NoticeCal. Super. - 6th Dist.January 11, 20191 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE TO SUPERIOR COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL 55304486v.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 CRYSTAL WOOD, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 19cv341405 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE TO SUPERIOR COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT Complaint Filed: January 11, 2019 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 March 25, 2019, Defendant COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION (“Costco”) filed a Notice of Removal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446 and 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-01533-NC. 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 3/26/2019 10:13 AM Reviewed By: M Vu Case #19CV341405 Envelope: 2671066 2 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE TO SUPERIOR COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL 55304486v.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: March 26, 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 55304132v.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 CRYSTAL WOOD, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. DEFENDANT COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT Complaint Filed: January 11, 2019 Case 5:19-cv-01533-NC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 1 of 12 i DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 55304132v.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 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................................................... ii I. PROCEDURAL POSTURE ........................................................................................................... 1 II. TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL ...................................................................................................... 1 III. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION ....................................................................................................... 1 IV. AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY ................................................................................................... 3 V. VENUE ........................................................................................................................................... 6 VI. NOTICE OF REMOVAL ON STATE COURT ............................................................................ 7 Case 5:19-cv-01533-NC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 2 of 12 ii DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 55304132v.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 Conrad Assoc.’s v. Hartford Accident & Ind. Co., 994 F. Supp. 1196 (N.D. Cal. 1998) ......................................................................................................4 The Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010) .............................................................................................................................2, 3 Rosales v. Career Sys. Devel. Corp., E.D. Cal., Case No. 08CV01383 (WBS) (August 20, 2010) .................................................................4 Simmons v. PCR Tech., 209 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2002) .................................................................................................4 Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 133 S.Ct. 1345 (2013) ............................................................................................................................3 State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Dyer, 29 F.3d 514 (10th Cir. 1994) .................................................................................................................2 Tapia v. San Gabriel Transit Inc., Los Angeles Sup. Ct., Case No. BC482433 (December 18, 2015) ...........................................................................................4 State Cases Andrews v. Hansa Stars Inc., Dkt. No. BC384912, 2009 WL 1587809 (Los Angeles Sup. Ct. April 16, 2009) .................................5 Armstrong v. Church of Scientology Int’l, 243 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................................2 Butler v. Univ. of Cal. Los Angeles Med. Ctr., Dkt. No. BC266196, 2003 WL 26067456 (Los Angeles Sup. Ct. Aug. 5, 2003) .................................5 Davenport v. Mut. Benefit Health & Accident Ass’n, 325 F.2d 785 (9th Cir. 1963) .............................................................................................................4, 6 Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 557 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2009) ...............................................................................................................2 Denenberg v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp., 2007 WL 2827715 (San Diego County Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2006) ..........................................................5 Dodd v. Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, 2010 WL 4845808, Los Angeles Sup. Ct., Case No. BC413813 (October 15, 2010) ...........................4 Fristoe v. Reynolds Metals Co., 615 F.2d 1209 (9th Cir. 1980) ...............................................................................................................3 Case 5:19-cv-01533-NC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 3 of 12 iii DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 55304132v.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 Gallegos v. Los Angeles City College, 2003 WL 23336379 (Los Angeles County Sup. Ct. Oct. 16, 2003) ......................................................5 Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1998) ...............................................................................................................4 Jaffe v. UHS-Corona Inc., No. RIC-543130, 2013 WL 8509821 (Riverside Sup. Ct. May 7, 2013) ..............................................4 Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................................2 Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1983) ...............................................................................................................2 Kell v. AutoZone Inc., Case No. 07AS04375, 2010 WL 1347162 (Sacramento Sup. Ct. Jan. 21, 2010) ..................................5 King v. U.S. Bank N.A., Case No. 34-2013-00154644-CU-DF-GDS, 2017 WL 1881420 (Sacramento Sup. Ct. May 4, 2017) ..........................................................................................................................................4 Ko v. The Square Group LLC dba The Square Supermarket, Los Angeles Sup. Ct., Case No. BC487739 (June 16, 2014) ......................................................................................................................................................4 Kolas v. Alticor Inc., Case No. BC362432, 2008 WL 6040410 (Los Angeles Sup. Ct. Jan. 14, 2008) ..................................5 Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................................4 Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1986) .................................................................................................................2 McMillan v. City of Los Angeles, 2005 WL 3729094 (Los Angeles County Sup. Ct. March 21, 2005) ....................................................5 Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 119 S. Ct. 1322 (1999) ...........................................................................................................................1 Orue v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2007 WL 2456108, Los Angeles Sup. Ct., Case No. BC347252 (August 1, 2007) ..............................5 Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Serv. LLC, 728 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................................3 Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins., 102 F.3d 398 (9th Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................................3 Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc., Case No. SCV20328, 2007 WL 4938222 (Placer Sup. Ct. Dec. 14, 2007) ...........................................5 Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................................3 Case 5:19-cv-01533-NC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 4 of 12 iv DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 55304132v.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) ...............................................................................................................3 Ybarra v. Dacor Holding Inc., 2010 WL 2404221, Los Angeles Sup. Ct., Case No. KC-054144 (February 26, 2010)........................5 Federal Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 1332 ......................................................................................................................................1, 3 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) .....................................................................................................................................6 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) .................................................................................................................................1 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) .................................................................................................................................2 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) .....................................................................................................................................6 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) .............................................................................................................................1, 3, 6 28 U.S.C. § 1446 ..........................................................................................................................................1 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) .....................................................................................................................................1 Case 5:19-cv-01533-NC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 5 of 12 1 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 55304132v.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. §§ 1332, 1441(a), and 1446, based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, 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 February 22, 2019, Plaintiff served Costco’s counsel with the Summons, Complaint, and Civil Case Cover Sheet, in the State Court Action. (Declaration of Lindsay S. Fitch Exhibit 1.) 2. On March 22, 2019, Costco filed and served its Answer to plaintiff’s unverified Complaint. (Fitch Decl. Exhibit 2.) 3. Exhibits 1 and 2 constitute all pleadings, process, and orders served on defendant, and filed by defendant, in this action. II. TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL 4. 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). III. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION 5. 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 amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states. 6. 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 Case 5:19-cv-01533-NC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 6 of 12 2 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 55304132v.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 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). 7. 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 Santa Clara, California. (Id., ¶ 2.) 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. 8. 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). 9. 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. 10. 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 Case 5:19-cv-01533-NC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 7 of 12 3 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 55304132v.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 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). 11. 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. 12. 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. IV. AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY 13. 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. v. Knowles, 133 S.Ct. 1345, 1350 (2013); Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Serv. LLC, 728 F.3d 975, 978-82 (9th Cir. 2013). 14. Plaintiff alleges claims for relief arising out of purported disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, violation of the CFRA, Case 5:19-cv-01533-NC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 8 of 12 4 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 55304132v.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 and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Plaintiff seeks general damages, medical expenses, loss of earnings, loss of earning capacity, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. (See Compl. at Prayer, ¶¶ 1-11.) 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). 15. 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, Case 5:19-cv-01533-NC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 9 of 12 5 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 55304132v.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 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 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); 16. 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. 17. Loss of Earnings. Plaintiff also alleges that she is entitled to lost earnings and earning capacity. (Prayer., at ¶¶ 3, 4.) Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated on March 3, 2017 Case 5:19-cv-01533-NC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 10 of 12 6 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 55304132v.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 (Compl. ¶ 5.) From that time to the date of this removal filing, over 24 months have elapsed. At the time of her termination plaintiff made $15.00 per hour. Assuming, conservatively, that Plaintiff would have worked 30 hours per week, her claim for lost wages totals $46,800. Assuming a conservative trial date of approximately 12 months after service of the Complaint, or March 2020, Plaintiff’s lost wages up to the point of trial, alone, will amount to approximately $70,200. This amount does not account for the other special damages Plaintiff seeks, such as loss of future earnings and future earning capacity, medical and related expenses for care and procedures both now and in the future and “other pecuniary loss not presently ascertained”, will further increase the claim for special damages. (Id. at ¶19.) 18. 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 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. 19. 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). V. VENUE 20. Plaintiff filed this action in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. 21. 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. Case 5:19-cv-01533-NC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 11 of 12 7 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 55304132v.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 VI. NOTICE OF REMOVAL ON STATE COURT 22. 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. DATED: March 25, 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-01533-NC Document 1 Filed 03/25/19 Page 12 of 12 Shelley D. G a on 2 Proof of Service PROOF OF SERVICE 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. On March 26, 2019, I served the within document(s): DEFENDANT'S NOTICE TO THE SUPERIOR COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed.envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350, Sacramento, California addressed as set forth below. by causing the document(s) listed above to be personally delivered to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express envelope with postage paid on account and deposited with Federal Express at Sacramento, California, addressed as set forth below. Todd M. Friedman Meghan E. George Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Attorneys for Plaintiff Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com 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 if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court whose direction the service was made. Executed on March 26, 2019, at Sacramento, California. ,k-c(_(, 6-L,),0/c, 55781983v.1