Removal to Federal Court

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.July 11, 2018

Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 8/13/2018 11:53 AM Reviewed By: A. Hwang Case #18CV331321 Envelope: 1827554 18CV331321 Santa Clara - Civil A. Hwang OOVON \O 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES Dated: August 10, 2018 Respectfully submitted, FORD By: Ste an H. Black -2- WSACTIVELLP:993898241 RRISON LLPf NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF AND STATE COURT OF REMOVAL OF CNIL ACTION DOCUMENT PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTO RN EY S AT LA W LOS A NG EL ES WSACTIVELLP:9938988.2 -1- NOTICE OF REMOVAL 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 Stefan H. Black, Bar No. 284499 sblack@fordharrison.com Shanda Y. Lowe, Bar No. 278602 slowe@fordharrison.com FORD & HARRISON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-237-2400 Facsimile: 213-237-2401 Attorneys for Defendant WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TIFFINE KOCH, an individual, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., and DOES 1-50, Defendants. Case No. NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION BY DEFENDANT WAL- MART ASSOCIATES, INC. PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 AND 1446 Action Filed: July 11, 2018 Date of Removal: August 13, 2018 TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. (“Wal- Mart”) files this notice of removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 and 1446. I. INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff TIFFINE KOCH (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint on July 11, 2018, in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, titled “TIFFINE KOCH v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, Inc. & Does 1-50,” Case No. 18CV331321 (the “State Court Action”). (Declaration of Stefan H. Black (“Black Decl.”) ¶¶ 4- 5, Ex. A) 3:18-cv-4866 Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1 Filed 08/10/18 Page 1 of 7 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTO RN EY S AT LA W LOS A NG EL ES WSACTIVELLP:9938988.2 -2- NOTICE OF REMOVAL 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. On August 13, 2018, Wal-Mart filed an Answer to the State Court Action. (Black Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. B.) 3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1446(a), true and correct copies of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon or filed by Wal-Mart in this action are attached to the Declaration of Stefan H. Black as Exhibits A and B. (Black Decl. ¶¶ 4-7, Exs. A and B.) II. NATURE OF THE SUIT 4. The Complaint filed in the State Court Action alleges the following causes of action: (1) Race and Gender Discrimination (FEHA); (2) Retaliation (FEHA); (3) Failure to Prevent Discrimination or Retaliation (FEHA); (4) Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy; (5) Denial of Equal Pay; and (6) Retaliation and Discrimination in Violation of the Equal Pay Act. III. BASIS FOR REMOVAL: DIVERSITY 5. A federal court has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. §1332(a). “[A]ny civil action brought in a State Court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant.” 28 U.S.C. §1441(a). Therefore, a state court action may be removed if (1) the action is between citizens of different states, and (2) the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Each of these requirements is met in this case. A. Complete Diversity of Citizenship 6. Plaintiff resides in California. “The place where a man lives is properly taken to be his domicile until facts adduced establish the contrary.” Dist. of Columbia v. Murphy, 314 U.S. 441, 455 (1941)). In the instant case, no facts have been adduced to rebut the presumption that Plaintiff is domiciled in California. Therefore, Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California for diversity purposes. Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1 Filed 08/10/18 Page 2 of 7 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTO RN EY S AT LA W LOS A NG EL ES WSACTIVELLP:9938988.2 -3- NOTICE OF REMOVAL 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 7. “[A] corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). 8. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware. (Black Decl. ¶ 8.) Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.’s principal place of business is in Arkansas. (Black Decl. ¶¶ 9-10, Ex. C; Compl. ¶ 4.) Accordingly, Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. is a citizen of Delaware and Arkansas for diversity purposes. 9. Because Plaintiff is a citizen of California and Wal-Mart is a citizen of Delaware and Arkansas, complete diversity exists between the parties. B. Amount in Controversy Exceeds $75,000 10. A defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Evidence establishing the amount is required only when the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s allegation. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens¸ S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014); see also Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 403-04 (9th Cir. 1996). 11. While Wal-Mart denies any liability to Plaintiff whatsoever, Wal-Mart asserts, based on the allegations in the Complaint and Plaintiff’s prayer for relief, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 12. Plaintiff began working at Wal-Mart in or around May 2016. (Compl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff alleges that she was denied promotions and paid less than her male counterparts. (Compl. ¶¶ 9-11.) Plaintiff alleges that although she was promoted to Senior Engineer in March 2018, her male colleagues continued to receive higher pay than she did. (Compl. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff alleges that in March 2018, she submitted a formal complaint, through her counsel, in which she alleged race and gender discrimination. (Compl. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff alleges that she was subsequently demoted Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1 Filed 08/10/18 Page 3 of 7 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTO RN EY S AT LA W LOS A NG EL ES WSACTIVELLP:9938988.2 -4- NOTICE OF REMOVAL 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 in retaliation for her complaints. (Compl. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff resigned on June 19, 2018. (Compl. ¶ 20.) 13. By this lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks general and special damages (back pay, front pay, and emotional distress), punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and such other relief as the court finds proper. (Compl. at Prayer for Relief.) 14. Plaintiff alleges that Wal-Mart wrongfully delayed her promotion from Software Engineer III to Senior Engineer. (Compl. 10-14.) Plaintiff also alleges that even after she was promoted to the Senior Engineer position, her duties were substantially similar to the duties performed by the Senior Manager Engineer or Manager Engineer job classifications, “positions which earned significantly higher salaries than hers.” (Compl. 9.) Plaintiff’s annual salary when her employment ended was approximately $150,000 per year. Based on these facts, Wal-Mart anticipates that Plaintiff will seek $35,000 to $45,000 in back wages. 15. Plaintiff also seeks to recover future wages. Huck v. Kone, Inc., No. C 10-1845 RS, 2011 WL 31108 at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2011) (holding that because the plaintiff was 52 years old, he could potentially recover 13 years’ of lost wages). Although Wal-Mart denies such relief would be appropriate, even one year of front pay would equal $150,000. 16. As such, the amount in controversy with respect to Plaintiff’s front pay and back pay claims alone exceeds the jurisdictional amount. 17. Plaintiff is also seeking to recover her attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Government Code § 12965(b). (Compl. at Prayer for Relief.) It is well-settled that when authorized by statute, attorneys’ fees are to be included in the calculation of the amount in controversy for purposes of determining whether the requisite jurisdictional minimum is met. Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[W]here an underlying statute authorizes an award of attorneys’ fees, either with mandatory or discretionary language, such fees may be Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1 Filed 08/10/18 Page 4 of 7 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTO RN EY S AT LA W LOS A NG EL ES WSACTIVELLP:9938988.2 -5- NOTICE OF REMOVAL 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 included in the amount in controversy”); Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc., 243 F.Supp.2d 1004, 1010-11 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (in deciding amount in controversy issue, a court may estimate the amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees likely to be recovered by plaintiff if he were to prevail). While Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees cannot be precisely calculated from the face of the Complaint, it is reasonable to assume that the amount of attorneys’ fees Plaintiff could incur in the course of this matter may exceed a damages award. Simmons v. PCR Technology, 209 F.Supp.2d 1029, 1035 (C.D. Cal. 2002). 18. The Court must take into account punitive damages for purposes of determining the amount in controversy where such damages are recoverable under state law. Davenport v. Mutual Benefit Health and Accident Ass’n, 325 F.2d 785, 787 (9th Cir. 1963); Brady, 43 F.Supp.2d at 1009. California law does not provide any specific monetary limit on the amount of punitive damages that may be awarded under Civil Code § 3294. Boyle v. Lorimar Productions, Inc., 13 F.3d 1357, 1360 (9th Cir. 1994). A punitive damages award may equal as much as four times the amount of the actual damages award. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 425 (2003); see also Simmons v. PCR Technology, 209 F.Supp.2d 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (citing jury verdicts in which the punitive damages awards ranged from $60,000 to $121,000,000). 19. Plaintiff also seeks open-ended relief as “such other relief as the Court deems proper.” Although uncertain in amount, this additional damages claim only serves to increase the amount in controversy. See Lewis v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 348 F.Supp.2d 932, 932-934 (W.D. Tenn. 2004) (the “open ended” relief sought by plaintiff, who prayed for “judgment to be determined by a jury, for all incidental, consequential, compensatory and punitive damages” established that her case met the amount in controversy requirement even though he pled in the complaint that he did not assert a claim in excess of $75,000.) Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1 Filed 08/10/18 Page 5 of 7 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTO RN EY S AT LA W LOS A NG EL ES WSACTIVELLP:9938988.2 -6- NOTICE OF REMOVAL 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 20. Wal-Mart denies that Plaintiff’s claims have any merit. Wal-Mart also denies that Plaintiff suffered any damages. However, when the relief sought (i.e., back pay, front pay, emotional distress, attorneys’ fees, and punitive damages) is taken as a whole, the amount in controversy for Plaintiff’s claims exceeds the $75,000 jurisdiction requirement, exclusive of interest and costs. 21. Thus, this Court has original jurisdiction over the claims asserted by Plaintiff in this action based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)(1) and 1441(a). IV. THE NOTICE OF REMOVAL IS PROCEDURALLY CORRECT 22. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), Wal-Mart has attached to this notice and the declaration of Stefan H. Black, all pleadings, process, orders, and all other filings in the state court action. (Black Decl. ¶¶ 4-7, Exs. A and B.) 23. Plaintiff delivered a copy of the Complaint and the Summons on Wal- Mart’s agent for service of process on July 13, 2018. Therefore, this Notice of Removal is timely filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). 24. Wal-Mart will promptly file and serve a notice of removal to the Clerk of Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. (See Black Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. D.) 25. As required by 28 U.S.C. §1446(d), Wal-Mart will give notice of this removal to Plaintiff. (Black Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. C.) V. VENUE 26. This action was brought and is pending before the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County. 27. Santa Clara County, California is located within the Northern District of California. 28. Thus, venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(2) because this is the “district and division embracing the place where [Plaintiff’s] action is pending.” Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1 Filed 08/10/18 Page 6 of 7 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTO RN EY S AT LA W LOS A NG EL ES WSACTIVELLP:9938988.2 -7- NOTICE OF REMOVAL 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 28 U.S.C. §1441(a), & 1446(a). VI. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. prays that the Court will remove this civil action from the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. By removing the action to this Court, Wal-Mart does not waive any defenses, objections, or motions available to it under state or federal law. Dated: August 10, 2018 Respectfully submitted, FORD & HARRISON LLP By: /s/ Stefan H. Black Stefan H. Black Shanda Y. Lowe Attorneys for Defendant WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1 Filed 08/10/18 Page 7 of 7 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTO RN EY S AT LA W LOS A NG EL ES WSACTIVELLP:9938992.1 -1- DECLARATION OF STEFAN H. BLACK ISO OF DEFENDANT’S REMOVAL 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 Stefan H. Black, Bar No. 284499 sblack@fordharrison.com Shanda Lowe, Bar No. 278602 slowe@fordharrison.com FORD & HARRISON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-237-2400 Facsimile: 213-237-2401 Attorneys for Defendant WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TIFFINE KOCH, an individual, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., and DOES 1-50, Defendants. Case No. DECLARATION OF STEFAN H. BLACK IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL UNDER 28 §§ 1332, 1441 AND 1446 Action Filed: July 11, 2018 Date of Removal: August 13, 2018 I, Stefan H. Black, declare as follows: 1. I am over eighteen years of age, and have personal knowledge of each of the matters set forth below and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently to each of them under oath. 2. This declaration is submitted in support of Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.’s (“Wal-Mart”) Notice of Removal. 3. I am an attorney at Ford & Harrison and am counsel of record for Wal- Mart Associates, Inc. in this case. 4. Plaintiff Tiffine Koch (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint on July 11, 2018, in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, titled “Tiffine Koch v. 3:18-cv-4866 Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/18 Page 1 of 2 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTO RN EY S AT LA W LOS A NG EL ES WSACTIVELLP:9938992.1 -2- DECLARATION OF STEFAN H. BLACK ISO OF DEFENDANT’S REMOVAL 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 Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. & Does 1-50,” Case No. 18CV331321 (the “State Court Action”). 5. True and correct copies of the Summons and Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 6. On August 13, 2018, Wal-Mart filed an Answer to the State Court Action. A true and accurate copy of the Answer is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 7. Exhibits A and B constitute all process, pleadings and orders served upon or filed by Wal-Mart in the State Court Action. Based on my review of the online docket for the State Court Action, there have been no other filings and orders made in the State Court Action. 8. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware. 9. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.’s principal place of business is in Arkansas. 10. A true and accurate copy of Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.’s Annual Report is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 11. Wal-Mart will promptly notify Plaintiff and the Clerk of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, that the case has been removed. A true and accurate copy of the notices to be mailed and served are attached hereto as Exhibit D. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 13th day of August 2018, in Los Angeles, California. /s/ Stefan H. Black STEFAN H. BLACK Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/18 Page 2 of 2 Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-2 Filed 08/10/18 Page 1 of 14 I ' 7//3//£ filigmo SUMMONS mwms’oussmzm {CITACION JUDICIAL) Nonc‘e To DEFENDANT: E-FILED (AVISO AL DEMANDADO)I 7/1 1/201 8 11:20 AM WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC; and DOES 1-50, - Clerk of Court Defendants. Superior Court 0f CA, . You AR: BEING sueo BY PLAtNTIFF: COUUW 0f Santa Clara (Lo ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): 1SCV331 321 TIFFJNE KOCH, an individual: Reviewed BYI E- Fang Envelope: 171 1426 NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may dedda against you without your being heard unms you respond within 30 days. Read the information below. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS ener mis summons and legs! papers are served on you w me a written response al this court and have a wpy served on the pialnfiff. A lcucr or phone ail win no! protea you. Your written response mus! be In proper legal form i! you want lhe cowl lo hear your mse, mete may be a court form that you can use for your responseV You can find mesa ooun forms and mote information al the California Courts Online Seif-Help Center (mvw.caurtfn!o.m.gov/ssllhelp). your county law Iibrary. or the courthouse nearesi you, l! you cannoi pay the filing fee, ask me court elem {or a fee waiver rum». Ir you do not file yaur rcspanm on limo, you may lose lhe mse by default. and your wages. money, and pzuuexty may be taken whnout funher warning from the coun. There am amar legal requirements. You may wnm lo mil an anomcy right away. ll you do not know an anorney, you may wan! to caII an auomey relenal service. If you cannot afiord an attorney. you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofn legal services program. You can tocate those nonprofit groups at Inc California Legal Services Web site (wwwlaufiolpcalifomiawg). the Califomla Courts OnlIna Self-Halp Center (\mv.coumhfo.ca.gov/sallhelp). or by contacting your Inca! court or county bar association. NOTE: The eoun has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or amilration award of 530.000 or more 1n a civil case. The court's lien mus: be paid before me coun will dismiss ma case. [AVISOI Lo han demandado. Si no responde denim 0‘s 30 dias, Ia cone pueda decidir en su cantm sin escuchar su varsldn‘ Lea Ia Inlonnaclén a oantinuacidn. Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO duspués d9 qua la onlmguan sda citacién y papales legal'es para presenter una respuesla pm esw‘lo en asla code y hacer qua $8 enmegue una copia al demandanle, Una carta a una flamada (elefdnica no lo pmlegsn, Su mspuesra par ascn‘lo Hana qua ester en {armalo legal corraclo si desea qua pmcesen su case en la cons. Es posibls qua heya un lbnnulan'o que usted puada user para su nespuasta. Pueds enconuar esfos formulan'os de Ia carts y més infarmacidn en e! Cenlm de Ayuda d9 las Conss de California (mauvsucoflmagov). en 1a biblioieca de (eyes dc su oondado o en la calm qua {e quads més cents. SI no pueda pagaria wafa d9 presentaa‘én, pida al secrelanb de la cone Que 15 d6 "n famulsn'o d8 exencidn d9 page de cuotas. Si no presents su mspuesta a b'empo, puade perder e! case porlncumplinfienzo y Ia cone Ie podré quirar su waldo. dinem y bienes sin més advenenda. Hay orms raquIs/tos legeres. Es mmmendam'a que name a un abogado inmdiatamenbe. Sine oonoce a un sbogado. puede llamar a un semicio de mnflsion a abogados. Si no pueda pager a un abogada. es poxibls Que cumpls con Ios requisites para obrsner servicing Iagales graluims de un pmgrama d: serviclos Iegales sin fines do Iucm. Funds enconuar estos gmpoa sin fines d9 Iua-o en eI sitio web d9 Calilomla Legal services, Mw.lawhefpcalifamia.org), an cl Carma do Ayuda do Ias Codes do Califomia. Mwsucodefiagov) o poniéndasa en contacfo con Ia cone o al caleglo de ebogsdos locales. AVISO: Pot fey. Ia cone liens demcho a reclamarlas cums: y Ios castes exsnzos per Imponsr un gmvamen sobm cualquler recuperacidn d9 310.000 o' mas d9 valor reciblda medianle an awerdo o ans conceslén de arbit/aja en un case d9 demcho civil. Tiene qua paga/ e} gravamen do la code antes ds que Ia code pueda dasachar a! cesa. CASE NUMfl-ER:The name and address of the coun is: mmmwcm: 1acv331321(El nombre y direccion de 1a cone es).- Sanm Clara Superior Court l9} N. First St. San Jose, CA 951 l3 The name. address, and telephone number of piaintiff's attorney. or plaintiff without an attorney. is: (El nombre, Ia direccidn y cl m‘unoro d6 telefono del abogado def demandame, o del demandante que no (Iona aoogado, es)‘ Ramsey Hanafi; 870 Market St. Suite | I l5 San Francisco, CA 94l02; Tel: (435) 504-3121 Clam, try E. Fang . DeputyDATE 7/1 1/201 8 11:20 AM Clerk 0f Court (Adjunm)(Fecna) (Secretan‘o) (For proof o! service o! Ihis summons, use Proof of Service of Summons {lorm POS-O10).) {Pars prueba do enlroga do 05m citah‘én uso e! formularz'o Proof of 8c Nice oi Summons. (FOS-o10». NOTICE T0 THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1. D as an individua! defendant. 2‘ a as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): 3, m on behalf of (specify): waI-MartAssociates, Inc. under.- fl] ccpmsnmmrporauon) {j CCP 416,60 (minor)E CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) B CCP 416.70 (consen/alee)E CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) [j CCP 416.90 (aumorized person)E other (specifyy 4. [:3 by petsonal delivery on (dale): Pane l or l SUMMONS Cecouc‘xcbmcmsgnzza :55. w-Myccumnra ca 9w Form knock: mt ‘Mrcawy Use Jana; Cm a! Canmu SUMJOO F." Ju‘y 1_ 2009) EXHIBITA L744“ Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-2 Filed 08/10/18 Page 2 of 14 I\) La: E-FILED 7/1 1/2018 11:20 AM Cierk of Court Ramsey Hanafi, SBN 262515 Su erior Coun Of CAQUINTANA HANAFI, LLP Cofinly Of Santa Clar'a 870 Markel Street, Suue I l ‘5 18cv331 321 San FranCIsco, CA 94102 Reviewed By; E_ Fang Tel.: (4:5) 504-312I Fax: (41 5) 233-8770 info@thlaw.com Attomeys for Plaintiff" SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA UNLIMITED JURISDICTION TIFF'INE KOCH, 2m individual, CASE NO.:1SCV331321 Piamtlffi COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES \’5. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, ]NC.; and DOES 1-50, Defendants. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL. l. INTRODUCTION PlaintifleFFlNE KOCH (herein “Plaintiff”? brings this action against Defendant WAL- MART ASSOCIATES, INC. (hci'ein “Walmart” or Defendant). Plaintiffallcgcs thc following: l1. JURISDICTION AND VENUE I‘ The damages sought in this mattcr exceed $25,000 This matter is thus properly suhmillcd m the Court ofUnlimited Jurisdiction in the Superior Court, County of'San Mulch, Kucll v. M‘uI-nmr/Aanx'mdmcs. Inc: cl ul. Snnm Cinra County Superior Conn Case No. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-2 Filed 08/10/18 Page 3 of 14 b) N ls.) r.) 2. This Court is the proper Court because the unlawful practices alicgcd herein wcrc comn‘lilted in [his County. 21nd the records relevant to the alleged unlawful practices are mainlained and administered in lhis County. 34 On July 6, 20! 8, Plaintiffproperly notified the Department ofFair Employment and Housing ofhcr imem to sue Defendants and have received a “right-to-sue notice" prior t0 filing lhis complaint. III, PARTIES 4. Defendant Wal-mart Associates, Inc. is an Arkansas corporation, with its principle place ofbusincss in Bentonvillc, Arkansas. 5. PiainliffTifl'me Koch was employed by Defendant as 2m engineer from May 3 I, 20] 6 (o June 19, 2018, in Walmart’s Sunnyvale offices in Santa Clara County, CA. 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times rcluvant herein, each defendant authorized and ratified, aided and abetted, and acted in concert with and/or conspired wilh each and every other defendant to commil Lhc acts and to engage in lhe practices complained ofhercin. IV. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 7, Plaintiffwas hired by Defendant as a Software Engineer in May 20 l 6, Based on her high level of‘performance, in or around May 20! 7, Plaintiff began aSSumingh managcmcnl- level role with Defendant. 8. From May 20] 7 until her resignation on June l9, 20l8, Plaintiffworked as Ihc lead engineer on over twenty projects. Throughout this lime period Plaintiff‘nmnaged approximately l4 engineersand was responsible for terminating at least 2 employees. 9. Despite Plaintiff’s management duties, she nevcr received a promotion (o an official manager position and was continually paid less than her two male colleagues who were performing lhe same managerial tasks and managing approximately the same number oneople. Plainlil‘t‘was performing the duties oi‘a Senior Manager Engineer or Manager Engineer: lmsitiuns which earned significantly higher salaries lhun hers. Thu othur lwo cmployccs in hcr .J Kuc'lr v_ I'f'uI-mm'l Avsmjurux. Inc. e1 ul. Santa Clara Cmmly Superior Courl Case No. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAG ES Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-2 Filed 08/10/18 Page 4 of 14 b) division who officially had these titles wcre both men. One ofthese employees was actually managing less people than Plaintiff, and yet was still earning more money than hcr. ID. In or around August 2017, following Plaintiff‘s successful completion of several deliveries for which she served as the project engineering lead, Plaintiffrequested a formal promotion to at least “Manager Engineer." She was told by her male manager: Arpan Nanavati, tlmt there were no available promotions, and that she was not “assertive" or “aggrcssivc” enough For consideration for any management role, even il'one were available. l l, Shortly after Plaintiffwas told {here were no promotions available, Plaintiff lcamed that her younger, less experienced malc colleague, Juan Guardado= had been promoted to Senior Enginccr. Senior Engineer was one step below Manager Engineer, and one step above Plaintiff’s posiiion as Software Engineer HI. l2. Despite Mr. Guardado’s inferior credentials when compared L0 Plaintiffl Mr. Nanavati openly praised Mr. Guardado’s “assertiveness” and “aggressiveness” when discussing his reasoning for promoting Mr. Guardado. Mr. Guardado had never managed any cnginecxs or developers at Walmun, and had never had a lead role on any major project or initiative until immediately prior to his promotion. The single project Mr. Guardado led was never even launched; i1 was blocked by Defendant’s Director of Product because it “did not meet the bar.” l3. In or around December of 20W, Plaintiffwas offered a “promotion deck" in which Plainliff could apply For a promotion. Her options were limiled I0 “Senior Engineer,“ however. Senior Manager Engineer or Manager Engineer were not presented as options to Plaintiff‘at that time, despite hcr management duties matching those ther two male colleagues who were in those positions. l4. Plaintiff was finally promoted Lo Senior Engineer in or around March 20 I 8. Although she was now on equal footing with Mr. Guardado, this was still not commensurate with Plaintiff‘s actual (lay-Io-duy managcmcnt role. Mr. Guurdado continued to report t0 Ihc Pluntifi‘on projects that she led and supervised. Plaintiffwas still earning significantly less .3. Kucl: v. M’al-nmrr Assncinmv, [mu e! ul. Santa Clam Counly Superior Courl Case No. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-2 Filed 08/10/18 Page 5 of 14 26 27 28 money than her two Senior Manager Engineer and Manager Engineer male colleagues, despite the fact that a1] three were performing (he same duties find managing approximately thc same number ofengineers. Plaintiff’s promotion was thus still well below the commensurate level 0f her demonstraled management expenise, and her male counterpans were still earning more money than her while doing the samejob. 15. Ofthe hundreds ofemployccs working at Defendant’s Sunnyvale office: only two are African American. Plaintiffhas previously been featured prominently in Defendant’s promotion lileralure highlighting Defendant‘s “diversity" in their workplace. Oflhe almost 60 engineers in Plaintiff‘s division, only six are women. Ofthe two developers the Plaintiffwas tasked with terminating in her approximately two years at Walman, onc was a female developer. l6. In or around March 20] 8, Mr. Nanavali suspected Ihzu someone he supewised was complaining about him lo human resources. Mr. Nanavali told Plainlifflhat “il would be in her best intercsl” and would “help [her] bonus increase” ifPlaintiff provided Mr. Nanavati with information on her team members who were complaining about Mr. Nunavuti. Plaintiffdid not comply with Mr. Nanavazi’s requests. At that time, Plaimifflwd not yet formally complained Io human resources. 17‘ Shortly thereafter, in or around March 20l8, Plaimifflhrough her counsel formally complained to Defendant regarding Defendant’s discriminatory and unequal treatment of her based on her gender and her race. 18. In or around April 20l8’ Plaintiffwns Formally removed as the overall lead for the web platform, a peer role to hcr male: manager colleagues, hcr managcmcnt roles wcrc rc- assigned m hcr male colleagues and she was demoted from [cam lead to a smaller fcauu’c léad role, lhal was in parity wilh male engineers she had previously directly supewised. l9. In or around May 20l8. Plaintiff, through her counsel, formally requested her personnel file. _ 4 . Koch v. Wnl-mnn Assacimux Im: cl ul. Santa Clam Cnunly Superior Conn Case No‘ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-2 Filed 08/10/18 Page 6 of 14 DJ 20. On June 19, 201 8, as a result ot'Defendam’s continuing discrimination zmd retaliatory demotion ofPlaintiff, Plaintiffrcsigncd. V. CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE 0F ACTION Discrimination Based on Race/Gcndcr in Violation ofthc FEHA (Cal Gov’t Code § 1294093)) 184 Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all ofthe above paragraphs as if thcy were set forth here in full. l9. Defendant is subject to suit under the Califomia Fair Employment and Housing Act) Government Code Section 12900 et seq. (hereinafter “FEHA") in that Dcf‘Cndant regularly employs five or more persons. 20. Plaintiff is an African American Female. 2], Defendants were a1 all times aware of Plaintiff‘s race and/or gender. 22. Plaintiff suffered adverse actions ofDefendant in the fonn 0f failing [o promote her because nf'her race and/or gender, failing to pay her lhe same salary as her male colleagues who were performing the same work as her, and making her workplace so intolerable that she had to resign. 23. Al all relevant times, Defendant’s adverse actions were substantially motivaied by Plaintiff‘s race and/or gender 24. As a result ofthc aforementioned actiOn, Plaintiffsuffered harm and Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein was a substantial factor in causing this harm. 25. As a direct and proximate result oflhe violation ofher rights under [he FEHA, Plaintiff has suffered and/or continues to suffer past and future pccuniary losses, emotional distress: Ioss ofsclf-estcem, grief, stress, anxicm Stigma, loss thcr career: loss offhturc earning capacily, humiliation, and loss of enjoymenl oflife. 26. As a funher proximate result OFIhiS conduct, Plaimiffwas required to and did retain attomcys and is therefore entitled to an award ofattomcy’s fees and costs according to proof. . 5 - Kati: v_ H'bl-mnrl Asmciurcx, I‘m: cl ul. Sanln Clam County Superior Cmm Case N0. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-2 Filed 08/10/18 Page 7 of 14 IQ b) M Ix.) P.) IQ Lo) 24 25 26 27 28 oxoroowoxma. 27. Thc afbrcmcntioned conduct constitutes oppression, fraud, and malice thereby cntitling Plaintiffto an award ofpunitch damages, Plaintiffs are Further informed and believe, and thereon allege that this advance knowledge, 0r acts ofoppression, fraud, or malice or act of ratification or authorization were on Ihe part of lhe owners or other managing agents acting on behalfofthe Employer Defendants. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Retaliation in Violation: ofthe FEHA Cal. Gov. Code § 1294001) & 2 Cal. Code. Regs. § 7287.8 28. Plaintiffre-aileges and incorporates by reference all ofthe above paragraphs as if they were set forth here in Full. 29. Plaintiff formally complained to Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of Defendant’s unlawful employment practices by (l) questioning and complaining about unequal pay and (2) questioning and complaining about lhe disparate trealmenl beuveen her, zmd her non- African American male colleagues. 30. Prior to that, Defendant’s supewisor(s) suspected that Plaintiffhad already complained, as evidenced by Defendant’s conversnlions with Plaimiffin which Defendant’s supervisor aclively attempted lo coerce Plaimiffwith monetary and professional rewards for revealing the identify ofwhoever was complaining, with the clear intent ofhclping Defendant‘s supewisor suppress these complaints. 31. Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff because ol‘hcr complaints by demoting her from her role as a lead on all ofhm' projects, despite her exemplary performance to date. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff found the workplace so intolerable that she resigned. 32. As a result ot‘thc aforementioned action, Plaintiffsuffcred harm and Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein was a substantial factor in causing this harm. 33. As a dirccl 21nd pmxinwtc result of lhc vioiulion ofhcr rights under thc FEHA, Plaintiffhas suffered and/or continues m suffer past and future pecuniary losses‘ emotional .(,. Kuc-ll v. Wnl-nmrl Aswuiures, luv. cl (2A Sama Clara Count)" Superior Cour! Case N0. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-2 Filed 08/10/18 Page 8 of 14 la.) 26 27 28 distress, loss oFselF-cstccm, grief, stress, anxiety, stigma, loss ofher career; loss oft‘uture caming capacity, humiliation, and loss ofcnjoymcm of life. 34. As a further proximate result ol' [his conduct, Plaintiff‘was required 1b and did retain attorneys and is therefore enlilled lo an award ofaltomey’s Fees and costs according lo proof. 35. The aforementioned conduct constitutes oppression, fraud, and malice thereby entitling Plaintiffto an award ofpunitive damages. Plainliffs are filrlher informed and believe, and thereon allege that this advance knowledge, or acts ofoppression, fraud, or malice or act of ratification or authorization were on the pan of‘thc owners or othcr managing agents acting on behalfof the Employer Defendants. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Prevent Discrimination or Retaliation: (Cal. Gnv’t. Code 1294000) 36, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference. all oflhc above paragraphs as if they were set forth here in full. 37. Plaintiffwas subjected lo discfimination and imerference ofher FEHA rights because she is a female African American and she had complained ofzmd/or perceived lo be complaining ofunlawful employment activities ofthe Defendant. 38. Defendant failed to take rcasonablc steps lo prevent discrimination and/or retaliation, and [his failure was a substanlial f‘uclor in causing Plaintiffharm, 39. As a direct and proximate result oFthc vioiatiou of'her rights under thc FEHA, Plaimiffhas suffered and/or continues t0 suffer pus! and future pecuniary losses, emotional distress, loss ofself-esleem, grief, stress, anxiety, stigma: loss ofher career, loss offiuure earning capacity, humiliation, and loss ofenjoymem oflife. 40. As a further proximate result uf'lhis cunduct, Plaintiffwas required m and did retain attomcys and is therefore emiilcd Io an award ufattomcy’s fees and costs according to proof. .7. Kath v. H'hl-nmri Asu'ouiulcx, hm e1 m’. Smua Clam County Superior Caurl Case No.COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-2 Filed 08/10/18 Page 9 of 14 La) OOOONJOXU’IJL M Id I‘J I 4]. The aforementioned conduct constitutes oppression, fréud, and malice thereby entitling Plaintiffto an award ofpunitivc damages. Plaintiffs arc timber informed and believe, and thereon allege that this advance knowledge, or acts of'nppression, fraud, or malice or act 0f raxification or authorizalion were on Ihe part ofthe ownexs or other managing agents acting on behalfofthe Employer Defendants. FOURTH CAUSE 0F ACTION Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy 42.‘ Pkaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all oflhc above paragraphs as if they were set forth here in Full. 43. P3aimiffwas subjected 10 knowing and intentional discrimination based on her gender and/or hcr race. When Piaimiffcomplaincd, she was demoted from her role as a lead on all ofher projects. 44. The aforementioned conduct violates fundamental public policies ofthe California FairEmploymcnt and Housing Act, Cal Gov’t Code § 12940 e1 seq. 45. Defendant’s viotmions ol‘CaliI‘omia public policy created a workplace [hat was so intolerable that Plaintiffhad no reasonable aliemative other than lo resign, and Plaimiffdid resign because of Defendant’s violations. 46‘ As a direct and proximate result ofthe violation ofher rights under the FEHA, Plainlifl‘has suffered and/oz' continues lo suffer past and future chuniary losses, emotional distrcss, loss ofsch-csrccm, grief. stress. anxiety‘ stigma, loss ofhcr career, loss of future earning capacity, humiliation, and loss ofcnjnymcnt ot‘lifc. 47. As a further proximate result oflhis conduct, Plaintiff was required to and did retain attorneys and is therefore entitled Io an award ofauomey’s fees and costs according to proof. 48. The atbrcmcmioncd uonducx cunstimtcs oppression, fraud, 21nd malice thereby enlilling Plaimifflo an award ofpum'u've damages. Pluinliff‘s are f'urlher informed and believe, and thereon allege that this advancc knowledgcg or acts ofoppression, fraud, or malice or act of .3. Kw-II v. H'hLmurI Axxm'iulm‘. [ma cl ul. Snnm Clam Counly Superior Court Case No, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-2 Filed 08/10/18 Page 10 of 14 N l'.) I‘J IQ b.) 24 25 26 27 28 ratification or authorization were on thc part of the owners or other managing agents acting 0n bchalfofthc Employer Defendants. FIFTH CAUSE 0F ACTION Denial of Equal Pay (Cal. Lab. Code §§ ,1 197.5) 49. Plainliff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all oflhe above paragraphs as it" they were sct forth here in full. 50. At all relevant times during Plaintiff‘s employment with Defendant, there was a pay disparity between Plaintiff and Defendant’s malc employees. 5 l. The difference between Plaintiff‘s pay and said Defendant’s male employees’ pay was only because ofPIaimift‘s female gender and/or her race, not because of‘a bona fidc factor other than sex and/or race. 52. As a direct and proximate result oflhe violation of her rights under the Equal Pay Acl, Plaintiff has suffered and/or continues l0 suf‘fer past and future pecuniary losses, emolional distress, loss ofseIF-esteem, grief, stress, anxiety, stigma, loss ofher career, loss of future caming capacity, humiliation, and loss ufcnjoymcm oflife. 53. As a further proximate resull ofthis conduct, Plaintiffwas required m and did retain attorneys and is therefore emitted to an award ofallomey’s fees and costs according Io proof. S4, The albremenlioned conduct constilules oppression, Fraud, zmd malice [hereby emitling PlaintifTIo an award ofpunitive damages. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe, and thereon allege (hm this advance knowledge. or acts ot‘oppression. fraud. or malice or act 0F ratification or authorization were on the pan ot'thc owners 0r other managing agents acting 0n behalroflhe Employer Defendants. /// /// /// . g . Km-h v. HQVI-nmrrAssack'nuv. Inc. cl ul‘ Snnla Clam Cmmty Superior Cour! Case No. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-2 Filed 08/10/18 Page 11 of 14 Ix) b) O‘OOONmk/un SIXTH CAUSE 0F ACTION Retaliation and Discrimination in Violation ofthc Equal Pay Act (Cal. Lab. Code §§ J l97.5(k)) 55, PIainliffrc-allegcs and incorporates by reference all ofthc above paragraphs as if they were set forth here in full. 56. Plaintiff fonmally complained to Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of Defendant’s unkawfu] employment practices by questioning and compkaining about unequal pay. Plaimiffintended to invoke thc protections 21nd (2) questioning and complaining about the disparate treatment between her, and hcr non-African American male colleagucsl 57. Defendant was aware ofP‘ainliff's complaints about its unlawful employment practices as early as March 2018. Prior lo that, Defendant’s supervisor(s) suspected that Plaintiff had already complained, as evidenced by Defendant’s conversations with Piaimifl‘in which Defendant's supervisor actively attempted m coerce Plaintiff‘with monetary and professional rewards for revealing the identify ofwhocvcr was complaining, with the clear intent of'hclping Defendant’s supervisor suppress these complaints. 58. Defendant retaliated against Plaintifi'because ofher complaints by dcmoting her from her role as a {cad on all ofher projecxs, deSpite her exemplary performance to date. As a result ofDefcndanl’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff found the workplace so intolerablé that she resigned. 59. As a direct and proximate result ofthe violation of her rights under the Equal Pay Act, Plaintiffhas suffered and/or continues to suffer past and Future pecuniary losses, emotional distress, loss ofselflcszecm, grief, stress, anxiety, stigma, loss ofhcr career, loss 0f fuzurc earning capacity, humiliation, and loss ofcnjoymcnt oflifc. 604 As a further prOXimalc result ot‘this conduct. Plaimifl‘was required to and did rcmin attomeys and is thcrcforu entitled [o :m award ofatmrncy’s fees. and costs according m proof. 6|. The aforememioned conduCI consmmes oppression, fraud: and malice thereby entitling Plaintif‘ho an award ofpunitivc damages. Plaintiffs arc Further informed and believe‘ _ lo . Koch v. H'hl-mm-t A.9.s-m-ium\: Im'. cl ul. Sanm Clam Cnumy Superior Cour! Case No. COMPLAINT FOR DA MAGES Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-2 Filed 08/10/18 Page 12 of 14 h.) y... IQ r.) IQ L.) 24 25 26 27 28 and thereon allege that this advance knowledge, or acts ot‘oppressiom fraud, or malice or act of ratification or authorization were on the pan of thc owners or other managing agents actingpn behalf‘ofthe Employer Defendants. +5" UI 5090.99 RELI EF REQUESTED WH'EREFORE; Plaintiff respectfully requests that this court: That the court detcnninc that the Defendants’ actions as alleged violated (he FEHA; For injunctive l'eliefrequiring Defendants to conduct training for all employees, supervisors, and management on (he requirements of the FEHA, the rights and remedies of’lhosc who allege a violation ofthc FEHA, and to permanently prohibit Defendants fmm engaging in any future discriminatory or retaliatony acts against Defendants’ employees; Award ofall past and future lost wages; Award ofdamages for pain and suffering; Award ofdisgorgement ofult wages wilhheld; Award ofstatutory and civil penalties: Award of reasonable attomeys’ Fees and costs; Award ofprejudgment interest; Award ofpunitive damages; and For such other and funhcr relief as (he Coufi deems proper.W Plaintiffclcmands trial byjury ofull claims and causes ofaction so Iriable. .m. Koch v. H'M-nmrl Axmciu/us, lm'. c: ul. Santa Chm Counly Supericr Court Case N0. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-2 Filed 08/10/18 Page 13 of 14 b.) OWMMO\U\-& Dated: July “Q. 2018 Respectfully submitted, Quintana H'ariafi, LLP By: M Ramsé'y Hanafi Attorneyfor Plat‘nufl Tifline Koch .11. ’uc/I v. H'hI-mm-I Axmwiulux. luv. ct ul. Santa Clam Counly Superior Courl Case No. COM PLAINT FOR DAMAG ES Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-2 Filed 08/10/18 Page 14 of 14 ' . CM-D1C ATTORNEY OR PAR M O EY (Name. Stare Bar number, and muss): Pm COURTUSE DHLY”Ramsey Hangi, fififg’. 15 Ouinlana Flunnfi, LLP 87D Markel SL. Suilc I l I5 _ _San Francisco, CA 94102 Electronically Filed TELEPHMENO; 415) 504-3 121 name; 415 233-8770 ‘.mmomm mmmiffine Koch ( ) by Superior Court Ior CA, supsnloncoum o; CALIFORNIAAOUNWOF Santa Clara County of Santa C ara, smmmass: |91 N‘ Fimt SL on 7/11/2018 11:20 AM mmoaoonsss; S J 951 13 Reviewed By: E. FarigCTWANDZP OWE: an OSC magma Downtown Superior Court casel#18_CY7313:2223 CASE NAME: Em’e Ope- Koch v. Wal-mart Associates, Inc. e! al. CW“- CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation MENWR: ,Unlimited D Limited ‘ ‘ 18CV331321 (Amount (Amoum D Counter a Jomder ’ . r N062demanded demanded i5 Filed wuh first appearance by defendant exceeds 525,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Ruies of Court. rule 3.402) DEPT: Items 1-5 below mus! be compleled (see r'nsmlct/ons on page 2). 1. Check one box below for the wse type (hat best dasm'bes this mse: Auto Tort CcnIract Pwvlsfonalry Complex Civfl Litigationa Auto (22) a Bream or conlmwwammy {05) (Cal. Ruins of Court. rules 3.400-.Moa) Uninsured morons: (46) D Rule 3.740 cauealons (09) [:3 Antitrustmaae regulation (03) Other PUPDIWD(PorsonaI InjurylPropady [:3 Olhereorrecu'ons (09) D Consuucllon dated (10) DamageIWrongful Death) Ton insurance wvmage (18) D Mass [on (40) Asbestos (04) D owe; comma (37) D Securities Iiflgalion (26) 9‘05““ “ability (2") Roal Prepare}: D Environmentaln’nxic lort (30) Medic“ malpracme (“5’ D Emma!“ dDmHW'nVBFSS D Insurance coverage claims an‘slng [mm meD Oiher PVPD/WD (23) condemnation (14) above listed pmvislonauy complex case Non-pnpmwn (0mm) Tort D Wrongful eviction (33) types (41) BusineSS tort/unfarr business practice (07) D D'he' '33] “mew (25) Enmm’mam of Jwgmo‘“D cam dgms (03) Unsawhn Dewmer C3 Enfamemem orludgmenl (20) E] Defamallon (13) Commemal (31) Miscellaneous Clvll Complaint {:3 Fraud (16) D Residential (32) D meow)[j Imelledual property (19) D DmQS (38) D Other complaint (notspacified above) (42) [:3 meessicna' "39"99nee (25) Jua'c‘a' “9‘“9‘” Miscolxaneous Civil Paziuan 01M! ROO'PUPD’WD Ion (35) D Asse‘ mdei‘u’e (05) [:3 Pannexship and corporate gavemanoe (21)Eflmymom C: Peziuon m: arbitration award (H) D Other Damian (no! specified above} (43)Wrongful :annlnan'on (36) D wm o: mandate (02) 01her employmenl (15} m Olherjudldal review (39) 2. This case Ll is [E is not complex under rule 3.400 o! me California Rules of Court. If the case is wmplex, mark me factors requiring excemicnal Judicial management: Large number o! separately represented parties d‘ D Large number of witnessesa. b. D Exlensive motion practice mising difficult or novel e. D Coordination with related actions pending in one ct more courts issues mat will be dmeconsuming lo resolve in other counties. stems. or countries, or in a fedeml court c. D Substantial amountof documentan/ evidence f. [j Substantial postjudgmentjudicial supervision Remedies sought (check all that apply): a.- monetary b- nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief C‘ mpunlfive Number oi causes of action (specily): This case E] 1’s is nol a class action suit. If mere are any known {elated cases. file and serve a notice or related case. (You may use fonm CM-OIS.) cage.- 7/9/20 I 8 WRamsey Hanafi ) \TYVE OR PREV? MAME) (SIGNATURE 0F PARTY 0R ATTORNEY FOR 9AM?) NOTIC E - Plaintiff must me this cover sheet with the firsx paper filed 5n me action or proceeding (except smal! daims cases or cases filed under lhe Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code}. (CaL Rutes of Conn. rule 3.220.) Failure Io file may result in sanctions. ' File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by iocal court rule. - I! this case is complex under mle 3.400 e: seq. of the California Rules of Court. you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other games to Ihe action or proceeding. . Untess mis is a collections case under (ule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover shee! will be used for statistical purposes on! . agn \ al Fumaooaaclue Mammary um cu HuuaNCaur‘. Mes 2.30. 1m, 3m: 403. a ho,mini Cmru otcmflmva CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Col Smmsorwmwmmm.m 5 106:50:01?!” M 17.007) wmu mummwgov 979‘?!» Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/18 Page 1 of 8 OOQOUIAWN \0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD szLxggnmsom Arrowsvs AT Lmv Los Annuns Stefan H. Black, BarNo‘ 284499 sblack@fordhanison.com Shanda Y. Lowe, Bar No. 278602 slowe@fordhanison.com FORD & HARRISON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (21 3) 237-2400 Facsimile: (213) 237-2401 Attorneys for Defendant WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA TIFFINE KOCH, an individual, CASE NO. 18CV331321 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S V. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. and Complaint Filed: July 11, 2018 DOES 1-5 0, Defendants . Defendant Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”) answers the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Tiffine Koch (“Plaintiff”) as follows: GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30(d), Wal-Mart denies, both generally and specifically, each and every allegation, matter or fact contained in Plaintiff‘s Complaint. Wal-Mart also denies that Plaintiff has been injured or damaged in any sum whatsoever or is entitled to any relief from Wal-Mart. /// /// /// WSACTIVELLP:9938964.1 '1- /CA$E NO. 1SCV331 321 WAL~MART ASSOCIATES, |NC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES DOCUMENT PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER EXHIBIT B Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/18 Page 2 of 8 KDOONQUI-b 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD 8: HARRISON LLP Aflokufiys A7 LAN L05 ANCELES AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Claim) Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to state any cause 0f action against Wal-Mafl. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Equitable Defenses) Plaintiff‘s claims are baned by the equitable defenses 0f waiver, estoppel, laches, and unclean hands. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute ofLimilations) Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations, including without limitation Code of Civil Procedure sections 335.1, 338, 339, and 343, and Government Code sections 12960(d) and 12965(b). FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Vicarious Liability) Without admitting that it engaged in any of the acts or conduct alleged in the Complaint and assuming arguendo that someone acted to cause Plaintiff harm, said actions were without the knowledge, consent, authorization and/or ratification of WaI-Mart. Wal-Mart asserts that it is not liable for the actions of its employees which were outside of their authority and outside the course and scope 0f their employment duties and responsibilities. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack QfCausation) Wal-Mart did not, by its actions or omissions, proximately cause Plaintiff to suffer any damages. /// /// /// WSACTIVELLP1993 8964.1 - 2 ~ ICASE No. 1BCV331 321 WAL-MART ASSOCIATES‘ INC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES DOCUMENT PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/18 Page 3 of 8 KOOOQQMQUJNH MMNMNNMN wmmLmNHOCSQZESECSZS 28 Form K: HARRISON LLP Mroxnars M LAw Los AchLxs SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to [Mitigate /Avoidable Consequences Doctrine) Plaintiffs claims and damages arc barred in whole 0r in part by her failure to take reasonable and necessary steps to avoid the harm and/or consequences that she allegedly suffered. Any recovery by Plaintiff against Wal-Man should be cut-off or reduced to the extent that Plaintiff’s conduct caused any 0f her alleged damages, or Plaintiff failed to mitigate, minimize, or avoid any ofher alleged damages. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure 2‘0 Exhaust Administrative Remedies) Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in palt because she failed t0 exhaust her administrative remedies. Plaintiff‘s claims fail to the extent they were not properly alleged or within the scope of a timely-filed charge with the California Depaflment of Fair Employment and Housing and/or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Reasonable Investigation) At a1] times, Wal-Mart acted in good faith, conducted a prompt and thorough investigation ofPlaintiff’s complaints, and responded appropriately under the circumstances. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (FEHA Defenses) Wal-Mart asserts all defenses available to it under the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code Section 12940, ez seq. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Legitimate Business Justification) WaI-Mart had an honest, good-faith belief that all decisions with respect to Plaintiff’s employment were made solely for legitimate, business reasons and were reasonably based upon the facts as Wal-Mart understood them. /// WSACTIVELLP;9938964.1 - 3 - [CASE NO. 18CV331 321 WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, |NC.‘S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES DOCUMENT PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/18 Page 4 of 8 \OOOQQUI-bwwu Hp-‘HHH #WNHQ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD 8c HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS A‘r LAW Los A "claws ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Frivolous Action) Wal-Mart has retained attorneys in defense of Plaintiffs fiivolous, unfounded and unreasonable action and is therefore entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to Government Code § 12965 upon judgment therein in its favor. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Same Decision) Wal-Mart denies that it was motivated by any unlawful animus when it took any actions with regard to Plaintiff: Wal~Mart asserts, however, that it would have made the same decision(s) irrespective of any alleged unlawful motive, which unlawful motive Wal-Mart denies. THIRTEEN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (N0 Intolerable Working Conditions) Wal-Mart denies that Plaintiff was subject to such intolerable working conditions that she had no choice but to resign from her employment. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Exercise ofReasonable Care) Wal-Mart exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any workplace discrimination, retaliation, or harassment and Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventative or corrective measures. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Protected Activity) Wal-Mart asserts that Plaintiff did not engage in protected activity Within the meaning of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California’s Fair Pay Act, or any other federal or state law. / / / / // // / WSACTIVELLP9933964J - 4 - ICASE NO. 18CV331321 WAL-MART ASSOCIATES. INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES DOCUMENT PRINTED 0N RECYCLED PAPER Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/18 Page 5 of 8 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD $2 HARRISON LLP ArronNavs A'r Law Los ANGIELEs SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (WaZ-Marr Did Not Discriminate 0r Retaliate Against PZaz’m‘z'fi’Because ofHer Race 0r Gender) Without admitting that it engaged in any of the acts or conduct attributed to it in the Complaint, Wal-Mafl asserts that it did not discriminate against, harass, or retaliate against Plaintiff because of her gender or race. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (N0 Violation ofFair Pay Act) Wal-Mart denies that it paid Plaintiff a wage rate less than the rates paid t0 employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions. To the extent any pay disparity exists, however, it is based upon one or more 0f the following factors: (A) a merit system; and/or (B) a bona fide factor other than sex, race or ethnicity, including but not limited to the quality and quantity of work performed and department-specific subject matter expefiise and experience. Wal-Mafi asserts that these bona fide factors other than sex, race or ethnicity arc not based on or derived from a sex-based, race-based, or ethnicity-based differential in compensation, are job related with respect to the position in question, and are consistent with a business necessity. These factor(s) were applied reasonably and account for the entire wage differential (if any such differential exists, which WaI-Mart denies). EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (N0 Compensatory Damages) Plaintiff failed to state facts sufficient to support an award of compensatory damages against Wal-Mart. Furthermore, Plaintiffs alleged damages are too vague, uncertain, and speculative to permit recovery. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Punitive, Treble, or Exemplary Damages) Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support an award of punitive, treble, or WSACTIVELLpz9938964J - 5 - ICASE NO. 18CV331321 WAL-MART ASSOCIATES. |NC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES DOCUMENT PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/18 Page 6 of 8 \OOOQQ 1o 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Form £2 HARRISON LLP ATTORNEY: Ar Law Los ANc 5L2: exemplary damages against Wal-Mart. In addition, any award of pun‘itive damages, treble damages, or exemplary damages in this case would Violate the due process, equal protection and excessive fines provisions of United States Constitutions. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Emotional Distress Damages) Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support an award of emotional distress damages against Wal-Man. Furthermore, Wal-Mart did not have any knowledge of any peculiar susceptibility of Plaintiff to damage or injury from emotional distress. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (N0 Fraud/Malice/Oppression) Wal-Mart asserts that it acted in good faith, and has reasonable grounds for believing its actions did not Violate California or federal law. Wal-‘VIart also asserts that it acted without fraud, oppression or malice against Plaintiff 0r her rights, and it believed it was acting under a legal right and did no more than insist upon these legal rights in a permissible way. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Attorneys ’ Fees) Wal-Mafl has retained the undersigned counsel, and has agreed t0 pay its reasonable fees for its services. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, 42 U.S.C. § 12205, and any Other applicable federal statute 0r law, Wal~Mart is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS WaI-Mart reserves the right to amend or add any additional defenses 0r counterclaims which may become known during the course of discovery. WHEREFORE, Defendant Wal-Mart prays for judgment as follows: 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by virtue 0f her Complaint, and that the Complaint be dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice; 2. That judgment be entered in favor 0f Wal-Mart and against Plaintiff; WSACTIVELLP19938964J - 6 - ICASE NO, 18CV331 321 WAL-MART ASSOCIATES. INC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES DOCUMENT PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/18 Page 7 of 8 N \OOOQQU‘IAL» 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD 82 HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS A? LAW Los ANCELEs 3. That Wal-Mart be awarded its respective attorneys’ fees and costs of suit herein; 4. That Wal-Mart be awarded such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: August 10, 2018 Respectful] sub 'tted, WSACTIVELLP:9938964.1 - 7 - ICASE NO. 1SCV331 321 WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, |NC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES DOCUMENT PRlNTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/18 Page 8 of 8 OONQUIA \0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD 6: HARRISON LLP A'H’ORNEVS AT LAW Los AucELr-zs PROOF OF SERVICE I, ALMA COLLINS, declare: Iam employed in Los Angeles County, California I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business address is 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300, Los Angeles, California 9007 1. On August 10, 2018, I served a copy 0f the within document(s): DEFENDANT WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES D By transmitting Via facsimile the document(s) listed above t0 the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 pm, D By placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California addressed as set forth below. 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 day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid ifpostal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a Federal Express agent for delivery. D by personally delivering the document(s) listed above t0 the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. Ramsey Hanafi Attorneys for Plaintiff Quintana Hanafi, LLP TIFFI'NE KOCH 870 Market Street, Suite 1115 San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: (415) 504-3121 Fax: (415) 233-8770 info@thlaw.com I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on August 10, 2018, at Los Angeles, California. \Mm Mum ALMA COLLINS WSACTIVELLPz993 8964.! [CASE NO. 18CV331 321 PROO 0F SERVICE DOCUMENT PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-4 Filed 08/10/18 Page 1 of 4 1'8-601538 Secretary of State 3[.550 Statement of Information (California Stuck, Agricultural Cooperative and Foreign Corporations) 150 HLED , Q Secretary or Slate[MPDRTANr- Read Instructions before completing nus 1mm. g Slate orgamamga Fees (Flllng plus Dlsc!osura)- $25.00; JAN U H 2018 Gapy Fuss - Flrst pegs 5100; each enactment page 50.50; Cenmmflon Fee ~ $5.00 plus copy lees 1c: u N (2m: ah. u Ia hh 32'90 ‘15 CC . brpcrl 611 emu r he 2x”: mm: t upon an u wdxdwn l I Caiform‘: . ‘Sweltry alsmn. Non: varaglmrad lnCJIYomh udna In ulumed humane insuuellnnu 77115 SP555 mom“ U39 0”,." Walman Inc. 1 7-Dlgltsacromry n! State Fun Numb" CL 634374 3. Eutlnlss Mdreixal fismnlawmn 01 Pnnfipll Emnunvl 0mm - Du Mull! I P.0‘ Bax cizylm :bmwom) Sun 2p Cod- 702 SW 8th Strut Bcntonville AR 727L6 b. Malina Mam: o'cwmwan, II duhmm nun mm 8‘ ally (m nhhm'lulhm) am le man n. Elmleuz MPmdnal Cumin“ Olfani [w In! Kdflflm than Mama: .Damn'ul 39.0. Bax CW (n0 Ihbrwluiana) 3m- zip Cod. CA ‘ emu” Tho Carpenfinn ls Mqufmd lo I‘m: all Dvav OHM dificoa “thrill Mb», An nddfllcnal Im- rorlh- Mal Exowflv- Dilbax Ind Chic!' Hnamlnlomcnr mny bu add: dztmlaver. lhl momma line: on m}: [arm mm ml M awed. n. chm Exncuuua Omen" F931 Nana mm: Mum Lamar?» Eulfl-c ”m C___ Douglas ' ‘McMallnn Adam” ' cuy (nu namwmml stun 21p Coda " ' 702 SW 8th Siren! Bcntcuvillc 727M b. Svauury Flm Nam Nlfldm Mama Lin Numi Em‘x Jeffrey | . Genrhm I dams: cm (rouwmnom) sun 2190M:7‘62 sw m sum Bcnlonviuc AR 72m c. cnmnmnch} omcul Fm mm mm: Hm Lnngam 5qu M. Bron Biggs Mama cuy (mugmrww) sm- ZIp enk- 702 SW 8th Street Ecnmnvxllc AR 727 16 5 thm‘s) Cdlhwnlu Slack and Agn‘cll‘ml coopuvfive Co'pomu‘unu ONLY: llnm Ea: Al Inc: aw nm-nn made mu“ bu Mud. h’ um' Corpumbn 1w: additional dhdm. lulu: me mmcmam Bodrusls cn Farm 5l-550A Ha: lnsuunlms). n. Hm Nlmn mm. mm mu Nam I Suva Adding “N _~ "m M cuy (n: .hbmmlam) ‘ Stu: I 21p coda b. Nmbu oIVsnandn: on mu BaumleroaunJrunv I 6. Sarvlu c! Proms: (Mual provide zllher lruividua! 0R Carpumlbm) INDNIDUAL- Cumulala ham: Bx and Eh unty, Musl lndud. aalnl'; lull mum Galilean nus! mama. n. eslrumlufimi'n Hm um. dlaami. .etawrpcunan} Wagamm LnnNam- sulfa: b. 51ml Was: (il-aunlhmu mumbn} - Du net mm: no.3” cxy (cw wbccV'ub-s) 61m 21p Coin CA conPDfu‘flou-Ccmplul- IL-m scanty. Onry Include tho namv elm rog‘ukmd ngtnlCorpayauon. a Cummla Rmmqmd Comma! Again Nina (Lr mam {s I wmlonl -Du no) mplula [Lam 3a c! sh . CTCorporatmn Syxtcm Ccp/ kg L/o g 5 7. Type urBusInmss Dumb} I'nuyp- wfnuwm upcxvlu: a! ma cwpomlnn Relaxl and onlin: sumac a. Th2 lnfomallon eunialned herein, lndudlnq In any anachmnms. ls lrue and mmct. “mom Cara! J. Haggard Asst. Secrcury Type urFrInmamo EPmnComphmmt-‘mm “fine 3mm «mom 11/ 2m? Cation?! Ssvclary olsale \ wmscsuomlbuslnesflba EXHIBIT C Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-4 Filed 08/10/18 Page 2 of 4 175440353X Additional Officers: Cindy Moehring - Senior Vice President Matthew Allen -~ Vic: President and Assistant Treasurer An drea Lazenby ~ Assistant Secretary *"‘* Adfircgg 1m all: 702 SW 8“ Strcc‘, Bcntunville, AR 72716 Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-4 Filed 08/10/18 Page 3 of 4 91080657 9 Secretary of State A393 Amended Statement by Foreign Corporation (Name Change ONLY) FILEDIMPORTANT -- Read Instructions before numplatlng this form. sear633W of StateAdditional Requirements: - Stage Of Cé’imeb Gv Certificate Showing {he Name Change: (f (he legal name of ‘ lha foreign mmoraflon has changed in the skate. foreign DEC 1 k 2m?country or place of formation. (his form must be submitted with a cuvrent cerflflcaie Issued by ma govemment agency where lhe foreign corporation was tanned matcemflesthe change o! name and includes both the old and newcomorala name. (CaiiroEné: Corporations Code sgcuon 2107.) Note: A carfified cop o B name c anga amen mentdoes notmeetCallromia slattfitary requirem ants. EFgEACT'EIIVE . Certificate of Name Approval (Insurers ONLY): Irma foralgn corporann is subject to the Insurance Code as an Insurer, thls FEB 1 2018 form also must be submitted wlth a CerUflcaie of Name W Approval Issued by the California Insurance Commissfoner. (Cafiromla Corporations Code section 2106.5.) Hung Fae -' $30.93 Copy Fees - First page SLOD; each anachmantpage $0.50; Certification Fae v 55.00 plus copy fees l 9L TM; 3pm F0, 0mm Us“ ow 1. Combrete Name (Enlenhe muck name nuns rumign mrpomxion as n 1: mcarded Mm mo Cunamia Swami bf 51mm) A Wal-Mnrt S(ares, Inc. (Enter Inc nnw mm: o! ma (urcign cotpamlion. Hole: ma ccnlficnlo {mm 1m guvarnmam agency whare In: 2. New Corporate Name comraunn was remand. usnokd {n lhu ‘Addmunai anulmmenh‘ nauflm Ibovn. is n03 ycnuhed Yuan! comma!» name has no! manned andyau nrs merely flung ml: farm lo dalaln or charm: a 'd’ulnu bushcss as‘ name.) Wulmnrz Inc. \ (Enlar mu stale, fulcign ouunuy or Iaoewhore ma ' 3, Jurisdlcflon zorpomlcnlsiunned- mustmutc majurtsdmran 4. 7-Dlglt Secretary of State File Number on [ha rwam: offlm Callfomis Sammy o! 51a!“ Dflmvam CI 6343M 5. Read and Sign Below (Sea Instrument Office or lille nul (mired. Do nu! use I compuler generated sianalfire.) lam a corporate officer and am authorized to slgn on behalf orthe foreign corporallon. M635u W639“ Gordon Y. Ainson UElunature Typa or Print Name panama 05mm 1017 mmmammofsmn mammwbusimsba EA am v blind," CTthMflpu Odin: Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-4 Filed 08/10/18 Page 4 of 4 M38065” Name change from Wal-Marl: Stores, Inc. to Walmart Inc. effective February 1, 2018 EXHIBIT D Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-5 Filed 08/10/18 Page 1 of 3 \OOOVON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD 3: HARRISON LLP ATTORNEVS AT LAW L05 ANCELES Stefan H. Black, Bar N0. 284499 sblack@fordharrison.com Shanda Y. Lowe, Bar No. 278602 slowe@f0rdharrison.com Ford & Harrison LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-237-2400 Facsimile: 213-237-2401 Attorne s for Defendant WAL- ART ASSOCIATES, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA TIFFINE KOCH, an individua1,, CASE NO. 18 CV 3 3 1 3 21 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, v. INC.’S NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF AND STATE COURT OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC, and ACTION DOES 1-50, Complaint Filed: July 11, 2018 Defendants. Trial: None Set TO THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND TO PLAINTIFF TIFFINE KOCH AND HER COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., without waiving any of its rights, removed the above-captioned case from this Coufl by filing a Notice of Removal with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District 0f California. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), "the State Court shall proceed no further unless the case is remanded." A copy of the Notice of Removal is attached. / / / / / / / / / WSACTIVELLP:9938982.1 ICASE NO. 17CV312689 NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF AND STATE COURT OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION DOCUMENT PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-5 Filed 08/10/18 Page 2 of 3 00%me \O 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD 5: HARRISON LL]? ATTORNEYS A1 Luv Los ANCELES Dated: August 10, 201 8 Respectfully submitted, FORD RRISON LLP By: -2- WSACTIVELLP:9938982.1 NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF AND STATE COURT OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION DOCUMENT PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTO RN EY S AT LA W LOS A NG EL ES WSACTIVELLP:9938968.1 -1- NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL 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 Stefan H. Black, Bar No. 284499 sblack@fordharrison.com Shanda Y. Lowe, Bar No. 278602 slowe@fordharrison.com FORD & HARRISON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-237-2400 Facsimile: 213-237-2401 Attorneys for Defendant WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TIFFINE KOCH, an individual, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., and DOES 1-50, Defendants. Case No. DEFENDANT WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.’S NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL Action Filed: July 11 2018 Date of Removal: August 13, 2018 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. filed a Notice of Removal of this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 and 1446, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Pursuant to U.S.C. § 1446(d), “the State Court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.” A copy of the Notice of Removal is attached. Dated: August 10, 2018 Respectfully submitted, FORD & HARRISON LLP By: /s/ Stefan H. Black Stefan H. Black Shanda Lowe Attorneys for Defendant WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. 3:18-cv-4866 Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-5 Filed 08/10/18 Page 3 of 3 Case 3:18-cv-04866 Document 1-6 Filed 08/10/18 Page 1 of 1 Js 44 (Rn. 06/17) The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the informatiun contained herein neither rc lace nor supgcmem the filin provided by local rules 0f court. This form, approved by the Judicial Con crcncc of Lhe CIVIL COVER SHEET purpose cfinitiating Lb: civil ducket sheet, {SEE INSTRUCTIONS ONNEX’TPAGE 0F THIS FORM) and service ofplcadiugs or other papcrs as required by law, except as nited States 'm eptember 1974, is reqmred for Lhe use of Lhe (Jerk ofCourl for the I. (a) PLAINTIFFS TIFFINE KOCH, an individual (b) County of Residence ofFiISt Listed Plaintiff {EXCEPTIN US PLAINTIFF CASES) (c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Quintana Hanafi, LLP 870 Market Street. Suits 1115, San Francisco, CA 94102 DEFENDANTS County Of Santa Clara County ofResidence of First Listed Defendant NOTE: THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. Attorneys {IfKnawn) FordHarrIson LLP Tel: (415) 504-3121 WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., and DOES 1-50 Pulaski, AR (IN us. PWIIFF CASE: ONLY) IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF Tel: (213) 237-2400 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA 90071 II. BASIS 0F JURISDICTION (Place 1m “X"m One Bax Only) D 1 U‘S. Government Plaintiff D 2 U.S. Government thcndnnt "l. CITIZENSHIP 0F PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Plate ml "X" m 07m Euxfur Plamnfl‘ (FurDiversiry Cases Only) and One Baxfar Defendanl) D 3 chcral Question PTF DEF FIT DEF (US Government Nola szy) Citizen ufThis Stale m 1 D l Incorporatzd 0r Principal Place D 4 D 4 nfBusiness In This Sm: E 4 Diversity Citizen ofAnolher State D 2 U 2 Incurponatzd and Principal Plan: D 5 K 5 (Tndz‘ca/e Citizenship ofParn'gx in 1mm 1H) ufBusincss In Another Stale Citizen or Suhjtct ofa D 3 D 3 Foreign Nation D 6 D 6 Forggn Countrv I (CONTRACT ’ r- IV NATURE 0F SUIT (Place an "X" in One Box Only) L TORT FORF'EITURE/PENAL r a BANKRUPTCY l l0 Insumncc 120 Marine 130 Miller Act 140 Negotiable Instrument 150 Recovcry owarpaymem & Enforcement ofJudgmem 151 Medicare Au 152 Recovery ofDefnulIed Studznl Loans (Excludes Veterans) 153 Racovcry ovaerpaymcm ofVelerun's Bancfits 160 Smckholders' Suits 190 Other Cunlracl 195 Comma Product Liability 196 Franchise DO DDDUU DDDD D PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY U 625 Drug Related Seizure D 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 D 3 10 Airplane D 365 Personal Injury - ofProperty 21 USC 881 D 423 Withdrawal D 3 15 Airplane Product Product Liability S 690 Other 23 USC 157 Liability D 367 Haallh Care/ D 320 Assauh, Libel & Pharmaceutical ' K 0 Y Slander Personal Injury D 820 Copyrights U 330 Federal Employers' Product Liabilily D 830 Patent Liability D 368 Asbestos Personal D 835 Patent -Abbraviated D 340 Marine D 345 Marina Product Liability Injury Product Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY New Drug Application D 840 Trademark ’S CI USECURITVA’ O O 7 l0 l“ 1r Labor StandardsD 350 Motor Vehicle D 370 Other Fraud D 861 HXA (1395f?) D 355 Molar Vehicle D 371 Tmth in Landing Acl D 862 Black Lung (923) Produm Liabxliry D 380 Omer Personal C) 720 Labor/Manngemem D 863 DlWC/DIWW (405(g)) D 360 Othcr Personal Property Damage Relations fl 864 SSID Title XVI D 385 Property Damage Product Liability D 740 Railway Labor Act D 751 Family and Medical Leave Act Injury a 865 RSI (405(g)) U 362 Pcrsonal Injury- Medical Malpractice D ZID Land Condemnation D 220 Foreclosure U 230 Rent Lease & chcmncn! D Z40 Tons Io Land D Z45 Ton Product Liability D 290 Al] Other Raul Prnperty CIVID'RIGHT PRISONERPETITIONS 'z D 790 Other Labor Litigation EDERALTAX'SUITS i“ D 440 Other Civil Rjghls Habeas Curpus: D 791 Employee Retirement Cl R70 Taxes (US, Plaintiff D 44! Voting D 463 Alien Denim: Income Security Act 0r Defendanl) a 442 Employment D 5 10 Motions lo Vacate D S71 IRS-Third Party D 443 Housing Accommodations D 445 Amer, w/Disabililics - Sentence 26 USC 7609 D 530 General D 535 Death Penalty _, IMMIGRATION , D 462 Naturalization ApplncuuonEmployment Other: fl 446 Amer, w/Disabilities - D 540 Mandamus & Othcr D 465 Other Immigration Other D 550 Civil Rights Actions D 448 Education D 555 Prison Cundition D 560 Civil Detainee » Conditions of Click here for: Nature fS it Code Descri lions Confinement D 375 False Claims Am D 376 Qui'ramm USC 3729(5)) D 400 Slate Rmpponionmem ‘ D 4|0Amitrus| D 430 Banks and Banking D 450 Cmnmeme D 460 Deponmion D 470 Racketeer Influenced and Corrup! Organizations D 480 Consumzr Crzdit D 490 Cablc’Sat TV D BSD Secun'lics/Commodities/ Exchange D 890 Other Statutory Actions D 891 Agriculluml ACE D 893 Envimnmenml Matters D 895 Freedom nflnfommtion Acl D 896 Arbitration D 899 Administrative Procedure Act/Revicw or Appeal of Agcncy Dccision D 950 Constitutionality of Slut: Slulutas V. ORIGIN (Place an “X" in One Box Duly) D 1 Original K2 Removed Bom D 3 Remanded from D 4 Reinstaled or D 5 Transferred fi-om D 6 Multidistrict D 8 Multidistricl Px‘occediug Slate Conn Appellate Court Reopcued Another Dismcg Litigation - Litigation - (specfl) Transfer Direct File VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Cit: the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Du nut cire/urixdiniunul stature: unlm diversity: 23 U.S.C. 55 1332L 1441 AND 1446 Briefdescriptiou of cause: Discrimination based on race/gender, retaliation, wrongful constructive termination, violation of equal pay act VII. REQUESTED IN III CI-HECK IF THIS Is A CLASS ACTION DEMAND s CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, FrR.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: CI ch CINo VIII. RELATED CASE(S) I ‘ IF ANY (Seemstruuumu): JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD 08/1 0/2018 ls/ Stefan H. Black FOR OFFICE USE ONLY RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG‘ JUDGE \OOOQO‘xkl‘I-P 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES PROOF OF SERVICE I, Alma Collins, declare: I am a citizen of the United States and employed in Los Angeles County, California. I am over the age 0f eighteen years and not a party t0 the within-entitled action. My business address is 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300, Los Angeles, California 90071. On August 13, 2018, I served a copy of the within document(s): DEFENDANT WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.’S NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF AND STATE COURT OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION ELECTRONICALLY: I caused a true and correct copy thereof t0 be electronically filed using the Court's Electronic Court Filing ("ECF") System and service was completed by electronic means by transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing on the registered participants 0f the ECF System. I served those parties Who are not registered participants of the ECF System as indicated below. El BY MAIL: I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business With the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope With postage fillly prepaid. BY OVERNIGHT MAIL: By placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill and causing the envelope t0 be delivered to a Federal Express agent for delivery. D Ramsey Hanafi Attorneys for Plaintiff Quintana Hanafi, LLP TIFFINE KOCH 870 Market Street, Suite 1115 San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: (415) 504-3121 Fax: (415) 233-8770 info@thlaw.com I declare under penalty of perj ury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on August 13, 201 8, at Los Angeles, California. i 5 fl f} ‘ Wag. af'gé-Mw Alma Collins WSACTIVELLP:9949812.I PROOF OF SERVICE