsprincipalplace ofbusinessin Tennessee . Declaration ofSean Peterson (“Peterson Decl.”)at¶2. 5. “W h ere a plaintiff’sstate courtcom plaintdoesnotspecifya particular am ountof Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 2 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 DEFENDANTSJBH , LLC’S NO TICE O F REM O VAL 139 3257.1 dam ages, th e rem oving defendantbearsth e burden of establish ing th atitis‘m ore lik elyth an not’ th atth e am ountin controversy exceeds” th e jurisdictionalth resh old of $75,000. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 39 8, 404 (9 th Cir. 19 9 6). Based on a fair reading of th e Com plaint, and with outconceding anyof Plaintiff’sclaim sh ave anym eritwh atsoever, Plaintiff see k sin excessof$75,000,exclusive ofinterestand costs: Plaintiffsee k scom pensation for em otional distress, accruing lostwages, punitive dam ages, specialdam ages, com pensatory dam ages, and attorneys’feesand expenses. Com plaintatp. 11 (Prayer for Relief)(Ex.1). 6. Plaintiffsee k saccruing lostwages(“Plaintiff h assustained and continuesto sustain substantiallossesin earnings”)asdam agesfor h er claim sofretaliation in violation ofLabor Code § 1102.5 (a)and (b), retaliatorydisch arge in violation ofpublic policy, and violation ofLabor Code § 9 8.6. Com plaintat¶¶18, 27, 53 (Ex. 1). Plaintiffwaspaid $33.00 per h our and sch eduled to work on a full-tim e basisof40 h oursper wee k ($1,320.00 per wee k ) atth e tim e of h er separation from SJBH on M arch 16, 2018. Peterson Decl. at¶3;Com plaintat¶5 (Ex. 1). Because Plaintiff“claim s atth e tim e ofrem ovalth ath erterm ination caused h erto lose future wages… th en th ere isno q uestion th atfuture wagesare ‘atstak e’in th e litigation,wh ateverth e lik elih ood th atsh e willactuallyrecover th em .” Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 888 F.3d 413, 417 (9 th Cir. 2018). 7. For purposesof rem oval, th e Courtsh ould consider lostwages accrued from Plaintiff’sseparation ofem ploym entth rough an estim ated trialdate ofone year after rem oval. See Molina v. Target Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138316, *7 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2018). Conservativelyestim ating a trialdate one year after rem ovalin O ctober 2019 , Plaintiff would be entitled to about$108,240 in lostwagesifsh e prevailed. See Chavez, 888 F.3d at418 (“In sum , th e am ountin controversyincludesallreliefclaim ed atth e tim e ofrem ovalto wh ich th e plaintiffwould be entitled if sh e prevails”). Plaintiff’sclaim for accruing lostwagesissufficienton itsown to establish diversityjurisdiction. Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 3 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 DEFENDANTSJBH , LLC’S NO TICE O F REM O VAL 139 3257.1 8. In h e r fifth cause ofaction, Plaintiffallegesa claim for failure to tim elypaywages upon separation of em ploym entpursuantto Labor Code §202 and see k sth irtydaysofwagesasa penaltyunder Labor Code §203. Com plaintat¶¶39 -44 (Ex. 1). A payrate of$33.00 per h our for th irtydayseq ualsan alleged penaltyof$7,9 20 to be added to th e am ountin controversy. See Adkins v. J.B. Transp., Inc., 29 3 F. Supp. 3d 1140, 1146 (E.D. Cal. M arch 20, 2018)(adding sam e 30-day m axim um waiting tim e penaltyto am ountin controversy). 9 . In h er seventh cause of action, Plaintiff allegesa violation of Labor Code §9 8.6. Com plaintat¶¶50-58 (Ex. 1). Pursuantto Labor Code §9 8.6(b)(3), in addition to oth er rem edies, an em ployer m aybe liable for a civilpenaltyof$10,000 to be awarded to th e em ployee wh o suffered th e violation, wh ich again would be added to th e am ountin controversyfor rem ovalpurposes. 10. Plaintiffsee k ssom e unspecified am ountofem otionaldistressdam agesCom plaintat ¶¶18, 27, 53;id. atp. 11( Prayer for Relief)(Ex.1),wh ich are recoverable in constructive retaliatory disch arge in violation ofpublic policycases. See Erlich v. Menezes, 9 81 P.2d 9 78, 9 83 (Cal. 19 9 9 )) and Labor Code §1102.5(b). “Th atth e evidence ofth e am ountof em otionaldistressdam agesis lim ited, doesnotm ean th atitisappropriate to disregard th e claim in determ ining th e am ountin controversy. Th e claim wasm ade, and th ere m usth ave been a good faith basisto do so under California law.” Garfias v. Team Indus. Servs., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167370, *11-12 (C.D. Cal. O ct. 10, 2017). Courtsh ave applied a 1:1 ratio to em otionaldistressand econom ic dam agesfor purposesofcalculating th e am ountofem otionaldam agesto include in th e am ountofcontroversy. See id. at*12 (including a 1:1 ratio between econom ic dam agesand em otionaldistressdam ages). Th us, em otionaldistressdam agesof $108,240, m irroring Plaintiff’salleged econom ic dam ages, sh ould be included in calculating th e am ountin controversy. 11. Plaintiffsee k spunitive dam ages(Com plaintat¶¶19 , 28, 54-56, id. atp. 11 (Prayer for Relief)),wh ich are available for com m on law claim sofwrongfuldisch arge in violation ofpublic Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 4 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 DEFENDANTSJBH , LLC’S NO TICE O F REM O VAL 139 3257.1 policyand violationsofLabor Code §1102.5. Rodriguez v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9 4176, *15-16 (N.D. Cal. July19 , 2016). W h en including punitive dam agesin calculating th e am ountin controversy, courtsh ave applied a 1:1 ratio based on th e am ountof com pensatorydam ages. See Garfias, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167370, *13. Th us, punitive dam ages of$108,240, m irroring Plaintiff’salleged econom ic dam ages, sh ould be included in calculating th e am ountin controversy. 12. Plaintiffsee k sattorneys’feesfor alleged violationsofLabor Code §§1102.5 (a)and (b), 226.7, 201-203, 218.5 and 9 8.6. Com plaintat¶¶21, 34, 44, 57;id. atp. 11 (Prayer for Relief) (Ex. 1). “[A] courtm ustinclude future attorneys’feesrecoverable bystatute or contractwh en assessing wh eth e r th e am ount-in-controversyre q uirem entism et.” Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC, 89 9 F.3d 785, 79 4 (9 th Cir. 2018) (em ph asisadded). “Th e am ountoffeescom m only incurred in sim ilar litigation can usuallybe reasonablyestim ated based on experience .” Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2002). Courtsh ave “h eld th ata reasonable rate for em ploym entcasesis$300 per h our”and “100 h oursisan appropriate and conservative estim ate”of th e num ber of h oursexpended th rough trialfor an em ploym entaction. Adkins, 29 3 F. Supp. 3d at1148 (including a “reasonable and conservative”estim ate of$30,000 in attorneys’feesfor am ountin controversycalculation in case involving disabilitydiscrim ination, retaliatorydisch arge, and variouswage and h our claim s);Sasso v. Noble Utah Long Beach, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 259 21, *12 (C.D. Cal. M arch 3, 2015) (also including “appropriate and conservative estim ate”of$30,000 for attorneys’feesin em ploym entcase). Th e Courtsh ould include an estim ate of$30,000 for attorneys’feesin calculating th e am ountin controversy. 13. W ith an aggregated totalin excessof$370,000 in controversybased upon Plaintiff’s asserted dam ages, th isaction isone th atclearlym aybe rem oved to th isCourtpursuantto 28 U.S.C. §1441(a)because th e m atter isone in wh ich th e districtcourtsh ave originaljurisdiction. Th us,th is Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 5 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 DEFENDANTSJBH , LLC’S NO TICE O F REM O VAL 139 3257.1 action m aybe rem oved to th isCourtpursuantto 28 U.S.C. §§1332 and 1441(a). 14. Pursuantto 28 U.S.C. §1446(d), Defendantwillprom ptlyserve copiesofth isNotice ofRem ovalon Plaintiff’scounseland willfile and serve th e Notice upon th e Clerk ofCourt,Superior CourtofCalifornia, CountyofSanta Clara. 15. Pursuantto 28 U.S.C. §1446(a), copiesofprocess,pleadings, and ordersserved upon SJBH in th isaction are attach ed h e reto asExhibit2. 16. Venue isproper pursuantto 28 U.S.C. §1441(a) in th e United StatesDistrictCourt forth e North ern DistrictofCalifornia,San Jose Division,wh ich em bracesth e CountyofSantaClara, California, th e place wh ere th e state courtaction waspending. Byfiling th isNotice of Rem oval, SJBH doesnotwaive, e ith er expresslyor im pliedly, its respective righ tsto assertanydefense itcould h ave asserted in th e Superior Courtof California, Countyof Santa Clara, to th e United StatesDistrictCourtfor th e North ern Districtof California. SJBH reservesth e righ tto am end or supplem entth isNotice ofRem oval. Dated: O ctober 22, 2018 CAROTH ERS DISANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP By: /s/ Teresa W. Ghali Teresa W . Gh ali Attorneysfor Defendant SJBH , LLC Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 6 of 46 EXHIBIT 1 Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 7 of 46 SUM-100 SUMMONS (CITACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: LLcfand THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): TARHONDA THORNABAR, FOR COURT USE ONLY (SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE) NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center {www.courtinfb.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site {www.lawhelpcalifomia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center {www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfheip), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of 310,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. (AVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versidn. Lea la infonnacidn a continuacidn. Tiene 30 DfAS DE CALENDARIO despues de que le entreguen esta citacion y papeles legates para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefonica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas informacidn en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de Califomia fwww.sucorte.ca.gov;, en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mds cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentacibn, pida al secretario de la corte que le db un formulario de exencidn de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le podrb quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia. Hay otros requisites iegales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de remisidn a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legates gratuitos de un programa de servicios legates sin Fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de Califomia Legai Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org;, en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de Califomia, (www.sucorte.ca.gov; o poniendose en contacto con ia corte o el colegio de abogados locales. A VISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre cualquier recuperacidn de $10,000 6 mbs de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesidn de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso. The name and address of the court is: Downtown Superior Court San Jose, CA95I13 CASE NUMBER; (Numero del Caso): The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direccion y el numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Roman Otkupman & Meghan Maertz: 28632 Roadside Dr. Suite 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301: (818) 293-5623 DATE: (Fecha) Clerk, by (Secretario) , Deputy (Adjunto) (For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).) (Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)). NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served as an individual defendant. as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): 3 11/ I on behalf of (specify): S JBH, LLC under: []Z] COP 416.10 (corporation) I I COP 416.20 (defunct corporation) I I COP 416.40 (association or partnership) I I other (specify): 4. I I by personal delivery on (date): COP 416.60 (minor) COP 416.70 (conservatee) COP 416.90 (authorized person) Page 1 of 1 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Judicial Council of Califomia SUM-100 [Rev. July 1,2009] SUMMONS Code of Civil Procedure §§ 412.20, 465 wv/w.courtinfo.ca.gov 18CV331235 Clerk of Court7/9/2018 4:29 PM E-FILED 7/9/2018 4:29 PM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara 18CV331235 Reviewed By: V. Taylor Envelope: 1704065 V. Taylor Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 8 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 OTKIPMANUAW l-IKM.ALC ROMAN OTKUPMAN, CSBN 249423 Roman@OLFLA. com MEGHAN MAERTZ, CSBN 276976 Meghan@OLFLA. com OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION 28632 Roadside Drive, Suite 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 293-5623 Facsimile: (888) 850-1310 Attorneys for Plaintiff, TARHONDA THORNABAR SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA TARHONDA THORNABAR, Plaintiff, vs. SJBH. LLC, and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, Defendants. CASE NO. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 1102.5 (a)(b); 2. CONSTRUCTIVE RETALIATORY DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; 3. FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS AND REST PERIODS OR COMPENSATION IN LIEU THEREOF (LABOR CODE §§ 226.7); 4. KNOWING AND INTENTIONAL FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ITEMIZED EMPLOYEE WAGE STATEMENT PROVISIONS IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 226(a), (e); 5. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY WAGES DUE AT TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §§ 201-203; 6. VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200; 1 Plaintiffs Complaint For Damages E-FILED 7/9/2018 4:29 PM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara 18CV331235 Reviewed By: V. Taylor 18CV331235 Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 9 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 OTKUPMAN lAW E^tRM.ALC 7. VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §98.6. REOUEST FOR JURY TRIAL PLAINTIFF, TARHONDA THORNABAR, complains and alleges as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS (Against All Defendants and all DOE Defendants) 1. At all times relevant to this complaint, Plaintiff, TARHONDA THORNABAR ("Plaintiff) was a resident of San Jose County, State of California. 2. At all times herein mentioned. Defendant, SJBH, LLC, a California limited liability company and Does 1-100 (hereinafter, collectively referred to as "Defendants"). SJBH, LLC, is licensed to do business in the state of state of California. Defendants employed the Plaintiff at their San Jose facility located at 455 Silicon Valley Blvd., San Jose CA 95138. 3. The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, or associate, of those defendants fictitiously sued as Does 1 through 100 inclusive and so the Plaintiff sues them by these fictitious names. The Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the DOE defendants reside in the State of California and are in some manner responsible for the conduct alleged herein. Upon discovering the true names and capacities of these fictitiously named Defendants, the Plaintiff will amend this complaint to show the true names and capacities of these fictitiously named defendants. 4. Unless otherwise alleged in this complaint, the Plaintiff is informed, and on the basis of that information and belief alleges that at all times herein mentioned, each of the remaining codefendants, in doing the things hereinafter alleged, were acting within the course, scope, and under the authority of the agency, employment, or representative capacity, with the consent of her/his codefendants. 5. Plaintiff began working as an Intake Admissions Counselor for Defendants on or about March 5, 2018. Plaintiff was earning approximately $33.00 per hour. 6. Throughout her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was a diligent worker. Plaintiffs Complaint For Damages Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 10 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 OTKl'I'MAN IJIW 7. Throughout her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was routinely unable to take her meal and rest breaks. Plaintiff raised the issue with Defendants about not taking her necessary meal and rest breaks as required by law. Plaintiff was not compensated nor paid a penalty for the hours worked in lieu of her breaks. 8. On or about March 9, 2018, Sean Barksdale advised Plaintiffs trainer Dawn (last name unknown) to have Plaintiff complete all the assessments. Plaintiff called Sean back to advise him that neither Dawn nor Plaintiff had taken lunch or rest breaks. However, Sean demanded Plaintiff to "continue working until they are all complete. If s our protocol." 9. On or about March 10, 2018, Plaintiff sent Sean Barksdale a text message requesting a meeting about ongoing meal and rest break violations. 10. On or about March 15, 2018, Plaintiff met with Joelle Gam, Human Resources Assistant and Brandy Rettus Interim Human Resources Director. Plaintiff provided copies of her timesheets showing Plaintiff did not take her meal breaks and rest breaks. She provided this information to Human Resources and Sean with those copies and a timeline of events. 11. Brandy Rettus met, and confirmed, with Sean Barksdale all Plaintiffs allegations regarding the lack of meal and rest breaks were true. Brandy then asked Plaintiff if she would like to continue to work in this environment or did Plaintiff wish to quit her employment. As such, Defendant offered Plaintiff two choices of either continuing working under the same conditions in which Plaintiff was not allowed to take her legally mandated meal and rest breaks or simply resign. Plaintiff did not want to continue working for Defendant under such circumstances. As such. Plaintiff submitted a resignation letter. As a result. Plaintiff was constmctively terminated. VENUE AND JURISDICTION 12. Venue is proper under Code of Civil Procedure section 395, in that Plaintiffs injuries were incurred within this jurisdiction, and the actions that gave rise to Plaintiffs complaint arose within this jurisdiction. /// Plaintiffs Complaint For Damages Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 11 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 OTKIIPMAN IJ^W VUm.AUC FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 1102.5 (a) and (b) (Against All Defendants and all DOE Defendants) 13. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges by reference all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 14. The actions of Defendants, as described in this Complaint, constitute unlawful retaliation against an employee for reporting to what Plaintiff believed were actions that resulted in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation, specifically Labor Code § 226.7. 15. Defendant terminated Plaintiff shortly after Plaintiff Plaintiffs complaints about the lack of meal and rest breaks for all employees. 16. Had Plaintiff not voiced her concern regarding the rest and meal break issues. Plaintiff would still be employed at Defendants. 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges that the reason given by Defendants to Plaintiff for her termination was pretextual. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges that the true reasons for Defendants' termination of Plaintiff was due to Plaintiffs protected activity. 18. As a proximate result of Defendants' willful, knowing and intentional actions. Plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings, humiliation, emotional distress, and mental pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof. 19. Defendants' acts as herein described were committed maliciously or oppressively with the intent of injuring Plaintiff and/or with a willful disregard for Plaintiffs right to work in an environment free from unlawful practices. Because the acts were carried out by officers, directors and/or managing agents of Defendants in a despicable, deliberate, and intentional manner. Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive or exemplary damages in a sum sufficient to punish and deter such future conduct. 20. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts alleged. Plaintiff has been generally and specially damaged in an amount to be proven at trial. 21. Plaintiff requests an award of attorney's fees and costs of suit. Plaintiffs Complaint For Damages Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 12 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CJTKUI»MAN I-AW I'IKM.ALC SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION RETALIATORY DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY (Against all Defendants and all DOE Defendants) 22. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges by reference all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 23. Under California law, no employee, whether they are an at-will employee, or an employee under a written or other employment contract, can be terminated for a reason that is in violation of a fundamental public policy. The California Court has interpreted a fundamental public policy to be any articulable constitutional, or statutory provision, or regulation that is concerned with a matter affecting society at large rather than a purely personal or proprietary interest of the employee or the employer. Moreover, the public policy must be fundamental, substantial, and well established at the time of discharge. 24. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon, alleges that said Defendant named in this cause of action, and all DOE Defendants, and each of them, terminated Plaintiffs employment in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5, which prohibits terminating an employee for making protected complaints, including complaints related to what the employee reasonably believes is a violation of the law, or for refusing to participate in actions that Plaintiff reasonably believes are or will result a violation of the law. California Labor Code § 1102.5. Plaintiff complained about lack of meal and rest breaks. 25. The retaliatory actions of Defendants against Plaintiff, as more fully set forth above, including but not limited to retaliating against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff s protected activity, harassing Plaintiff, and terminating Plaintiff from Plaintiffs employment because of Plaintiffs engagement in a protected activity. 26. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges that the reason given by Defendant to Plaintiff for her termination was pretextual. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges that the true reasons for Defendant's termination of Plaintiff was in retaliation for Plaintiffs opposition to the illegal activity that was taking place. 27. As a proximate result of Defendant's willful, knowing and intentional retaliation against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses in Plaintiffs Complaint For Damages Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 13 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 <)TKl'I»MAN I^Vt h'tUM.ALC earnings, humiliation, emotional distress, and mental pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof. 28. Defendant's acts as herein described were committed maliciously or oppressively with the intent of injuring Plaintiff and/or with a willful disregard for Plaintiffs right to work in an environment free from unlawful retaliation. Because the acts were carried out by officers, directors and/or managing agents of Defendant in a despicable, deliberate, and intentional manner, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive or exemplary damages in a sum sufficient to punish and deter such future conduct. 29. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts alleged. Plaintiff has been generally and specially damaged in an amount to be proven at trial. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL AND REST PERIODS OR COMPENSATION IN LIEU THEREOF IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §§ 226.7, ORDER 4-2001 (Against Defendants and all DOE Defendants) 30. Plaintiff hereby incorporates preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 31. Plaintiff is entitled to one hour of pay for each day that Defendants failed to properly provide one or more meal and rest periods as set forth in the IWC Wage Orders and Labor Code §§ 226.7. 32. Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiff one or more rest periods and failed to provide Plaintiff a meal period throughout the majority of Plaintiff's employment with Defendants. Defendants have failed to compensate Plaintiff at the rate of one hour or pay at their regular rate of pay for each day on which one or more meal periods or rest periods were not provided to Plaintiff. The times Plaintiff worked during her meal breaks and rest breaks were not compensated by Defendants. 33. Pursuant to Labor Code §§ 226.7, Plaintiff seeks the payment of all rest and meal period compensation, according to proof. 34. As a consequence of Defendant's willful conduct in not paying wages owed to Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to payment at the rate of one hour or pay at her regular rate of pay Plaintiffs Complaint For Damages Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 14 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 OTKl'PMAMAW I^KM^ALC for each day on which one or more meal periods were not provided to Plaintiff, together with attorney's fees and cost of suit, and prejudgment interest. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION KNOWING AND INTENTIONAL FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ITEMIZED EMPLOYEE WAGE STATEMENT PROVISIONS (Against All Defendants and all DOE Defendants) 35. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 36. Section 226(a) of the California Labor Code requires Defendants to provide wage statements to employees. In those wage statements, Defendants must accurately set forth, among other things, the total gross and net wages earned, total hours worked, and all applicable pay rates in effect during the pay period, for Plaintiff. Defendants have knowingly and intentionally failed to comply with Labor Code § 226(a). 37. As Plaintiff was not paid all wages due, including the rest period wages, as described herein, her wage statements do not state the correct gross wages earned, net wages earned, total hours worked, and all hourly rates in effect for Plaintiff. Defendants' violations of Labor Code § 226(a) are knowing and intentional, and Plaintiff have suffered injury as a result of the receipt of defective wage statements, thereby entitling them to penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 226(e). 38. Wherefore, Plaintiff requests relief as described herein. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE SECTIONS 201,202 RESULTING IN SECTION 203 WAGES AND PENALTIES (WAITING TIME PENALTIES) FOR FAILURE TO PAY WAGES DUE AT THE TIME OF DISCHARGE (Against All Defendants and all DOE Defendants) 39. Plaintiff hereby incorporates preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 40. At all times material herein, the California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, and 203 were in effect and binding on Defendant. Plaintiffs Complaint For Damages Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 15 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 OTKl'PMAN LAW l-iKM.ALC 41. California Labor Code § 202 requires employers to pay employees all wages due within seventy-two (72) hours of resignation. California Labor Code § 201 states in pertinent part that "if an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately." California Labor Code § 203 provides that if an employer willfully fails to timely pay such wages the employer must, as penalty, continue to pay the subject employee's wages until the back wages are paid in full or an action is commenced. The penalty cannot exceed 30 days of wages. 42. Plaintiff was entitled to compensation for unpaid wages, but to date has not received such compensation. Specifically, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff all wages due to Plaintiff at the time of her termination. Plaintiff worked without ever receiving her ten (10) minute rest breaks. However, when Plaintiffs position with the company was terminated. Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff premium compensation that Plaintiff was owed for missing her meal and rest breaks. Thus, since Defendant failed to promptly pay Plaintiff all wages due to Plaintiff at the time of her termination. Defendant violated Section 201 of the Labor Code and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to wages and penalties pursuant to Labor Code Section 203. 43. More than 30 days have passed since Defendant terminated Plaintiff. 44. As a consequence of Defendant's willful conduct in not paying wages owed to Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to 30 days of wages as a penalty pursuant to Labor Code § 203 for Defendant's failure to timely pay legal wages, together with attorney's fees and cost of suit, and interest pursuant to California Labor Code Section 218.5. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 ET SEQ. (Against All Defendants and all DOE Defendants) 45. Plaintiff hereby incorporates preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 46. The California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 states that following: "Unfair Competition shall mean and include any unlawful or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by 8 Plaintiffs Complaint For Damages Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 16 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 OTKri'MAN i-IKM, ALC Chapter 1 of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code." 47. Plaintiff hereby alleges that Defendant's conduct violated Section 17200 et seq. of the Business and Professions code by failing to pay Plaintiff wages pursuant to well- established California Law. 48. Defendant's conduct occurred during a 10 day period preceding the filing of this action. Defendant's conduct, alleged herein, constitutes unlawful business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. 49. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.. Plaintiff is entitled to restitution of the portion of her compensation taken by Defendant by failing to promptly pay Plaintiff who was discharged, by failing to pay Plaintiff correct compensation, and by failing to furnish Plaintiff with correct itemized wage statements, during a period that commences four years prior to the filing of this action and continues at least throughout the date the judgment is entered in this action. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 98.6 (Against Defendants and all DOE Defendants) 50. Plaintiff re-alleges the information set forth in all of the preceding paragraphs and incorporates these paragraphs into this cause of action as if they were fully alleged herein. 51. Labor Code § 98.6 states the following: "(a) A person shall not discharge an employee or in any manner discriminate, retaliate, or take any adverse action against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant engaged in any conduct delineated in this chapter, including the conduct described in subdivision (k) of Section 96, and Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1101) of Part 3 of Division 2, or ...made a written or oral complaint that he or she is owed unpaid wages, or because the employee has initiated any action or notice pursuant to Section 2699, or has testified or is about to testify in a proceeding pursuant to that section, or because of the exercise by the employee or Plaintiffs Complaint For Damages Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 17 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ()TKi:i»MAN !^\V applicant for employment on behalf of himself, herself, or others of any rights afforded him or her. Any employee who is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, retaliated against, subjected to an adverse action, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of his or her employment because the employee engaged in any conduct delineated in this chapter, including the conduct described in subdivision (k) of Section 96, and Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1101) of Part 3 of Division 2, or because the employee has made a bona fide complaint or claim to the division pursuant to this part, or because the employee has initiated any action or notice pursuant to Section 2699 shall be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by those acts of the employer." 52. On occasions, Plaintiff made complaints to Defendant for the following issues: 1) Plaintiffs inability to take rest breaks and 2) Plaintiff in ability to take meal breaks. However, Defendant's failed to take any remedial action. Plaintiff made complaints to her supervisor Sean Barksdale, as well as Joelle Garn and Brandy Rettus from Human Resources. 53. As a proximate result of Defendant's willful, knowing and intentional actions, Plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings, humiliation, emotional distress, and mental pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof. 54. The grossly reckless, and/or intentional, malicious, and bad faith manner in which said Defendants named in this cause of action, and each of them, engaged in those acts as described in this cause of action by willfully violating those statutes enumerated in this cause of action and including Defendant's willful violation of the Act, entitle Plaintiff to punitive damages against said Defendant in an amount within the jurisdiction of this court, to be ascertained by the fact finder, that is sufficiently high to punish said Defendant, deter Defendant from engaging in such conduct again, and to make an example of them to others. 55. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon, alleges that the outrageous 10 Plaintiffs Complaint For Damages Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 18 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ()TKt3I»MANI-AW conduct of said Defendant named in this cause of action, described above, was done with oppression and malice by the Plaintiffs supervisor and managers and were ratified by those other individuals who were managing agents of said Defendant. These unlawful acts were further ratified by the Defendant employers and done with a conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights and with the intent, design and purpose of injuring Plaintiff. By reason thereof. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages against said Defendant, for their acts as described in this cause of action in a sum to be determined at the time of trial. 56. Because the wrongful acts against Plaintiff were carried out, authorized or ratified by said Defendant's directors, officers and/or managing agents, acting with malice, oppression or fraud, or deliberate, willful and conscious disregard of the probability of causing injury to Plaintiff, as reflected by the actions as described earlier in this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against Defendant in order to deter them from such and similar conduct in the future. 57. In addition. Plaintiff is entitled to her attorney's fees in prosecuting this lawsuit. 58. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts alleged. Plaintiff has been generally and specially damaged in an amount to be proven at trial. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter judgment against Defendants as follows: 1. For compensatory damages according to proof; 2. For such general, special, compensatory, and liquidated damages as may be appropriate, including all damages alleged above; 3. For emotional distress damages; 4. For attorneys' fees and costs; 5. For punitive and exemplary damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §3294; 6. For an award of interest, including prejudgment interest, at the legal rate; 7. For such other and further relief as the court deems appropriate. 11 Plaintiffs Complaint For Damages Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 19 of 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ri by personal service. I personalty delivered the documents listed in Item 2 to the party or person authorized to receive service of process for the party (1) on; 7/27/2018 (2) at; 12:30 PM I I by substituted service. On; at; I left the documents listed in Item 2 with or In the presence of (name and title or relationship to person Indicated In Item 3): b. (1) (2) (3) (4) (business) a person at least 18 years of age apparently In charge at the office or usual place of business of the person to be served, i Informed him or her of the general nature of the papers. (home) a competent member of the household (at least 18 years of age) at the dweling house or usual place of abode of the party, i Informed him or her of the general nature of the papers. □ I I I 1 (physical address unknown) a person of at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the usual ■ 1 mailing address of the person to be served, other than a United States Postal Service post office box. I □ Informed him or her of the general nature of the papers. I thereafter mailed (by first-class, postage prepaid) copies of the documents to the person to be served at the place where the copies were left (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20). I mailed the documents: on: from; or | | a declaration of mailing Is attached. (5) I I I attach a declaration of diligence stating actions taken first to attempt personal service. PbbpI of 3 P08-010 [Rov. Jsmiary 1,2007] PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS Invoice #2111325 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 8/15/2018 1:40 PM Reviewed By: A. Rodriguez Case #18CV331235 Envelope: 1838381 18CV331235 Santa Clara - CivilCase 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 39 of 46 PfcAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Tarhonda Thornabar CASE NUMBER: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: SJBH. LLC 18CV331235 c. I I by mall and acknowledgment of receipt of service. I mailed the documents listed In Item 2 to the party, to the address shown in Item 4, by first-class mall, postage prepaid, (1) on; (2) from: (3) { I with two copies of the Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt and a postage-paid return envelope addressed to me. {Attach completed HoWce and Acknowledgment of Receipt.) (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.30.) (4) I ] to an address outside California with return receipt requested. (Cede Civ. Proc., § 415.40.) d. p""] by other means (specify means of service and authorizing code section): □ Additional page describing service is attached. The "Notice to the Person Served" (on the summons) was completed as follows: a. I { as an individual defendant. I I as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): I I as occupant. rjpi On behalf of (specify): SJBH, LLC ' ' under the following Code of Civil Procedure section: 416.10 (corporation) I I 416.20 (defunct corporation) □ 416.30 (joint stock company/association) □ 416.40 (association or partnership) I \ 416.50 (public entity) Person who served papers a. Name: John Cleere b. Address: 1545 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 311, Los Angeles, OA 90017 c. Telephone number: 213-628-6338 d. The fee for service was: $100.00 e. I am: (1) m not a registered California process server. (2) exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b). (3) I I a registered California process server: 0) n owner n employee independent contractor. (ii) Registration No.: (Hi) County: 0 □ 4 5.95 □ 4 6.60 □ 4 6.70 □ 4 6.90 n 4 5.46 n 0 ^ler: 8- [m I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing Is true and correct. JANNEY & JANNEY LEGAL SUPPORT SERVICE Date: 08/02/2018eere POS.010 (Rev. January 1,2007] PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS Pago 2 of 2 Invoice#: 2111325 Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 40 of 46 Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 41 of 46 CM-110 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WIT HOUT ATIORNEY (Name, Stats Bar number, and addmssi: FOR COURT USE ONLY Roman Otkupman. CSBN: 249423; Meghan Maertz CSBN'. 276976 28632 Roadslde Drive. Suite 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91 301 Iempnone No; 81 8-293-5623 FAX N0. (optimal); 538.8504 31 0 E-MAmAuuness (Ourionau: roman@olfla.com. meghan@oma.com WORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiff. Tarhonda Thomabar SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA, COUNTY or Santa Clara sraasx annkass: 191 N. First Street MAILING ADDRESS: 9"" AN“ 11" CODE San Jose. CA 951 1 3 BRANCH NAME: PLAINTIFFIPETITIONER: Tarhonda Thornabar DEFENDANTIRESPONDENT: SJBH. LLC. el a] CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CASE NUMBER: (Check one).- m UNLIMITED CASE m LIMITED CASE 180V331235 (Amount demanded (Amount demanded is $25,000 exceeds $25,000) or tess) A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE is scheduled as follows: Date: October 23, 2018 Time: 3:45 pm. Dept; 6 Div; Room‘. Address of court (if different from the address above): Notlce of Intent to Appear by Telephone, by (name): Meghan Maertz INSTRUCTIONS: All applicable boxes must be checked. and the speclfled infomatlon must be provided. 1. Party orpartles(ahsw9t‘dfie}: ” , I ‘ m- * - ~ _ ‘ ‘ n a. This slatement is submitted by party (name): Plaintiff. Tarhonda Thornahar b. [j This statement |s submitted jointly by parties (names): 2. Complaint and cross-complainl (lo be answered by plaintiffs and cmss-complainants only) a. The complainlwas filed on (dale): July 9. 2018 b‘ E] The cross-oomp|aim. if any. was flied on (dale): 3. Servlce (to be answered by plaintiffs and cmss-complainants only) a. Ail panies named in me complaint and cross-commaint have been served. have appeared. or have been dismissed. b. D The following parties named in the complain‘ or cross-comp!aint (1) E3 have not been served (specify names and explain why not}: y (2) D have been served bu‘ have not appeared and have not been dismissed (specifl/ names): (3) E have had a defaul! entered againstthem (specify names): c. D The following additional padies may be added (specify names, nature of involvement in case, and date by which (hey may be served): Descriptlon of ca§e a. Type ofcasem complaint E] cross-complaint (Describe, including causes ofaclion): Plaintiff alleges ré‘aliation in violation of Lafior Code§1 102.5(a)(b), constructive retaliaxory discharge in violation of public policy. failure to provide meal and rest period or compensation in Iieu thereof (Labor Code §§226.7). Fine i n1 5 Fommauummmgse CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT fifififizflrg CM-HU [Ram July 1.201 q www.mads.ca.vuv Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 42 of 46 CM-110 PLANTIFFIPETITIONER: Tarhonda Thornabar “SENWBER‘ _ 1801331235 DEFENDANTIRESPONDENT: SJBH. LLC. et al 4. b‘ Provide a brief statement of the case. including any damages (Ilpersona! injury damages are sought, specify (he injury and damages claimed. including medical expenses lo date [indrcate source and amount], estimated future medical expenses, lost earnings lo dale. and estimated future lost aamings. If equitable reliefis sought, describe the nature o! (he relief.) knowing and intenflonal faiiure to comply with uemized employee wage statement provisions in vioIatlon of Labor Code §266(a),(e). failure to timely pay wages due at termlnation in violation of Labor Code §§201-203. violation of Business and Professions Code §17200 and violation of Labor Code §98.6. (II more space ls needed, check this box and attach a page designated as Attachment 4b.) 5. Jury or nonjury trlal The party or parties request a jury trial E a noniury Mal. (Ifmore than one pany, provide (he name ofeach pafly requesting a jury trial): 6. Trial date a. Q Thetriai has’been setfor (date): b. LLJ No trial date has been set This case will be ready for lrial within 12 months of the date of (he filing of the complaint (if not, expiain): c. Dates on which parties or anomeys will nm be available for trial (specify dates and explain reasons for unavailability): 7. Estimated length of trial The party or parties estimate that the tria| wili take (check one): a. m days (specify number): 5‘7 b. D hours (short causes) (specify): 8. Trial representation (la be answered for each party) The party or panies will be represented altrial m by the attorney or party listed in the caption E by ‘he following; a. Attorney: b. Firm: c. Addless: d. Telephone number. f. Fax number: e. E-malladdress: g. Panyrepresented: m Additional representation ls descfibed in Attachment 8. 9. PreferenceB This case is entitled to preference (specify code section): 10. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) a. ADR information package. Please note that different ADR processes are available in different courts and communities; read the ADR Information package provided by me court under rule 3.221 for inforrnafion about (he processes avaflable through me court and community programs in this case. (1) For panies represented by counsei: Counsel E has E has nuk provided (he ADR information package identified in rule 3.221 to lhe client and reviewed ADR options with lhe client. (2) For selt-represented parties: Party m has D has no‘ reviewed the ADR information package identified 1n rule 3.221. b. Referral to judicial arbitratlon or civil action mediation (if available). (1) D This‘matter is sub'ed to mandatory judicial arpitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1141‘11 or to civil action nlegl‘atloqlurytder ode of CNII Procedure section 1775.3 because the amount in controversy does not exceed the s a u ory Imx A (2) E Plaintiff elects to refer this case to judicial arbiltation and agrees to limit recovery to the amount specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1141 .1 1. (3) B This case is exempt from judicial arbitrafion unper rule 3.811 of the California Rules of Courier from civil action mediation under Code of Clvi| Procedure section 1775 et seq. (specify exemption): cmmmm mom CASE MANAG EMENT STATEMENT “W“ Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 43 of 46 CM-110 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Tamonda Thomabar CASE NUMBER: 180V331 235 DEFENDANTIRESPONDENT: SJBH' LLC, et al 10. c. Indicate (he ADR process or processes that the party or parties are willing to participa‘e ‘In. have agreed (o participate in. or have a1ready participated in (check all that apply and provide the specified information): The party or panies completing If the party or parties completing this form in the case have agreed to this form are willing lo participate in or have already oompieted an ADR process or processes. panicipafie in the following ADR indicate me status of the processes (attach a copy of (ha parties' ADR processes (check all (hat apply): stipulation): m Mediation sesslon not yet scheduled (1) M d. f m Mediation session scheduled for (date): e Ia Ion Agreed to compleke mediation by (date): Mediation completed on (dale): Settlement conference not yet sched uled conference Agreed to complete semement conference by (date): Settlement conference oompIeted on (dale): Neutral evaluation not yek scheduled (3m ‘ [ I r ' E Neutralevaiuation scheduled for(date): eu ra eva ua Ion E E m (2) Seulemem m D Settlemenl conference scheduled for (date):E E D D E Agreed lo complete neutral evaluation by (date): Neutral evaluation comp1eled on (date): Judicial arbikration not yet scheduled (4) Nonb-mding judicial E Judicial arbitration scheduled for (date): arbitrarwn Agreed to complete judicial arbitration by (dale): Judicial arbitration completed on (date): Private arbitration not yet scheduled aml‘mfion Agreed to complete private arbitration by (date): Private arbitration completed on (date): ADR session not yet scheduled ADR session scheduled for (date): D D D E D [:1 (5) Bindingpfiva‘e E E Private arbmationschedutedtor(date):D U D E (6) Other (specify): E D Agreed to complete ADR session by (dale): D ADR completed on (date): CM-HO [Rov.Juty1. 2011] _ Plnu Sufi CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 44 of 46 PLAINTIFFIPETtTioNER: Tamonda Thomabar CASE NUMBER: 1 ECV331 235 DEFENDANTIRESPONDEN-r; SJBH. LLC. e‘ al 11. Insurance a. E] Insurance carrier, if any, for pany filing this statement (name): b. Reservation of rights: D Yes [j No cV a Coverage issues will significantiy affect resolutlon of lhis case (explain): 12. Jurisdiction Indicake any mafiers that may affect (he oourt' :1 Bankrup‘cy E Olher(specify): Status; The parties have filed a stlpulafion to send this case to arbitration. s jurisdiction or processing of this case and describe the siatus. 13‘ Reiated cases, consolidation. and coordinatlon a, i There are companion. undeflying. or related cases. (1) Name of case: (2) Name of court: (3) Case number: (4) S‘atus:a Additional cases are described in A&taohment 13a, b. D Amofionto m consolidate E coordinate will be filed by (name party): 14‘ BIfurcatlonD The party or parties intend to file a motion for an order bifurcating. severing‘ action (specify moving party, type of motion, and reasons): or coordinating the fofiowing issues or causes of 15. O(her motionsm The party or parties expect «a file the fonowing mofions before trial (specify moving party. type ofmotion, and issues): 16. Discovery a. D The party or parties have completed all discovery. b. The following discovery wiil be completed by the dale specified (describe all anticipated discovery): Part1 Descripgion pit; Piaintiff Written Discovery Per Code Per Code Plaintiff Depositions of Defendam c, D The following discovery issues. including issues regarding the discovery of e|ectronically stored information. are anticipated (specify): Page 4 e1 E C”“'°‘““>J°W"=°"l CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 45 of 46 CM-110 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Tarhonda Thomabar CASE NUMBER: - 1BCV3 31 235 DEFENDANTIRESPONDENT: SJBH. LLC. 8t ai 17. Economic lltlgatlan a. E This is a limited civil case (i.e., the amount demanded is $25,000 or less) and the economic fitlgation procedures in Code of Civil Procedure sections 90-98 will apply lo this case. b, a This is a limited civil case and a motion to withdraw the case from the economic litigation procedures or for addmonal discovery will be filed (i! checked, explain specifically why economic litigation procedures relating to discovery or trial should not apply lo this case): 18. Other Issues E] The party or parties requesk (ha‘ xhe following additional matters be considered or de‘en’nined at the case management conference (specify): 19. Meet and confer av The party or parties have mei and conferred with all pahies on all subjects required by rule 3.724 of the California Rules of Coun (if not, explain): b, After meeting and conferring as required by rule 3.724 of (he California Rules of Court. the parties agree on the following (specify): 20. Total number of pages attached (if any): I am completely familiar with lhis case and will be quy prepared to discuss the status of discovery and aIternatIve dispute resolution, as well as other issues raised by (his statement. and will possess the authority to enter into stipulations on these issues at the time of the case management conference, including (he written aulhanty of (he party where requiredl Dam: Ockober 3, 2018 Roman Otkupman (TYPE 0R PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PAR" OR ATTORNEY) (TYPE OR FRlNT NAME) (SIGNATURE 0F PARTY Oi AWORNEY) C3 Additionak signatures are attached. °“'“°l“"-M “2°“! CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT WW Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 46 of 46 \OMQONUl-h-MN 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 mu mm Lu nsx-n Nl'ka‘iLhArLA‘l PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALLFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I. am employed in the County 01‘ Los Augcles, Stale ofCalil‘brnia. I am over the age 0f 18 and not a party lo the within action; my business address is 28632 Roadside Drive. Suite 203) Agoura Hills, CA 91 301. On October 3, 2018, I served the foregoing document described as: l. Case Management Statement on the interested parties in this action as follows: SJBH, LLC 6100 TOWER CIRCLE, STE 1000 FRANKLIN, TN 37067 [X] BY U.S. MAIL. I am "readily familiar" with the firm‘s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same date with postage thereon fully prepaid at L05 Angeles, Caiifomia in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that 0n motion 0f the party served, service is presumed invalid'if postal cancellation date 01‘ postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Executed on October 3, 2018, at Agoura Hills, California. [] BY PERSONAL SERVICE. I delivered such envelope by hand to the office oflhe addressee. Executed on ** at Agoura Hills, California. [X] STATE: I declare under penalty ofpeljury under the laws of the State 0f California that the above is true and correct. ' gummy iiéiér 7 PROOF OF SERVICE 18-6443 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1-1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 1 of 2 OOOONQ 1 11 12 13 14 15 16‘ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C:\ItuTllElls DiSANTE k FILEUDINBERGHL I.L P Mark S. Spring, State Bar N0. 1551 14 mspring@cdflabor1aw.com Teresa W. Ghali, State Bar No. 252961 tghali@cdflaborlaw.com CAROTHERS DISANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 440 San Francisco, CA 9411 1 Telephone: (41 5) 98 1 -3233 Facsimile: (415) 981-3246 Mark W. Peters, TN State Bar No. 01 8422 (Pending Pro Hac Vice) mark.peters@wallen1aw.com P. Max Smith, TN State Bar N0. 026602 (Pending Pro Hac Vice) Max,Smith@wallerlaw.oom WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP 511 Union Street, Suite 2700 Nashville, TN 372 1 9 Telephone: (615) 244-6380 Facsimile: (616) 244-6804 Attorneys for Defendant SJBH. LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TARHONDA THORNABAR, Case No. Plaintiff, Santa Clara County Superior Court V. Case N0. 180V331235 SJBH, LLC and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, DECLARATION OF SEAN PETERSON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT SJBH, LLC’S NOTICE 0F REMOVAL Defendants. VVVVVVVVVV DECLARATION OF SEAN PETERSON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT SJBH, LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1-1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 2 of 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ('Anu-rums Dismm (t FREUDENBmm-zn LLP DECLARATION 0F SEAN PETERSON I, Sean Peterson, declare as follows: 1. I am employed by SJBH, LLC (“SJBH”) as Chief Executive Officer. As CEO 0f SJBH, I have access t0 business records and human resources records regarding employees and former employees, including payroll records for TaRhonda Thornabar, a former employee. These records are kept in the ordinary course of business. I have personal knowledge 0f the facts set forth in this Declaration and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently to such facts under oath. The testimony I provide herein is based upon personal knowledge and payroll records I have reviewed from SJBH. 2. SJBH is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place 0f business in Tennessee, The sole member and 100% owner 0f SJBH is Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., a publicly traded Delaware corporation with its principal place 0f business in Tennessee. 3. 1 have reviewed payroll records pertaining to Ms. Thomabar, and Ms. Thornabar’s salary at the time 0f her separation from SJBH on March 16, 2018 was $33.00 per hour and she was scheduled to work 0n a full-time basis of 40 hours per week. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws 0f the State 0f California and the United States of America, that the foregoing is true and correct Executed on this 1§ day 0f October, 2018. .xfl /f/) z/{W\E (”/8Séanjeterson k 2 "DECLARATION OF SEAN PETERSON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT SJBH, LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL Mark S. Spring, State Bar No. 155114 mspring@cdflaborlaw.com Teresa W. Ghali, State Bar No. 252961 tghali@cdflaborlaw.com CAROTHERS DISANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 440 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 981-3233 Facsimile: (415) 981-3246 Mark W. Peters, TN State Bar No. 018422 (Pending Pro Hac Vice) mark.peters@wallenlaw.com P. Max Smith, TN State Bar No. 026602 (Pending Pro Hac Vice) Max.Smith@wallerlaw.com WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP 511 Union Street, Suite 2700 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-6380 Facsimile: (616) 244-6804 Attorneys for Defendant SJBH. LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TARHONDA THORNABAR, ) Case No. Plaintiff, ) Santa Clara County Superior Court v. ) Case No. 18cv331235 SJBH, LLC and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, ) DECLARATION OF P. MAXWELL inclusive, ) SMITH IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ) SJBH, LLC'S NOTICE OF REMOVAL Defendants. DECLARATION OF P. MAXWELL SMITH IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT SJBH, LLC'S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 1392557.1 1 CAROTHERS DiSANTE & FRELDE.BERGER LLP 18-6443 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 1 of 13 1 DECLARATION OF P. MAXWELL SMITH I, P. Maxwell Smith, declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney with the law firm of Waller Landsen Dortch & Davis, LLP. in 4 Nashville, Tennessee. I am licensed to practice law in the State of Tennessee, and I am in good 5 standing with the United States District Court of the Middle District of Tennessee. I intend to seek 6 leave to appear pro hac vice in this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this 7 Declaration and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently to such facts under 8 oath. I represent SJBH, LLC ("SJBH") in this matter. 9 2. Plaintiff attempted to serve SJBH with the Summons and Complaint through an 10 improper agent for service of process on July 27, 2018. SJBH had no notice of the lawsuit until it 11 received a case management statement and notice of posting jury fees from the Superior Court of 12 California, County of Santa Clara, at its Tennessee business address on October 8, 2018. 13 14 3. Counsel for SJBH then contacted Plaintiff's counsel to explain SJBH had not been 15 served. SJBH's counsel agreed to accept service of the Summons and Complaint on behalf of 16 SJBH effective October 15. 2018. A true and correct copy of the correspondence between the 17 parties' counsel concerning service is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United 19 States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 22nd day of October, 20 2018, at Nashville, Tennessee. 21 77 P. Maxwell Smith 76 27 28 CAROTHERS DiSANTE FREUDENHEROER LLP 2 DECLARATION OF P. MAXWELL SMITH IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT SJBH, LLC'S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 1392557.1 Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 2 of 13 EXHIBIT A Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 3 of 13 HI I Max Smith From: Roman Otkupman Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 11:49 AM To: Max Smith; Meghan Maertz; Gabriela Zaragoza; Brittney Heller Cc: Mark Peters Subject: RE: Thornabar v. SJBH, LLC; Case No. 18cv331235 Appreciate it. Your response is therefore due on November 15. I take it you still intend on appearing at the CMC. Please let me know if that is not the case. From: Max Smith [mailto:Max.Smith@wallerlaw.com] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 9:45 AM To: Roman Otkupman ; Meghan Maertz ; Gabriela Zaragoza ; Brittney Heller Cc: Mark Peters Subject: RE: Thornabar v. SJBH, LLC; Case No. 18cv331235 Yes, we can accept service effective today via email. From: Roman Otkupman [mailto:roman@olfla.com] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 11:37 AM To: Max Smith; Meghan Maertz; Gabriela Zaragoza; Brittney Heller Cc: Mark Peters Subject: RE: Thornabar v. SJBH, LLC; Case No. 18cv331235 Thanks for the letter. Would you accept service by email. In other words, service will commence as of today? That way, you will have 30 days to respond. Please let me know. From: Max Smith [mailto:Max.Smith@wallerlaw.com] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 9:26 AM To: Roman Otkupman ; Meghan Maertz ; Gabriela Zaragoza ; Brittney Heller Cc: Mark Peters Subject: RE: Thornabar v. SJBH, LLC; Case No. 18cv331235 Mr. Otkupman, Please see the attached correspondence regarding service of the Complaint in this matter. Thank you. P. Maxwell Smith (Max) Attorney wailer Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP 511 Union Street, Suite 2700 Nashville, TN 37219 615.850.8707 (d) 615.497.1697 (c) max.smith@wallerlaw.com 1 Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 4 of 13 From: Roman Otkupman [mailto: roman@olfla.com] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 10:43 AM To: Mark Peters; Meghan Maertz; Gabriela Zaragoza; Brittney Heller Cc: Max Smith; Laura Stokes Subject: RE: Thornabar v. SJBH, LLC; Case No. 18cv331235 Here you go. From: Mark Peters [mailto:Mark.Peters@wallerlaw.com] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 8:31 AM To: Roman Otkupman ; Meghan Maertz ; Gabriela Zaragoza ; Brittney Heller Cc: Max Smith ; Laura Stokes Subject: RE: Thornabar v. SJBH, LLC; Case No. 18cv331235 Thanks much. Will you please also send and other filed pleadings and the proof of service at your convenience? From: Roman Otkupman [mailto:roman@olfla.com] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 10:28 AM To: Mark Peters; Meghan Maertz; Gabriela Zaragoza; Brittney Heller Cc: Max Smith; Laura Stokes Subject: RE: Thornabar v. SJBH, LLC; Case No. 18cv331235 Here's the complaint. From: Mark Peters [mailto:Mark.Peters@wallerlaw.com] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 8:25 AM To: Roman Otkupman ; Meghan Maertz ; Gabriela Zaragoza ; Brittney Heller Cc: Max Smith ; Laura Stokes Subject: RE: Thornabar v. SJBH, LLC; Case No. 18cv331235 No doubt but I still don't have the Complaint or any pleadings or know anything at all about the case or claims! From: Roman Otkupman [mailto:roman(aolfla.com] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 10:24 AM To: Mark Peters; Meghan Maertz; Gabriela Zaragoza; Brittney Heller Cc: Max Smith; Laura Stokes Subject: RE: Thornabar v. SJBH, LLC; Case No. 18cv331235 I don't know if that's possible and we would have to stipulate and hope that the Court approves. It's much easier to simply appear. From: Mark Peters [mailto:Mark.Peters@wallerlaw.coml Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 8:21 AM To: Roman Otkupman ; Meghan Maertz ; Gabriela Zaragoza ; Brittney Heller 2 Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 5 of 13 Cc: Max Smith ; Laura Stokes Subject: RE: Thornabar v. SJBH, LLC; Case No. 18cv331235 Yes (or our local counsel will do so just as soon as we hire them) unless we can agree to move the date (if that is possible). From: Roman Otkupman [mailto:roman@olfla.com] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 10:19 AM To: Mark Peters; Meghan Maertz; Gabriela Zaragoza; Brittney Heller Cc: Max Smith; Laura Stokes Subject: RE: Thornabar v. SJBH, LLC; Case No. 18cv331235 The CMC is less than three weeks away. Do you plan to appear? From: Mark Peters [mailto:Mark.Peters@wallerlaw.com] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 7:40 AM To: Roman Otkupman ; Meghan Maertz ; Gabriela Zaragoza ; Brittney Heller Cc: Max Smith ; Laura Stokes Subject: RE: Thornabar v. SJBH, LLC; Case No. 18cv331235 Three weeks would be great. I'm headed out tomorrow for Fall Break with my family and will be out of the office all of next week. Regards, Mark From: Roman Otkupman [mailto:romanOolfia.conn] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 9:35 AM To: Mark Peters; Meghan Maertz; Gabriela Zaragoza; Brittney Heller Cc: Max Smith; Laura Stokes Subject: RE: Thornabar v. SJBH, LLC; Case No. 18cv331235 Mark, Thank you for your email. How long do you need to respond to the complaint? From: Mark Peters Imailto:Mark.Peters@wallerlaw.com] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 7:18 AM To: Roman Otkupman ; Meghan Maertz Cc: Max Smith ; Laura Stokes Subject: Thornabar v. SJBH, LLC; Case No. 18cv331235 Importance: High Mr. Otkupman and Ms. Maertz 3 Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 6 of 13 Good morning. My name is Mark Peters and our law firm is regular outside counsel to Acadia Healthcare Company and its affiliates, including SJBH, in employment matters. Our client received the attached documents in the mail on Tuesday but has no record of being served with a copy of the Complaint or Summons and had no knowledge of this lawsuit. I have checked the Docket this morning and see that the case was filed on July 9 and that there appears to be some type of Proof of Service that was filed on August 15, 2018. We are obviously behind the eight ball though I am still trying to figure out how and why! At your earliest convenience, could you please send me a copy of the Complaint and any other pleadings that have been filed in this matter, along with the Proof of Service? And, would you please allow us a reasonable period of time to get up to speed, obtain local counsel and then file the appropriate responsive pleading? Thank you for your courtesies. Max and I look forward to working with you. Regards, Mark Mark W. Peters Partner - Labor and Employment Practice Group Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP 511 Union Street, Suite 2700 Nashville, TN 37219 615.850.8888 1615.477.6386 mobile mark.oetersPwallerlaw.com The information contained in this message and any attachments is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged. confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error. you are prohibited from copying. distributing. or using the information. Please contact the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete the original message. The information contained in this message and any attachments is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged. confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, you are prohibited from copying. distributing, or using the information. Please contact the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete the original message. 4 Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 7 of 13 c. Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP 511 Union Street, Suite 2700 P.O. Box 198966 Nashville, TN 37219.8966 P. Maxwell Smith 615.850.8707 direct max.smithewallerlaw.com October 15, 2018 W 615.244.6380 main 615.244.6804 fax wallerlaw.com VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL Roman Otkupman, Esq. Meghan Maertz, Esq. Otkupman Law Firm, ALC 28632 Roadside Drive, Suite 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Re: TaRhonda Thornabar v. SJBH, LLC Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 18CV331235 Dear Roman and Meghan: Thank you for forwarding the Complaint and Proof of Service in this matter during our correspondence Thursday. As we discussed previously, our client had no record of this lawsuit - much less having been served - prior to receiving a case management statement and notice of posting jury fees in the mail last week. We've had an opportunity to look into this issue further and determined SJBH, LLC ("SJBH") has not yet been properly served with the lawsuit. The California Secretary of State makes clear that SJBH's agent is CT Corporation System with an address for service of process in Los Angeles. A copy is attached for your ease of reference. The Proof of Service filed in this case says that the Summons and Complaint were served via hand-delivery by John Cleere of Los Angeles on CT Corporation in New York and received by Maria Velasco. Service was not proper according to the Secretary of State. Moreover, CT Corporation sent a letter dated July 3o, 2018, advising that SJBH was not listed in their New York office's records and they were unable to forward the Summons and Complaint to SJBH. A copy of that letter is attached for your ease of reference as well. Now that SJBH knows about the lawsuit, it has authorized us to accept service of process on its behalf, subject of course to correction of the filed proof of service. Alternatively, you can serve CT Corporation through its Los Angeles office, which is SJBH's registered agent for service of process. Please advise at your earliest convenience so that we can proceed accordingly. Very truly yours, /7/14...)/ P. Maxwell Smith PMS:lhs Attachments cc: Mark W. Peters, Esq. 4853-0997-7976.1 Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 8 of 13 10/12/2018 Business Search - Business Entitles - Business Programs I California Secretary of State Alex Padilla California Secretary of State 0•;% Business Search - Entity Detail The California Business Search is updated daily and reflects work processed through Thursday, October 11, 2018. Please refer to document Processing Times for the received dates of filings currently being processed. The data provided is not a complete or certified record of an entity. Not all images are available online. 201501210354 SJBH, LLC Registration Date: 01/07/2015 Jurisdiction: DELAWARE Entity Type: FOREIGN Status: ACTIVE Agent for Service of Process: C T CORPORATION SYSTEM (C0168406) To find the most current California registered Corporate Agent for Service of Process address and authorized employee(s) information, click the link above and then select the most current 1505 Certificate. Entity Address: 6100 TOWER CIRCLE STE 1000 FRANKLIN TN 37067 Entity Mailing Address: 6100 TOWER CIRCLE STE 1000 FRANKLIN TN 37067 LLC Management A Statement of Information is due EVERY ODD-NUMBERED year beginning five months before and through the end of January. Document Type It File Date IF PDF SI-COMPLETE 12/07/2016 SI-COMPLETE 03/26/2015 REGISTRATION 01/07/2015 Indicates the information is not contained in the California Secretary of State's database. Note: If the agent for service of process is a corporation, the address of the agent may be requested by ordering a status report. • For information on checking or reserving a name, refer to Rame Availability; • If the image is not available online, for information on ordering a copy refer to Information Requests. • For information on ordering certificates, status reports, certified copies of documents and copies of documents not currently available in the Business Search or to request a more extensive search for records, refer to Information &guests. • For help with searching an entity name, refer to Search Tips. • For descriptions of the various fields and status types, refer to Frequently Asked Questions. Modify Search New Search Back to Search Results httpsi/bustnesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/Detail 1/1 Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 9 of 13 10/12/2018 Business Search - Business Entities - Business Programs California! Secretary of State Alex Padilla California Secretary of State 044, Business Search - Entity Detail The California Business Search is updated daily and reflects work processed through Thursday, October 11, 2018. Please refer to document Processing Times for the received dates of filings currently being processed. The data provided Is not a complete or certified record of an entity. Not all images are available online. C0168406 C T CORPORATION SYSTEM Registration Date: 09/1111936 Jurisdiction: DELAWARE Entity Type: FOREIGN STOCK Status: ACTIVE Agent for Service of Process: NATIONAL REGISTERED AGENTS, INC. (C1941323) To find the most current California registered Corporate Agent for Service of Process address and authorized employee(s) information, click the link above and then select the most current 1505 Certificate. Entity Address: 111 EIGHTH AVE 13TH FL NEW YORK NY 10011 Entity Mailing Address: 111 EIGHTH AVE 13TH FL NEW YORK NY 10011 A Statement of Information is due EVERY year beginning five months before and through the end of September. Document Type jj File Date if PDF SI-COMPLETE 05/29/2018 ' 1505 CERTIFICATE 06/25/2018 1505 CERTIFICATE 06/07/2018 1505 CERTIFICATE 01/19/2018 SI-COMPLETE 09/05/2017 1505 CERTIFICATE 09/09/2016 1505 CERTIFICATE 05/28/2015 1505 CERTIFICATE 04/24/2015 1505 CERTIFICATE 04/07/2014 https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/Detail 1/5 Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 10 of 13 Secretary of State 1505 Registered Corporate Agent for Service of Process Certificate (Registered Corporations ONLY) IMPORTANT - Read Instructions before completing this form. Flung Fee - $30.00 Copy Fees - First page $1.00; each attachment page $0.50; Certification Fee - $5.00 plus copy fees Who Can File? Any active corporation that is registered with the California Secretary of State can file this Form 1505 to become authorized to be a corporate agent for service of process for other business entities that are registered with the Secretary of State. To check the status of your corporation, and to ensure you are entering the exact name of the corporation and the correct 7-digit Secretary of State file number, go to BusInessSearch.sos.cagov. A0814710 Se lliL:ifoni1) tate la te '18.7 of st JUN 25 2018 y..r• i This Space For Office Use Only 1. Corporate Name (Enter the exact name of the corporation as it is recorded with the California Secretary of State.) C T CORPORATION SYSTEM 2. 7-Digit Secretary of State File Number C0168406 (Enter the complete Wee address In California of the office where any entity that named your 3. Address for Service of Process corporation as agent for service of process may be served with process.) Do not enter a P.O. Box or in care or an Individual or entity. Street Address - Do not enter a P.O. Box City (no abbreviations) State Ztp Code 818 WEST SEVENTH STREET, SUITE 930 LOS ANGELES CA 90017 (Enter the names of ell persona employed by your corporation who are authorized to accept delhrery of any copy 4. Authorized Employees of service of process, at the address entered In Item 3 above. on any entity who has designated your corporation 1 as its agent for service of process. Must enter at least 1 person. If there are more than 3, see Instructions.) 8. First Name of Authorized Employee Amanda Middle Name ' Last Name Garcia Suffix b, First Name of Authorized Employee Vivian Middle Name Last Name Imperial Suffix c. First Name of Authorized Employee Gladys Middle Name Last Name Agullera Suffix 5. Statement of Consent (Do not alter the Statement of Consent.) This corporation consents that delivery of a copy of service of process to an authorized employee at the address designated In item 3 shall constitute delivery of any such copy to the corporation, as the agent for service of process. 6. Read and Sign Below (See Instructions. Office or title not required. Do not use a computer generated signature.) I am a corporate officer and am authorized to sign on behalf of the corporation. Marie Hauer Type or Print Name Signature 1606 (REV 05/2017) 2017 California Secretary of State vAW4somagovAidnessibe Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 11 of 13 AUUI4/1U Attachment to Form 1505 Gabriela Sanchez Daisy Montenegro Carlos Paz Alberto Damonte Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 12 of 13 Page 1 of 1 CT July 30, 2018 ROMAN OTKUPMAN OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION 28632 Roadside Drive, Suite 203, Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Re: TARHONDA THORNABAR, PLTF. vs. SJBH, LLC, and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, ETC., DFTS. Case No. 18CV331235 Dear Sir/Madam: SJBH, LLC is not listed on our records or on the records of the State of NY. CT was unable to forward. Very truly yours, C T Corporation System Log# 533776307 Sent By Regular Mail cc: -- (Returned To) ROMAN OTKUPMAN OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION 28632 Roadside Drive, Suite 203, Agoura Hills, CA 91301 10/11/2018 Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 13 of 13 CL*<9G= 11 'KWh+ -3,.4( CIVIL COVER SHEET MZW CL*<9G= 11 U[h[^ UahWd eZWWf S`V fZW [`Xad_Sf[a` Ua`fS[`WV ZWdW[` `W[fZWd dWb^SUW `ad egbb^W_W`f fZW X[^[`Y S`V eWdh[UW aX b^WSV[`Ye ad afZWd bSbWde Se dWcg[dWV Tk ^Si) WjUWbf Se bdah[VWV Tk ^aUS^ dg^We aX Uagdf+ MZ[e Xad_) SbbdahWV [` [fe ad[Y[`S^ Xad_ Tk fZW CgV[U[S^ 7 BG E9G= FG9MBHG <9L>L) NL> MA> EH<9MBHG H? MA> MK9=+ (c) 9ffad`Wke (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) 9ffad`Wke (If Known) II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff . N+L+ @ahWd`_W`f I^S[`f[XX 0 ?WVWdS^ JgWef[a` (U.S. Government Not a Party) / N+L+ @ahWd`_W`f =WXW`VS`f 1 =[hWde[fk (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF PTF DEF <[f[lW` aX MZ[e LfSfW . . B`UadbadSfWV or Id[`U[bS^ I^SUW 1 1 aX ;ge[`Wee B` MZ[e LfSfW <[f[lW` aX 9`afZWd LfSfW / / B`UadbadSfWV and Id[`U[bS^ I^SUW 2 2 aX ;ge[`Wee B` 9`afZWd LfSfW <[f[lW` ad LgT\WUf aX S 0 0 ?adW[Y` GSf[a` 3 3 ?adW[Y` jU^gVWe OWfWdS`e( .20 KWUahWdk aX HhWdbSk_W`f aX OWfWdS`me ;W`WX[fe .3- LfaU]Za^VWdem Lg[fe .6- HfZWd \WUf_W`f /1- Madfe fa ES`V /12 Madf IdaVgUf E[ST[^[fk /6- 9^^ HfZWd KWS^ IdabWdfk PERSONAL INJURY 0.- 9[db^S`W 0.2 9[db^S`W IdaVgUf E[ST[^[fk 0/- 9eeSg^f) E[TW^ & L^S`VWd 00- ?WVWdS^ >_b^akWdem E[ST[^[fk 01- FSd[`W 012 FSd[`W IdaVgUf E[ST[^[fk 02- Fafad OWZ[U^W 022 Fafad OWZ[U^W IdaVgUf E[ST[^[fk 03- HfZWd IWdea`S^ B`\gdk 03/ IWdea`S^ B`\gdk *FWV[US^ FS^bdSUf[UW CIVIL RIGHTS 11- HfZWd <[h[^ K[YZfe 11. Oaf[`Y 11/ >_b^ak_W`f 110 Aage[`Y, 9UUa__aVSf[a`e 112 9_Wd+ i,=[eST[^[f[Wep >_b^ak_W`f 113 9_Wd+ i,=[eST[^[f[WepHfZWd 115 >VgUSf[a` PERSONAL INJURY 032 IWdea`S^ B`\gdk p IdaVgUf E[ST[^[fk 034 AWS^fZ _b^akWW KWf[dW_W`f B`Ua_W LWUgd[fk 9Uf IMMIGRATION 13/ GSfgdS^[lSf[a` 9bb^[USf[a` 132 HfZWd B__[YdSf[a` 9Uf[a`e 1// 9bbWS^ /5 NL< q .25 1/0 P[fZVdSiS^ /5 NL< q .24 PROPERTY RIGHTS 5/- jUZS`YW 56- HfZWd LfSfgfadk 9Uf[a`e 56. 9Yd[Ug^fgdS^ 9Ufe 560 >`h[da`_W`fS^ FSffWde 562 ?dWWVa_ aX B`Xad_Sf[a` 9Uf 563 9dT[fdSf[a` 566 9V_[`[efdSf[hW IdaUWVgdW 9Uf,KWh[Wi ad 9bbWS^ aX 9YW`Uk =WU[e[a` 62- K KNE> /0) ?WV+ K+ <[h+ I+ DEMAND $
L a`^k [X VW_S`VWV [` Ua_b^S[`f7 JURY DEMAND: RWe Ga VIII. RELATED CASE(S), IF ANY (See instructions): CN=@> =HM GNF;>K IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2) (Place an “X” in One Box Only) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND SAN JOSE EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD TARHONDA THORNABAR SJBH, LLC and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TN Roman Otkupman, Otkupman Law Firm, ALC 28632 Roadside Dr., Ste. 203, Agoura Hills, CA 91301; (818) 293-5623 Mark S. Spring, Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger, LLP, 600 Montgomery St., Ste. 440, San Francisco, CA 94111; (415) 981-3233 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332 and 1441 Retaliatory discharge, wage and hour claims 10/22/2018 /s/ Teresa W. Ghali Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1-3 Filed 10/22/18 Page 1 of 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 0.0 CAROTHERS DiSANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP Mark S. Spring, State Bar No. 155114 mspring@cdflaborlaw.com Teresa W. Ghali, State Bar No. 252961 tghali@cdflaborlaw.com CAROTHERS DISANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 440 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 981-3233 Facsimile: (415) 981-3246 Mark W. Peters, TN State Bar No. 018422 (Pending Pro Hac Vice) mark.peters@wallenlaw.com P. Max Smith, TN State Bar No. 026602 (Pending Pro Hac Vice) Max.Smith@wallerlaw.com WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP 511 Union Street, Suite 2700 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-6380 Facsimile: (616) 244-6804 Attorneys for Defendant SJBH, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TARHONDA THORNABAR, Plaintiff, v. SJBH, LLC and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 18cv331235 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 18-6443 Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1-4 Filed 10/22/18 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 0.0 CAROTHERS DiSANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO. I, the undersigned, declare that I am employed in the aforesaid County, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 900 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95825. On October 22, 2018, I served upon the interested party(ies) in this action the following document described as: DEFENDANT SJBH, LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT DECLARATION OF SEAN PETERSON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT SJBH, LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT DECLARATION OF P. MAX SMITH IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT SJBH, LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT CIVIL COVER SHEET DEFENDANT’S CERTIFICATION OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS DEFENDANT SJBH, LLC’S NOTICE OF ADVERSE PARTY AND STATE COURT OF REMOVAL ACTION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as stated below, for processing by the following method: Roman Otkupman Meghan Maertz OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION 28632 Roadside Drive, Suite 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 By placing such envelope(s) designated by the appropriate express service carrier with delivery fees prepaid or otherwise provided for into Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP’s interoffice mail for collection and express delivery pursuant to ordinary business practice. I am familiar with the office practice of Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP for collecting and processing express deliveries, which practice is that when express deliveries are deposited with the Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP personnel responsible for handling express deliveries, such mail is deposited that same day in a box or other facsimile regularly maintained by Federal Express or other like facility regularly maintained for overnight delivery. I certify that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on October 22, 2018, at Sacramento, California. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Morgan Krutulis (Type or print name) (Signature) X Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 1-4 Filed 10/22/18 Page 2 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT’S CERTIFICATION OF NON- PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS 1384222.1 CAROTHERS DiSANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP Mark S. Spring, State Bar No. 155114 mspring@cdflaborlaw.com Teresa W. Ghali, State Bar No. 252961 tghali@cdflaborlaw.com CAROTHERS DISANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 440 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 981-3233 Facsimile: (415) 981-3246 Mark W. Peters, TN State Bar No. 018422 (Pending Pro Hac Vice) mark.peters@wallenlaw.com P. Max Smith, TN State Bar No. 026602 (Pending Pro Hac Vice) Max.Smith@wallerlaw.com WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP 511 Union Street, Suite 2700 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-6380 Facsimile: (616) 244-6804 Attorneys for Defendant SJBH, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TARHONDA THORNABAR, Plaintiff, v. SJBH, LLC and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 18cv331235 DEFENDANT SJBH, LLC’S CERTIFICATION OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 18-6443 Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 DEFENDANT’S CERTIFICATION OF NON- PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS 1384222.1 Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-15 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, the undersigned, counsel of record for Defendant SJBH, LLC (“SJBH”), certifies that the following listed persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations (including parent corporations) or other entities (i) have a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding (including parent companies), or (ii) have a non-financial interest in that subject matter or in a party that could be substantially affected by the outcome of this proceeding: 1. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., a publicly traded Delaware corporation, is the sole member and 100% owner of SJBH. Dated: October 22, 2018 CAROTHERS DISANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP By: /s/ Teresa W. Ghali Teresa W. Ghali Attorneys for Defendant SJBH, LLC Case 5:18-cv-06443 Document 2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 2 of 2