Removal to Federal Court

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.December 12, 2018

1 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE TO SUPERIOR COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL 54309724v.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 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Mark P. Grajski (SBN 178050) mgrajski@seyfarth.com Lindsay S. Fitch (SBN 238227) lfitch@seyfarth.com 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350 Sacramento, California 95814-4428 Telephone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 Attorneys for Defendant COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CAROLINA CARDENAS, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a corporation; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 18CV339833 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE TO SUPERIOR COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT Complaint Filed: December 12, 2018 TO THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, AND TO PLAINTIFF AND HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 14, 2019, Defendant COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION (“Costco”) filed a Notice of Removal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446 and 1331, 1332 in the office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 280 S. 1st Street, San Jose, California 95113. This matter now bears Case No. 5:19-cv-00818 VKD. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Removal is attached hereto and served herewith as Exhibit 1. / / / / / / Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 2/15/2019 2:32 PM Reviewed By: R. Tien Case #18CV339833 Envelope: 2520759 2 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE TO SUPERIOR COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL 54309724v.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 Please take further notice that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, the filing of the Notice of Removal with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California constitutes removal of this action and the Superior Court may proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded. DATED: February 15, 2019 Respectfully submitted, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP By: /s/ Lindsay S. Fitch Mark P. Grajski Lindsay S. Fitch Attorneys for Defendant COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION EXHIBIT 1 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 54308723v.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 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Mark P. Grajski (SBN 178050) mgrajski@seyfarth.com Lindsay S. Fitch (SBN 238227) lfitch@seyfarth.com 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350 Sacramento, California 95814-4428 Telephone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 Attorneys for Defendant COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CAROLINA CARDENAS, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a corporation; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. DEFENDANT COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT Complaint Filed: December 12, 2018 Case 5:19-cv-00818 Document 1 Filed 02/14/19 Page 1 of 18 i DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 54308723v.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 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. PROCEDURAL POSTURE ........................................................................................................... 1 II. TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL ...................................................................................................... 1 III. FEDERAL QUESTION.................................................................................................................. 2 B. Plaintiff’s Retaliation And Wrongful Termination In Violation Of Public Policy Claims Are Preempted Because Their Resolution Requires CBA Interpretation............... 4 C. Supplemental jurisdiction ................................................................................................... 5 IV. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION ....................................................................................................... 5 V. AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY ................................................................................................... 7 VI. VENUE ......................................................................................................................................... 11 VII. NOTICE OF REMOVAL ON STATE COURT .......................................................................... 11 Case 5:19-cv-00818 Document 1 Filed 02/14/19 Page 2 of 18 ii DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 54308723v.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 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Federal Cases Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202 (1985) ...............................................................................................................................3 Armstrong v. Church of Scientology Int’l, 243 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................................6 Conrad Assoc.’s v. Hartford Accident & Ind. Co., 994 F. Supp. 1196, 1198 (N.D. Cal. 1998) ......................................................................................................................................................8 Cook v. Lindsay Olive Growers, 911 F.2d 233 (9th Cir. 1990) .................................................................................................................5 Davenport v. Mut. Benefit Health & Accident Ass’n, 325 F.2d 785 (9th Cir. 1963) ...........................................................................................................8, 11 Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 557 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2009) ...............................................................................................................6 Evangelista v. Inlandboatmen’s Union of Pac., 777 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir. 1985) ...............................................................................................................2 Fristoe v. Reynolds Metals Co., 615 F.2d 1209 (9th Cir. 1980) ...............................................................................................................7 Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1998) ...............................................................................................................8 Greenly v. Sara Lee Corp., 2008 WL 192925230, at *21 (E.D. Cal. 2008) ......................................................................................3 The Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010) .................................................................................................................................7 Hollinquest v. St. Francis Med. Ctr., 872 F. Supp. 723 (C.D. Cal. 1994) ........................................................................................................2 Hyles v. Mensing, 849 F.2d 1213 (9th Cir. 1988) ...............................................................................................................3 Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142, AFL-CIO v. Foodland Super Mkt. Ltd., No. 04-00035-AG-LEK, 2004 WL 1554478 (D. Haw. Apr. 30, 2004) .................................................2 Jackson v. S. Cal. Gas Co., 881 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1989) .................................................................................................................2 Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................................6 Case 5:19-cv-00818 Document 1 Filed 02/14/19 Page 3 of 18 iii DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 54308723v.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 Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1983) ...............................................................................................................6 Kirton v. Summit Med. Ctr., 982 F. Supp. 1381 (N.D. Cal. 1997) ......................................................................................................4 Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................................9 Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1986) .................................................................................................................6 Local Union 598 v. J.A. Jones Const. Co., 846 F.2d 1213 (9th Cir. 1988) ...............................................................................................................2 Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F. 3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2003) ..............................................................................................................8 Metropolitan Life, Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (1987) .................................................................................................................................3 Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 119 S. Ct. 1322 (1999) ...........................................................................................................................1 Newberry v. Pac. Racing Assoc., 854 F.2d 1142 (9th Cir. 1988) ...............................................................................................................3 Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Serv. LLC, 728 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................................8 Rosales v. Career Sys. Devel. Corp., E.D. Cal., Case No. 08CV01383 (WBS) (August 20, 2010) .................................................................9 Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins., 102 F.3d 398 (9th Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................................7 Simmons v. PCR Tech., 209 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2002) .................................................................................................9 Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................................7 Stallcop v. Kaiser Found. Hospitals, 820 F.2d 1044 (9th Cir. 1987) ...............................................................................................................5 Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 133 S.Ct. 1345 (2013) ............................................................................................................................7 State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Dyer, 29 F.3d 514 (10th Cir. 1994) .................................................................................................................6 United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) ...............................................................................................................................5 Case 5:19-cv-00818 Document 1 Filed 02/14/19 Page 4 of 18 iv DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 54308723v.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 Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2004) ...............................................................................................................7 Wheeler v. United Fin. Cas. Co., No. 2:16-CV-01875-SB, 2016 WL 6781612 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2016) ..............................................8 Whittier v. Kaiser Found. Hospitals, No. CIVS 06-2693 FCD GGH, 2007 WL 776093 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2007) ......................................2 Young v. Anthony’s Fish Grottos, Inc., 830 F. 2d 993 (9th Cir. 1987) ................................................................................................................3 State Cases Ko v. The Square Group LLC dba The Square Supermarket, Los Angeles Sup. Ct., Case No. BC487739 (June 16, 2014) ......................................................................................................................................................9 Federal Statutes 28 U.S.C. 1332(c)(1) ....................................................................................................................................6 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ..........................................................................................................................................2 28 U.S.C. § 1332 ..........................................................................................................................................7 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) ...................................................................................................................................11 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) .................................................................................................................................5 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) .................................................................................................................................6 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) .....................................................................................................................................5 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) ...................................................................................................................................11 28 U.S.C. § 1441 ..........................................................................................................................................2 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) ...........................................................................................................................5, 7, 11 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) .....................................................................................................................................1 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) ...................................................................................................................................2, 3 LMRA ..............................................................................................................................................2, 3, 4, 5 Other Authorities Andrews v. Hansa Stars Inc., Dkt. No. BC384912, 2009 WL 1587809 (Los Angeles Sup. Ct. April 16, 2009) .................................9 Brenda Weber “Weber Decl.” ¶¶ 6-7 ...........................................................................................................4 Butler v. Univ. of Cal. Los Angeles Med. Ctr., Dkt. No. BC266196, 2003 WL 26067456 (Los Angeles Sup. Ct. Aug. 5, 2003) ...............................10 Case 5:19-cv-00818 Document 1 Filed 02/14/19 Page 5 of 18 v DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 54308723v.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 Denenberg v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp., 2007 WL 2827715 (San Diego County Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2006) ........................................................10 Dodd v. Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, 2010 WL 4845808, Los Angeles Sup. Ct., Case No. BC413813 (October 15, 2010) ...........................9 Gallegos v. Los Angeles City College, 2003 WL 23336379 (Los Angeles County Sup. Ct. Oct. 16, 2003) ....................................................10 Jaffe v. UHS-Corona Inc., No. RIC-543130, 2013 WL 8509821 (Riverside Sup. Ct. May 7, 2013) ..............................................9 Kell v. AutoZone Inc., Case No. 07AS04375, 2010 WL 1347162 (Sacramento Sup. Ct. Jan. 21, 2010) ..................................9 King v. U.S. Bank N.A., Case No. 34-2013-00154644-CU-DF-GDS, 2017 WL 1881420 (Sacramento Sup. Ct. May 4, 2017) ..........................................................................................................................................9 Kolas v. Alticor Inc., Case No. BC362432, 2008 WL 6040410 (Los Angeles Sup. Ct. Jan. 14, 2008) ..................................9 McMillan v. City of Los Angeles, 2005 WL 3729094 (Los Angeles County Sup. Ct. March 21, 2005) ..................................................10 Orue v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2007 WL 2456108, Los Angeles Sup. Ct., Case No. BC347252 (August 1, 2007) ............................10 Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc., Case No. SCV20328, 2007 WL 4938222 (Placer Sup. Ct. Dec. 14, 2007) ...........................................9 Tapia v. San Gabriel Transit Inc., Los Angeles Sup. Ct., Case No. BC482433 (December 18, 2015) ...........................................................................................9 Ybarra v. Dacor Holding Inc., 2010 WL 2404221, Los Angeles Sup. Ct., Case No. KC-054144 (February 26, 2010)........................9 Case 5:19-cv-00818 Document 1 Filed 02/14/19 Page 6 of 18 1 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 54308723v.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 TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND TO PLAINTIFF AND HER ATTORNEY OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”) is filing this Notice of Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1441 and 1446, asserting original federal jurisdiction on the basis of federal question and diversity, codified in relevant part at 28 U.S.C. sections 1331 and 1332, to effect the removal of the above-captioned action from the California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Removal is proper for the following reasons: I. PROCEDURAL POSTURE 1. On December 26, 2018, Plaintiff served Costco’s counsel with the Summons, Complaint, Civil Case Cover Sheet, and the Notice of Case Management Conference and a Request for Acknowledgement and Receipt in the State Court Action. (Declaration of Lindsay S. Fitch Exhibit 1.) 2. Costco’s counsel timely returned the signed Request for Acknowledgement of Receipt on January 15, 2019. (Fitch Decl. Exhibit 2.) 3. On February 5, 2019, Plaintiff’s served Costco with her response to Costco’s Request for a Statement of Damages. (Fitch Decl. Exhibit 3.) 4. On February 13, 2019, Costco filed and served its Answer to plaintiff’s unverified Complaint. (Fitch Decl. Exhibit 4.) 5. Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4 constitute all pleadings, process, and orders served on defendant, and filed by defendant, in this action. II. TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL 6. This notice of removal is timely filed as it is filed less than one year from the date this action was commenced and within thirty days of service upon Costco of the Complaint or other paper from which it could first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b); Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 119 S. Ct. 1322 (1999) (thirty-day deadline to remove commences upon service of the summons and complaint). Case 5:19-cv-00818 Document 1 Filed 02/14/19 Page 7 of 18 2 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 54308723v.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 III. FEDERAL QUESTION 7. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, and Defendants may remove it under 28 U.S.C. Section 1441, because Plaintiff alleges claims that raise the federal legal issue of preemption. Local Union 598 v. J.A. Jones Const. Co., 846 F.2d 1213, 1218 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Preemption is a question of federal law . . . .”). 8. Per the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), federal district courts have original jurisdiction over all actions involving the alleged violation of a Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”), such as that between Costco and Plaintiff’s union (the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 853). See 29 U.S.C. Section 185(a) (“Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization . . . may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.”).1 See also Exhibit 1 (Complaint) at ¶19 (referencing the involvement of plaintiff’s union). 9. State law claims requiring interpretation of a CBA are preempted by the LMRA, and thus raise federal legal questions. See, e.g., Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142, AFL-CIO v. Foodland Super Mkt. Ltd., No. 04-00035-AG-LEK, 2004 WL 1554478, at *4 (D. Haw. Apr. 30, 2004) (finding Section 185(a) preemption where “the resolution of the state law claim necessarily involves the interpretation of the [CBA’s] arbitration clause”); Hollinquest v. St. Francis Med. Ctr., 872 F. Supp. 723, 726 (C.D. Cal. 1994) (“To determine whether Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated from her employment at St. Francis, this Court must examine the CBA. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s first cause of action is preempted by the LMRA, because this Court must analyze and interpret the provisions of the CBA to determine whether Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated by St. Francis.”); Evangelista v. Inlandboatmen’s Union of Pac., 777 F.2d 1390, 1400 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that where a state law claim for wrongful discharge “turns upon an interpretation of the [CBA],” plaintiff’s “claims are preempted by federal law”); Jackson v. S. Cal. Gas Co., 881 F.2d 638, 643-44 (9th Cir. 1989) (“A claim that a discharge violates public policy is preempted . . . if it is bound up with interpretation of the [CBA] . . . .”); see also Whittier v. Kaiser Found. Hospitals, No. CIVS 06-2693 1 Section 185(a) is also called Section 301 in the pertinent cases. Case 5:19-cv-00818 Document 1 Filed 02/14/19 Page 8 of 18 3 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 54308723v.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 FCD GGH, 2007 WL 776093, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2007) (“At its core, plaintiff’s cause of action is not for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, but for wrongful termination in violation of the terms of the CBA.”). 10. As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck: [W]hen resolution of a state-law claim is substantially dependent upon analysis of the terms of an agreement made between the parties in a labor contract, that claim must either be treated as a [Section 185(a)] claim, or dismissed as pre-empted by federal labor-contract law. 471 U.S. 202, 220 (1985). Thus, any state law claim to which a defendant alleges LMRA preemption as a defense may be subject to preemption and be removed if the district court must interpret a CBA to resolve those claims. See, e.g., Metropolitan Life, Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63-64 (1987) (“As a defense, [federal preemption] does not appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint, and, therefore, does not authorize removal to federal court. One corollary of the well- pleaded complaint rule developed in the case law, however, is that Congress may so completely pre- empt a particular area that any civil complaint raising this select group of claims is necessarily federal in character. For 20 years, this Court has singled out claims pre-empted by [Section 185(a)] for such special treatment.”); Newberry v. Pac. Racing Assoc., 854 F.2d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The preemptive force of [Section 185(a)] is so powerful that it displaces entirely any state cause of action for violation of a [CBA] . . . and any state claim whose outcome depends on analysis of the terms of the agreement.”); Hyles v. Mensing, 849 F.2d 1213, 1215 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming removal and dismissal of the plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to LMRA preemption); Young v. Anthony’s Fish Grottos, Inc., 830 F. 2d 993, 997-98 (9th Cir. 1987) (stating that Section 185(a) preemption supplants state law claim with federal law claim); Greenly v. Sara Lee Corp., 2008 WL 192925230, at *21 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (“The United States Supreme Court has articulated that ‘where the right [at issue in the lawsuit] is created by state law [but the application of state law] requires the interpretation of a [CBA],’” state law claims are preempted by Section 185(a).). 11. While just one of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants would suffice for the purposes of removal jurisdiction, four of Plaintiff’s claims require interpretation of the CBA Case 5:19-cv-00818 Document 1 Filed 02/14/19 Page 9 of 18 4 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 54308723v.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 between Costco and Plaintiff’s union, and thus each claim supports federal question jurisdiction premised on LMRA preemption. A. Plaintiff Asserts Claims For Breach Of Written And Implied-in-fact Contract (The CBA) And Breach Of The Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing , Which, By Logical Necessity, Requires Interpretation Of The CBA 12. Plaintiff’s fifth and sixth cause of action for “breach of written and implied-in-fact contract [the CBA)]” and breach of the implied covenant of good faith requires interpretation of the CBA for the claim to be litigated. 13. This claim therefore raises a federal legal question under the LMRA. B. Plaintiff’s Retaliation And Wrongful Termination In Violation Of Public Policy Claims Are Preempted Because Their Resolution Requires CBA Interpretation 14. Plaintiff was employed by Costco as a wrapper in the Bakery department as well as a Front End Assistant. (Compl.¶ 10.) During her employment, Plaintiff was a union member. (Declaration of Brenda Weber “Weber Decl.” ¶¶6-7) Thus, the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment were governed by the CBA between Costco and Plaintiff’s union. Id. at ¶ 7. 15. Article IV of the CBA describes the grounds for termination of employment. Id. at ¶ 5. 16. Plaintiff’s retaliation and wrongful termination claims turn on whether she was terminated for engaging in protected activity (such as reporting sexual harassment), or whether Costco had cause under Article IV of the CBA for discharging Plaintiff (including because she violated the anti- harassment and anti-discrimination policy and received 5 Employee Counseling Notices in a six month period) See Compl.¶ 19. 17. Resolving this issue requires interpretation of the CBA, including whether Costco had just cause under Article IV to terminate Plaintiff. 18. Only the CBA governs Costco’s rights to discipline employees (including termination), making it indispensable to understanding whether those rights were properly exercised. Indeed, to determine whether Costco acted with just cause, the Court must analyze how the CBA defines, or has been interpreted with respect to, that term. See Kirton v. Summit Med. Ctr., 982 F. Supp. 1381, 1386 (N.D. Cal. 1997) (holding that a claim for wrongful termination was preempted where the Case 5:19-cv-00818 Document 1 Filed 02/14/19 Page 10 of 18 5 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 54308723v.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 “CBA provides that Defendants ‘shall have the right to discharge or assess disciplinary action for just cause’” because “the CBA must be interpreted to determine whether Defendants breached [it] by discharging Plaintiff without good cause”); Stallcop v. Kaiser Found. Hospitals, 820 F.2d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Disciplinary actions . . . are governed by the [CBA]. Resolution of [plaintiff’s] claims therefore necessarily entails examination and interpretation of the agreement, and these claims are also preempted”); Cook v. Lindsay Olive Growers, 911 F.2d 233, 239 (9th Cir. 1990) (finding preemption where the employer retains the “prerogative to discharge an employee for just cause” under the CBA). Plaintiff, therefore, cannot attack Costco’s determination that he was terminated for just cause, without invoking and interpreting the CBA. 19. These claims therefore raise federal legal questions under the LMRA. C. Supplemental jurisdiction 20. If the Court determines that some of the causes of action raise no federal question, it may still exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims alongside the causes of action predicated on federal law because all of Plaintiff’s claims arise from “the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a) (“[I]in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy . . . .”). 21. Plaintiff’s claims arise from the same “common nucleus of operative fact,” as the factual allegations supporting each cause of action are incorporated by reference to the facts set forth in the Complaint’s general factual allegations. Specifically, Plaintiff’s claims arise from her termination and the parties’ rights and duties created by the CBA, which must be interpreted to determine the scope of those rights and duties and whether they were properly exercised and followed. As such, convenience, judicial economy, and fairness to the litigants support this Court exercising jurisdiction over all claims, as Plaintiff “would ordinarily be expected to try [all of his causes of action] in one judicial proceeding.” United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966). IV. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION 22. This Court has original jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). As set forth below, this action is removable pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) as the Case 5:19-cv-00818 Document 1 Filed 02/14/19 Page 11 of 18 6 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 54308723v.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 amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states. 23. Plaintiff is a citizen of California. Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the State of California. For diversity purposes, a natural person is a “citizen” of the state in which he or she is domiciled. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983). For purposes of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, citizenship is determined by the individual’s domicile at the time that the lawsuit is filed. Armstrong v. Church of Scientology Int’l, 243 F.3d 546, 546 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1986)). A person’s domicile is the place he or she resides with the intent to remain indefinitely. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Residence is prima facie evidence of domicile. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Dyer, 29 F.3d 514, 520 (10th Cir. 1994). 24. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff is a resident of the State of California. (Compl., ¶ 1) The Complaint also alleges that Plaintiff worked for Costco in San Jose, California. (Id., ¶ 2.) The Complaint further alleges that the alleged wrongful conduct took place in the County of Santa Clara, California. (Compl., ¶ 8.) Based on information from Plaintiff’s personnel file and information submitted throughout the course of Plaintiff’s employment, Plaintiff has, without exception, listed a California address as her current address, which demonstrates “an intent to remain” in California and establishes her domicile in California. Neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff’s counsel has provided a different address or indicated that Plaintiff does not intend to remain domiciled in California. Plaintiff, therefore, is, and has been at all times since this action commenced, a citizen of California. 25. Costco is a citizen of Washington. Costco is now, and was, at the time of the filing of this action, a citizen of a state other than California within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(c)(1). 26. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.” See also Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 557 F.3d 1026, 1028 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. 1332(c)(1)). At all relevant times, Costco was, and still is, a Washington corporation with its principal place of business in Issaquah, Washington. Case 5:19-cv-00818 Document 1 Filed 02/14/19 Page 12 of 18 7 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 54308723v.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 27. The United States Supreme Court in The Hertz Corp. v. Friend held that a corporate entity’s “principal place of business” for determining its citizenship is its “nerve center”: We conclude that “principal place of business” is best read as referring to the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities. It is the place that Courts of Appeals have called the corporation’s “nerve center.” And in practice it should normally be the place where the corporation maintains its headquarters -- provided that the headquarters is the actual center of direction, control, and coordination, i.e., the “nerve center” .... 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010) (emphasis added). 28. Costco’s “nerve center” is in Washington because Issaquah, Washington, is the site of Costco’s corporate headquarters and executive offices, where Costco’s high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate Costco’s activities. Accordingly, Costco is a citizen of the State of Washington. 29. Doe Defendants Are Disregarded. The presence of Doe defendants in this case has no bearing on diversity of citizenship for removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (“For purposes of removal under this chapter, the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded.”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), the residence of fictitious and unknown defendants should be disregarded for purposes of establishing removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Fristoe v. Reynolds Metals Co., 615 F.2d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir. 1980) (unnamed defendants are not required to join in a removal petition). Thus, the existence of the naming of Doe defendants 1 through 25, inclusive, does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction. V. AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY 30. While Costco denies any liability as to Plaintiff’s claims, the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied because “it is more likely than not” that the amount exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of $75,000.00. See Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). The jurisdictional amount may be determined from the face of the complaint. Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997). However, as explained by the Ninth Circuit, “the amount-in-controversy inquiry in the removal context is not confined to the face of the complaint.” Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding that the Court may consider facts presented in the removal petition). A plaintiff cannot evade federal jurisdiction by alleging that the amount in controversy falls below the jurisdictional minimum. Standard Fire Ins. Co. Case 5:19-cv-00818 Document 1 Filed 02/14/19 Page 13 of 18 8 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 54308723v.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 v. Knowles, 133 S.Ct. 1345, 1350 (2013); Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Serv. LLC, 728 F.3d 975, 978-82 (9th Cir. 2013). 31. Plaintiff alleges six claims for relief arising out of purported sexual harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination and breach of contract. Plaintiff seeks general damages, special damages/lost wages, lost benefits, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. (See Compl. at Prayer, ¶¶ 1-9.) In determining the amount in controversy, the Court must consider the aggregate of general damages, special damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 1998) (claims for statutory attorneys’ fees to be included in amount in controversy, regardless of whether such an award is discretionary or mandatory); Davenport v. Mut. Benefit Health & Accident Ass’n, 325 F.2d 785, 787 (9th Cir. 1963) (punitive damages must be taken into account where recoverable under state law); Conrad Assoc.’s v. Hartford Accident & Ind. Co., 994 F. Supp. 1196, 1198 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (“amount in controversy” includes claims for general and special damages). 32. Plaintiff does not truly dispute that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. California courts consider a Plaintiff’s Statement of Damages to be “a serious estimate of damages in a given case.” Wheeler v. United Fin. Cas. Co., No. 2:16-CV- 01875-SB, 2016 WL 6781612, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2016) (quoting Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F. 3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). Courts have held that even standing alone, a Statement of Damages can constitute sufficient evidence of an amount in controversy. Wheeler v. United Fin. Cas. Co., No. 2:16-CV-01875-SB, 2016 WL 6781612, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2016). Plaintiff’s present assessment of her damages alone (a mere seven weeks after initiating the present lawsuit), shows that the amount in controversy is this action exceeds $75,000. (Ex. 3, Statement of Damages: total damages presently alleged by Plaintiff amount to $66,398.48: specifically emotional distress damages in the amount of $30,000; attorney’s fees in the amount of $25,000; medical expenses $10,534.48; and loss of sick and vacation time $864.) Although not specifically articulated in her statement of damages plaintiff has also pled loss of income and benefits (Compl.¶ ¶ 25, 34, 51, 57) and punitive damages (Compl. Prayer ¶ 3) Case 5:19-cv-00818 Document 1 Filed 02/14/19 Page 14 of 18 9 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 54308723v.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 33. Similar Verdicts Exceed $75,000. To establish the amount in controversy, a defendant may rely on jury verdicts in cases involving similar facts. Simmons v. PCR Tech., 209 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1033 (N.D. Cal. 2002); Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2005). California jury verdicts in similar single plaintiff FEHA cases often exceed $75,000. See, e.g., King v. U.S. Bank N.A., Case No. 34-2013-00154644-CU-DF-GDS, 2017 WL 1881420 (Sacramento Sup. Ct. May 4, 2017) (jury awarded $2,489,696 in damages on wrongful termination in violation of public policy claim and $200,000 in damages on breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim); Tapia v. San Gabriel Transit Inc., Los Angeles Sup. Ct., Case No. BC482433 (December 18, 2015) ($1,289,849 verdict on plaintiff’s claims for disability discrimination and violation of the CFRA); Ko v. The Square Group LLC dba The Square Supermarket, Los Angeles Sup. Ct., Case No. BC487739 (June 16, 2014) ($190,712.36 verdict on plaintiff’s claims for disability discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and wage and hour claims and $500,000 in punitive damages); Jaffe v. UHS-Corona Inc., No. RIC-543130, 2013 WL 8509821 (Riverside Sup. Ct. May 7, 2013) (jury awarded $121,850 for wrongful termination claim); Dodd v. Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, 2010 WL 4845808, Los Angeles Sup. Ct., Case No. BC413813 (October 15, 2010) (award of $410,520 to employee wrongfully terminated based on disability and medical condition); Rosales v. Career Sys. Devel. Corp., E.D. Cal., Case No. 08CV01383 (WBS) (August 20, 2010) (verdict for $238,000 on plaintiff’s claims under the FEHA for national origin discrimination, age discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination); Ybarra v. Dacor Holding Inc., 2010 WL 2404221, Los Angeles Sup. Ct., Case No. KC-054144 (February 26, 2010) (award of $615,236 to employee in disability discrimination and wrongful termination action); Kell v. AutoZone Inc., Case No. 07AS04375, 2010 WL 1347162 (Sacramento Sup. Ct. Jan. 21, 2010) (jury awarded $1,368,675 in damages for wrongful termination and retaliation claims); Andrews v. Hansa Stars Inc., Dkt. No. BC384912, 2009 WL 1587809 (Los Angeles Sup. Ct. April 16, 2009) (multiple plaintiffs awarded $375,000 and $225,000, respectively, for emotional distress damages in action involving wrongful discharge in violation of public policy); Kolas v. Alticor Inc., Case No. BC362432, 2008 WL 6040410 (Los Angeles Sup. Ct. Jan. 14, 2008) (awarding wrongful-discharge plaintiff $200,000 in emotional distress damages); Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc., Case No. SCV20328, 2007 WL 4938222 (Placer Sup. Ct. Dec. 14, 2007) (jury Case 5:19-cv-00818 Document 1 Filed 02/14/19 Page 15 of 18 10 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 54308723v.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 awarded $1,859,000 in damages on wrongful termination in violation of public policy claim); Orue v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2007 WL 2456108, Los Angeles Sup. Ct., Case No. BC347252 (August 1, 2007) (award of $173,056 to employee who brought action based on disability and age discrimination against employer who wrongfully terminated him); Butler v. Univ. of Cal. Los Angeles Med. Ctr., Dkt. No. BC266196, 2003 WL 26067456 (Los Angeles Sup. Ct. Aug. 5, 2003) ($1,000,000 in non-economic damages awarded to plaintiff claiming retaliation); 34. Attorneys’ Fees Exceed $75,000. Plaintiff also seeks attorneys’ fees in connection with his FEHA claims. Verdicts in comparable cases show that attorneys’ fees typically exceed $75,000.00. See Denenberg v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp., 2007 WL 2827715 (San Diego County Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2006) (attorney’s fees award of $490,000.00 in case alleging discrimination, harassment, and retaliation); McMillan v. City of Los Angeles, 2005 WL 3729094 (Los Angeles County Sup. Ct. March 21, 2005) (attorney’s fees award of $504,926.00 in case alleging discrimination and retaliation for filing lawsuit to redress discrimination); Gallegos v. Los Angeles City College, 2003 WL 23336379 (Los Angeles County Sup. Ct. Oct. 16, 2003) (attorney’s fees award of $159,277.00 for claim of discrimination and retaliation). Therefore, the inclusion of a claim for attorneys’ fees also supports the conclusion that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. 35. Loss of Earnings. Plaintiff also alleges that she is entitled to lost earning. (Compl., at ¶¶ 25, 34, 42, 51, 57.) Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated on March 17, 2017 (Id., ¶ 19.) From that time to the date of this removal filing, approximately 23 months have elapsed. At the time of her termination plaintiff made $16.00 per hour. Assuming, conservatively, that Plaintiff would have worked 35 hours per week, her claim for lost wages totals $ 57,680. Assuming a conservative trial date of 12 months after service of the Complaint, or January 15, 2020, Plaintiff’s lost wages up to the point of trial, alone, will amount to approximately $80,080 This amount does not account for the other special damages Plaintiff seeks, such as losses in bonuses, deferred compensation, employment benefits, earning capacity, opportunities for employment advancement and work experience, which will further increase the claim for special damages. 36. General and Punitive Damages Exceed $75,000. In addition to lost wages, Plaintiff seeks to recover general and punitive damages. Requests for punitive damages must be taken Case 5:19-cv-00818 Document 1 Filed 02/14/19 Page 16 of 18 11 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 54308723v.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 into account in ascertaining the amount in controversy. Davenport, 325 F.2d at 787. The amount of punitive damages awarded is based on the financial worth of the defendant, and is meant to punish the defendant in such a way that it will have a tangible financial consequence. Without conceding that punitive damages are appropriate or applicable here, for a defendant of Costco’s size, it is obvious that a punitive damages award, if assessed, would exceed $75,000.00. 37. For each of the foregoing reasons, while Defendant denies any liability as to Plaintiff’s claims, it is now “more likely than not” that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). VI. VENUE 38. Plaintiff filed this action in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. 39. The County of Santa Clara lies within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court, Northern District of California. Therefore, without waiving Costco’s right to challenge, among other things, personal jurisdiction and/or venue by way of a motion or otherwise, venue lies in the Northern District of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1441(a) and 1391(b), because the original state court action was filed in this district and this district is where the action arose. VII. NOTICE OF REMOVAL ON STATE COURT 40. Defendant will give notice of the filing of this Notice of Removal to Plaintiff and to the Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara. This Notice of Removal is being served on all parties. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that this civil action be removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Case 5:19-cv-00818 Document 1 Filed 02/14/19 Page 17 of 18 12 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 54308723v.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 DATED: February 14, 2019 Respectfully submitted, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP By: /s/ Lindsay S. Fitch Mark P. Grajski Lindsay S. Fitch Attorneys for Defendant COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION Case 5:19-cv-00818 Document 1 Filed 02/14/19 Page 18 of 18 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350, Sacramento, California 95814- 3 4428. On February 15, 2019, [served the within document(s): 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 1. Defendant's Notice to Superior Court and Adverse Party of Notice of Removal of Action to the U.S. District Court rxi by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, ~ in the United tates mail at Sacramento, California, addressed as set forth below. D D D by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address( es) set forth below. by placing the document( ) listed above together with an unsigned copy of this declaration, in a sealed envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier with postage paid on account and deposited for collection with the overnight carrier at Sacran1ento California, addressed as set forth below. by transmitting the document(s) listed above, electronically, via the e-mail addresses set forth below. Lori J. Costanzo Lynn Toma Andrea Justo COSTANZO LAW FIRM, APC 111 West Saint John St., #700 San Jose, CA 95113 Attorneys for Plaintiff Tel: (916) 361-6009 Fax: (916) 361-6019 james.clark@towerlegalgroup.com renee.parras@owerlegalgroup.com I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and process.ing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would bed posited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully pTepaid in the ordinary cour e of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. I declare I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on February 15, 2019, at Sacramento, California. PROOF OF SERVICE 54309946v. I