Removal to Federal CourtCal. Super. - 6th Dist.November 21, 201910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations BABAK YOUSEFZADEH, Cal. Bar No. 235974 GAL GRESSEL, Cal. Bar N0. 2863 12 Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, California 941 1 1-4109 Telephone: 415.434.9100 Facsimile: 415.434.3947 E mail byousefzadeh@sheppardmullin.com ggressel@sheppardmullin.com Attorneys for Defendant TECH MAHINDRA (AMERICAS) INC. erroneously sued as TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC. Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 2/20/2020 10:56 AM Reviewed By: M Reynoso Case #1 9CV358955 Envelope: 4054305 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PRATEEK SAXENA, Case N0. 19CV358955 Plaintiff, V. TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC., a California corporation; SANJEEV MITTAL, an individual; and DOES 1 and through 10, , Defendant. DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S NOTICE TO STATE COURT OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT [Complaint Filed: November 2 1 , 20 1 9] -1- Case N0. 19CV358955 DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S NOTICE TO STATE COURT OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT SMRH:4847-6615-1605.2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED SUPERIOR COURT, PLAINTIFF, AND PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Please take notice that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), Defendant Tech Mahindra (Americas) Inc. (erroneously sued as Tech Mahindra Americas Inc.) (“Defendant”) has removed the above-captioned action to the United States District Court for the Northern District 0f California by filing a Notice of Removal in said court on February 19, 2020. A true and correct copy 0f Defendant’s February 19, 2020 Notice ofRemoval filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District 0f California is attached to this notice as Exhibit 1. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) this Court “shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.” Dated: February 20, 2020 Respectfully submitted, SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP By M M BABAK YOUSEFZADEH GAL GRESSEL Attorneys for Defendant TECH MAHINDRA (AMERICAS) INC -2- Case N0. 19CV358955 SMRH34847'6615'1605-2 DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S NOTICE TO STATE COURT OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT EXHIBIT 1 .p QGUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 1 of 10 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations BABAK YOUSEFZADEH, Cal. Bar N0. 235974 GAL GRESSEL, Cal. Bar N0. 2863 12 Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, California 941 1 1-4109 Telephone: 415.434.9100 Facsimile: 4 1 5434.3947 E mail byousefzadeh@sheppardmullin.com ggressel@sheppardmullin.com Attorneys for Tech Mahindra Americas Inc., a California corporation; Sanjeev Mittal, an individual UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION PRATEEK SAXENA, Plaintiff, V. TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC., a California corporation; SANJEEV MITTAL, an individual; and DOES 1 and through 10, , Defendant. Case N0. Superior Court of California, Santa Clara - Case No. 19CV358955 DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’s NOTICE 0F REMOVAL 0F CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.s.c. SECTION 1441 (DIVERSITY JURISDICTION) -1- SMRH34820-0170-02773 DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1441 A QGUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 2 of 10 TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEYS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Tech Mahindra (Americas) Inc. (erroneously sued as Tech Mahindra Americas Inc.) (“Defendant”) hereby removes the Action described below from the Superior Court of the State 0f California for the County 0f Santa Clara t0 the United States District Court for the Northern District 0f California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(b), and 1446. I. COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS 1. On 0r about November 2 1 , 20 1 9, PlaintiffPrateek Saxena (“Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court 0f California for the County 0f Santa Clara, entitled Prateek Saxena v. Tech Mahindra Americas Ina, a California corporation; Sanjeev Mittal, an individual; and DOES I through 10, Case N0. 19CV358955 (the “Action”). Plaintiffs Complaint asserts claims for (1) retaliation in Violation ofLabor Code section 1102.5, (2) wrongful termination in Violation ofpublic policy, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (5) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, (6) breach of contract, (7) negligent misrepresentation, (8) quantum meruit, and (9) specific performance. 2. Defendant was served with the Complaint on January 20, 2020. True and correct copies of the Summons and Complaint served 0n Defendant are attached hereto as Exhibit A. Also attached hereto are true and correct copies of Plaintiff s Proof of Service on Defendant (Exhibit B), the Civil Case Cover Sheet Plaintiff filed in the Action (Exhibit C), and the Court’s Notice of Case Management Conference, scheduled for March 17, 2020 (Exhibit D). 3. Defendant filed its Answer to the Complaint 0n February 19, 2020. A true and correct copy of Defendant’s Answer is attached as Exhibit E.1 4. Exhibits A-E constitute all pleadings, process, and orders filed in the Action. 1 The file-stamped copy of Defendant’s Answer to the Complaint was not yet available from the Santa Clara County Superior Court, as of the filing of this Notice. -2- SMRH34820-0170-02773 DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1441 .5 QGUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 3 of 10 5. Because Plaintiff’s Complaint does not affirmatively reveal, on its face, the basis for removal, it is an “indeterminate pleading[]” which does not trigger the 30-day removal period. Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. C0., 425 F.3d 689, 695 (9th Cir. 2005). Nonetheless, Defendant’s notice of removal is timely because it is filed within 30 days 0f the service of Plaintiff’s Complaint 0n Defendant. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b); Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Mitchez‘ti Pipe Stringing, Ina, 526 U.S. 344, 347-48 (1999). 6. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California embraces Santa Clara County, the county in Which this lawsuit is pending. Therefore, the Court is a proper venue for this Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 84 (a) and 1441(a). 7. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), Defendant Will promptly provide written notice of removal of this Action t0 Plaintiff and Will promptly file a copy of this Notice ofRemoval With the Clerk 0f the Superior Court of California for the County 0f Santa Clara. I. STATEMENT OF THE GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL 8. Defendant removes this Action pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. sections 1332, 1441, and 1446. Removal is proper because: (1) there is complete diversity between the named defendants and Plaintiff, and (2) this matter is a civil action in which the amount in controversy, as set forth by Plaintiff’s allegations, exceeds the sum 0f $75,000.00, exclusive 0f costs and interests. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Lincoln Prop. C0. v Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 84, 89 (diversity jurisdiction exists When “there is complete diversity between all named plaintiffs and all named defendants, and n0 defendant is a citizen of the forum State” and “the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.”). 9. Under Dart Cherokee Basin Operating C0., LLC v. Owens, 135 S.Ct. 547 (2014), a removing defendant does not need to submit any evidence in its notice 0f removal. Id. at 551. Rather, “[a] defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the” jurisdictional facts exists. Id. at 554. The district courts must “apply the same liberal rules [to removal allegations] that are applied to other matters ofpleading.” Id. at 553. Evidence is required “only when the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s allegation.” Id. at 554 (emphasis added). -3- SMRH=4820-0170-0277.3 DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1441 .5 QGUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 4 of 10 10. When a civil action is removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a), only defendants who have been “properly joined and served” must join and consent t0 the removal of the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). Here, only Defendant has been served With the Complaint. Accordingly, removal is timely, and no consent is needed from defendant Sanjeev Mittal, Who has not been served. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(C). A. There is Complete Diversity Between Defendants and Plaintiff 11. For diversity jurisdiction purposes, a corporation is deemed to be a citizen 0f any State “by Which it has been incorporated and 0f the state Where it has its principal place 0fbusiness.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). To determine the state Where a corporation has its principal place of business, the Supreme Court has set forth the “nerve center test,” Which directs courts to 100k to “the place Where the corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 93 (2010). Typically, a corporation’s principal place ofbusiness is “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’ and not simply an office Where the corporation holds its board meetings. . .” Id. By way of example, the Supreme Court noted that “if the bulk 0f a company’s business activities Visible to the public take place in New Jersey, While its top officers direct those activities just across the river in New York, the ‘principal place of business’ is New York.” Id. at 96. 12. Defendant is, and was at the commencement of the state court Action, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State ofNew Jersey, with its principal place ofbusiness in Texas. Declaration ofAnita Ramesh (“Ramesh Decl.”) at 11 3. Its corporate “nerve center,” Where the majority of its executive and administrative functions are performed, is in Plano, Texas. Id. Accordingly, Defendant is a citizen of New Jersey and a citizen 0f Texas. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). 13. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is and was, at the commencement 0f the state court Action and at the time 0f removal, a citizen and resident 0f the state 0f California. See Complaint at 11 2 (“At all times Plaintiff Prateek Saxena is and has been a resident of San Francisco, California”). “The place where a person lives is taken t0 be his domicile until facts -4- SMRH=4820-0170-0277.3 DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1441 .5 QGUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 5 of 10 adduced establish the contrary...” Anderson v. Watt, 138 U.S. 694, 706 (1891); see also Bradley Min. C0. v. Boice, 194 F.2d 80, 84 (9th Cir. 1951) (“Proof of residence in a state is usually thought prima facie evidence 0f domicile.”); Cisneros Pantoja v. RAMCO Enterprises, L.P., 2019 WL 5959630, at *10 (N.D. Cal. NOV. 13, 2019) (“a person’s residence is prima facie evidence 0f domicile and citizenship”). An individual is a citizen 0f the state in Which he 0r she is domiciled. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Moreover, “a party With the burden of proving citizenship may rely on the presumption of continuing domicile, Which provides that, once established, a person’s state 0f domicile continues unless rebutted With sufficient evidence 0f change.” Mondragon v. Capital One Auto Fin, 736 F.3d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 2013). There is n0 indication-from the Complaint, or otherwise-that Plaintiff is or was a citizen 0fany state other than California. Accordingly, Plaintiff is now at the time ofthis removal, and was at the institution ofthis civil action, a citizen of California for purposes of determining diversity. 14. Based 0n the information available to Defendant, individual defendant Sanjeev Mittal is, and was at the commencement of the Action, a citizen 0f India. See Complaint at 11 5; Ramesh Decl. at 11 5. 15. Further, the citizenship of fictitious “Doe” defendants has no effect 0n the diversity analysis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (“[flor purposes 0fremoval under this chapter, the citizenship 0f defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded”); Cripps v. Life Ins. C0. 0f North America, 980 F.2d 1261, 1266 (9th Cir. 1992) (acknowledging that “Doe” defendants “shall be disregarded for jurisdictional purposes.”) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). 16. For these reasons, complete diversity exists because Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of different states and defendant Sanjeev Mittal is a citizen of a foreign state. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3). B. The Amount-in-Controversy Requirement is Met 17. Without making an admission of liability 0r propriety ofdamages with respect t0 any aspects 0f this case, or the proper legal test(s) applicable to Plaintiff’s allegations, the amount in controversy as asserted by Plaintiff exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court as detailed below. -5- SMRH34820'0170-02773 DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1441 .5 QGUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 6 of 10 18. “Where, as here, it is unclear from the face of the complaint Whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000,” the removing defendant need only establish, by a preponderance 0f the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & C0,, 888 F.3d 413, 416 (9th Cir. 2018). “The amount in controversy may include ‘damages (compensatory, punitive, or otherwise) and the cost of complying With an injunction, as well as attomeys’ fees awarded under fee shifting statutes.’” Id. (quoting Gonzales v. CarMax Auto Superstores, LLC, 840 F.3d 644, 648-49 (9th Cir. 2016)). 19. “The amount in controversy is simply an estimate of the total amount in dispute, not a prospective assessment of defendant’s liability.” Lewis v. Verizon Commc ’ns, Ina, 627 F.3d 395, 400 (9th Cir. 2010). “In other words, in assessing the amount in controversy, a court must ‘assume that the allegations of the complaint are true and assume that a jury will return a verdict for the plaintiff 0n all claims made in the complaint.’” Campbell v. Vitran Exp, Ina, 471 F. App’X 646, 648 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Kenneth Rothschild Tr. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 199 F. Supp. 2d 993, 1001 (C.D. Cal. 2002)). “The ultimate inquiry is What amount is put ‘in controversy” by the plaintiff s complaint, not what a defendant Will actually owe.” Korn, 536 F. Supp. 2d at 1205. 20. “[T]he amount in controversy is not limited to damages incurred prior t0 removal- for example, it is not limited to wages a plaintiff-employee would have earned before removal (as opposed t0 after removal)” Chavez, 888 F.3d at 414-15. “Rather, the amount in controversy is determined by the complaint operative at the time 0fremoval and encompasses all relief a court may grant 0n that complaint if the plaintiff is Victorious.” Id. Plaintiff seeks damages for past earnings, future earnings, 10st bonuses and benefits, contract damages, stock options, emotional distress, out- of-pocket expenses, consequential damages, medical expenses and injuries, punitive damages, interest, and attorney’s fees and costs. See Complaint atW 26, 31, Prayer for Relief. 1. Past And Future Lost Wages 21. As part of his retaliation and wrongful termination claims, Plaintiff seeks past and future lost wages. Complaint at 1N 26, 3 1. See Parker v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp, 3 Cal. 3d 176, 181 (1970) (wrongfully discharged employees may seek recovery of wages). Plaintiffs employment With Defendant ended in or around February 2019. Complaint at fl 22; Ramesh Decl. -6- SMRH=4820-0170-0277.3 DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1441 .5 QGUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 7 of 10 at 11 4. At that time, Plaintiff earned a salary of $130,336 per year. Id. This Notice of Removal is being filed approximately one year later, and trial likely Will not conclude until at least a year from now, for a total of two years 0f alleged 10st wages. Thus, Plaintiff“ s Complaint seeks-at minimum-$260,672 (two years ofPlaintiff’ s salary), which is by itselfwell in excess ofthe $75,000 jurisdictional minimum. See Chavez, 888 F.3d at 417-18 (holding that all damages for future lost wages must be included in the amount in controversy, not just those through the time of removal); Beltran v. ProCare Pharmacy, LLC, 2020 WL 748643, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2020) (for removal purposes, calculating the amount in controversy based on plaintiff’ s past and future lost wage claims through trial); Stainbrook v. Target Corp, 2016WL 3248665, at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 8, 2016) (same); Simmons v. PCR Tech, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (amount in controversy satisfied because it was “reasonable to expect that” that the plaintiff’ s 10st wage claims would exceed wages from the date that plaintiff” s employment was terminated through the date 0fremoval). Thus, Plaintiff s claim for past and future lost earnings-taken alone, as “an estimate of the total amount in dispute”-satisfies the jurisdictional amount. Lewis, 627 F.3d at 400. 2. Emotional Distress 22. In addition to alleged lost wages in excess of $75,000, Plaintiff claims damages for emotional distress in his first, second, third, fourth, and fifth claims for relief. Complaint at 1H] 26, 31, 37, 46, 52. Emotional distress damages may be considered in determining the amount in controversy. See Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp, 432 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2005). A defendant may introduce evidence ofjury verdicts in other cases as evidence of a plaintiff’s potential emotional distress damages. Cain v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. C0., 890 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1250 (C.D. Cal. 2012); see also Kroske, 432 F.3d at 980 (holding that a district court did not err in concluding that emotional distress damages added at least $25,000 t0 the amount in controversy based in part on “emotional distress damage awards in similar age discrimination cases in Washington”). 23. While the details of Plaintiff’ s alleged emotional distress damages are not pled in the Complaint, in cases alleging retaliation and wrongful termination, the emotional distress damages award often exceed $50,000. And here, Plaintiff has asserted three other claims for Which he seeks emotional distress damages, including two separate, standalone claims for infliction of emotional -7- SMRH34820'0170-02773 DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1441 A QGUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 8 of 10 distress (intentional and negligent). Accordingly, for diversity purposes, the value of the emotional distress facet, When including 0f all ofPlaintiff’ s claimed emotional distress damages, can very well exceed the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement on its own. 3. Attorney’s Fees and Costs 24. For purposes 0f federal subject matter jurisdiction, “[t]he amount in controversy includes the amount of damages in dispute, as well as attorney’s fees, if authorized by statute or contract.” Gait G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees, presumably under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. Complaint at 1] 31; see Klein v. City ofLaguna Beach, 810 F.3d 693, 701 (9th Cir. 2016) (“federal courts apply state law for attorney’s fees t0 state claims because of the Erie doctrine”). 25. In addition to the amount 0f attorney’s fees expended through the time 0f removal, “a court must include future attomeys’ fees recoverable by statute 0r contract When assessing whether the amount-in-controversy requirement is met.” Fritsch v. Swift Transportation Company ofArizona, LLC, 899 F.3d 785, 794 (9th Cir. 2018) (emphasis added). 26. It is not only plausible but highly likely that Plaintiffwill expend and potentially seek to recover well in excess 0f $200,000 through the trial in attorney’s fees should he prevail. See Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Ina, 243 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 1011 (ND. Cal. 2002) (“The amount 0f fees commonly incurred in similar litigation can usually be reasonably estimated based 0n experience.”). But, even using a conservative estimate of attorney’s fees for a case such as this- 33% of total recovery for Plaintiff’s 10st wage claims alone-attorney’s fees would total $86,890 ($260,672/3). This amount would, by itself, exceed the amount in controversy required for removal. 4. Miscellaneous Damages 27. Penalties. Plaintiff’s claim under Labor Code section 1102.5 also includes a penalty ofup to $10,000. Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5(f). This amount has been put at issue by Plaintiff. 28. Punitive Damages. “It is well established that punitive damages are part 0f the amount in controversy in a civil action.” Gibson v. Chrysler Corp, 261 F.3d 927, 945 (9th Cir. 2001), holding modified by Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Ina, 545 U.S. 546 (2005). T0 establish punitive damages, “[a] defendant may introduce evidence of jury verdicts in cases -8- SMRH=4820-0170-0277.3 DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1441 .5 QGUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 9 of 10 involving analogous fact.” Simmons, 209 F. Supp. 2d at 1033. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages pursuant t0 his claims for retaliation, wrongfill termination, negligent infliction 0f emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Complaint at W 26, 32, 38, 47, and Prayer for Relief. Here, a low-end punitive damage award of $26,067 (10% 0f Plaintiff’s lost wage claims) would be equal to more than one-third 0f the jurisdictional minimum. 29. Other relief. Plaintiff also seeks an assortment of other damages: lost bonuses and benefits, contract damages, stock options, out-of-pocket expenses, consequential damages, medical expenses and injuries, and interest. See Complaint at 1N 26, 3 1, Prayer for Relief. The Complaint does not make any specific statements as to the amounts Plaintiff seeks for these items. With claims such as those for stock options, these amounts could easily exceed the jurisdictional minimum. 30. A summary of the relief Plaintiff seeks in this case, using low-end, conservative estimates, is set forth below. Conservative Estimate Past and Future $260,672 (based on the time from the end of Lost Wages Plaintiff’ s employment through the end of trial, conservatively estimated a year from the date 0f removal) Emotional Distress $50,000 Attorney’s Fees $86,890 (one third of Plaintiff s claims for lost wages) Penalties $10,000 Punitive Damages $26,067 (10% of Plaintiff’s claims for lost wages) Other Relief $ 1 0,000 Total $443,629 3 1. Thus, Defendant has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Plaintiff s Complaint has put more than $75,000 in controversy. -9- SMRH=4820-0170-0277.3 DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1441 A QGUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 10 0f 10 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that the state court action now pending against it in the Superior Court for the State 0f California for the County of Santa Clara be removed to this United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Dated: February 19, 2020 Respectfully submitted, SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP By /S/ Gal Gressel BABAK YOUSEFZADEH GAL GRESSEL Attorneys for Defendant TECH MAHINDRA (AMERICAS) INC. (erroneously sued as TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.) -10- SMRH34820'0170-02773 DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1441 Exhibit A Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 1 of 39 S U IYI M O N S FOR COL+RT USE OIYLY (CITACIONJUDIC/AL) E-FILED ~DELACORTEJ NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: 11 /21 /2019 2:10 PM (AVISOALDEMANDADO): Clerk of Court TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC., a California cotporation; Superior Court of CA, SANJEEV M1TTAL, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, County of Santa Clara YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: 19CV358955 (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): Reviewed By: Yuet Lai PR.ATEEK SAXENA, Envelope: 3682549 NOT10El You have been sued. The court may decide against you witllout your being heard unless you respond withln 30 days. Read the tnformatton beiow. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS atler this summons and legal papers are served on you to (Ue a wrilten response at thls sourt and have a copy served on the plalntiff. A letter or phone caU wlll not protect you. Your written response must be In proper tegal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these coun forms and more informattan at the Callfomia Courts ONine Self•Help Center (www.courftnto.ca gov/sellhelp), your county law library, or the caurthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the fiAng fee, ask Ihe oourt clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not fde your response on time, you may lose the case by defauit, and your wages, money. and property may be taken vrithoul furlher waming from Ule court. There are other tegal requtrements. You may want to call an attomey right away. lf you do not know an attomey, you may want to catl an attomey referral service. If you cannot afford an allomey, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonproiit legal services program. You can locate these nonproflt groups at the Califomia Legat Senrices Web site (www.lawhelpcalilomla. org), the Califomia Courts Onpne Self-Help Center (www.00urtinfo.cagov/selflrelp), or by contacting your tocal court or counly bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory Ilen for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitratton award of $10,000 or more In a civil case. The coun's Iten must be paid before Use court will dismiss the case. lAV/SO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dlas, la corte puede deddir en su contra sin escuchar su versidn. Lea la k9omraddn a confinuadbn. TFene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO despuAs de que le entreguen esfa dlacibn y papeles tega/es para presenlar una respuesta por escrJto en esta corte y haoer que se entregue una copia al demandante. flna carfa o una qamada teletdnica no to pvotegen. Su respuesta por escrlto flene que estar en formato legal correcto sl desea que pnocesen su caso en la corfe. Es posib/e que haya un fommlarlo qua usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrer estos fomrularfos de la corte y mds infatmadbn en et Centro de Ayude de las Corfes de Califomia (Www.sucorte.aa.gov), en la blbWece de leyes de su corMado o en la corte que le quede m8s cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentadbn, pida at secreterio de !a corte que le d8 un formu/arlo de exencfdn de pago de cuotas SI no presenta su respuesta a tlempo, puede perder el caso por lncumpllm/ento y 1a corte le poft quller su sueldo, dlne►o y blenes sln mAs advertenc/a. Hay otros requJsJfos legales Es recomendable que pame a un abogado lnmediafamenle. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede l/amar a un servido de remTsldn a abogados SI no puede pagar a un abogado, es posFble que cumpla oon fos requisifos para obtener servidos legales gratulfos de un programa de servldos legales sin rines da luaro. Puede eneonfrar esfos gropos sin rnes de lucro en el sitlo web de Califomfa t_egal ServieeS (VvwwlawhelpcalNomia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cartes de Calitomia, Mrww.sucorte.ca.gov) o ponldndose en eontacfo con ta oorte o el cofegio de abogados locafas A V/S0: Par ley, la aorte tlene denecYro a n3clamar las cuatas y los castos exentos por Imponer un gravamen sobre cuafqulerrecuperaddn de $10,000 b mds de valorreciblda mediante un acuardo o una conoestdn de arbilraJe en un caso de derecho cfv1L T7ene que pagar el gravamen de la corie antes de que ta corte pueda desechar el caso. The name and address of the oourt Is: CASB NUA7eER: (Ed nombre y dr'reccl6n de la corte es): Santa Clara Superior Court lNa---de! Camk 19CV358955 191 N. First Street San Jose, CA 95113 The name, address, and teiephone number of plaintitPs attomey, or plainliff vuithout an attomey, is: (EI nombne, la direccidn y el neimero de teldtono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no ttene abogado, es): Jacob George, Mathew & George: 500 S. Grand Ave., Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90071 (310) 478-4349 DATE71/21/2019 2:10 PM Clerk of Court ol~by Yuet Lai ~~uh+ (Fecha) (Secretario) (Adjunto) (For pnoofof service of thfs summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).) (Para prueba de enlrega de esta citatlbn use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)). -_- NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1. 0 as an individual defendant. •; 2. 0 as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): -~ TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC., A CALIFORNIA i Paae 1 ar 1 fwm Adapted tow Mandatwy Uw Jud~fal Counal ol Cahlania S U MMONS Code of Gvit Protedure §§ 412.20, 465 www.00mBn(o.ca.gov SUM-100 (Rev. JWy 1. ~ 3. = on behaif of (specify): CORPORATION under. CCP 416.10 (oorporation) Q CCP 416.60 (minor) Q CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) CCP 416.70 (conservatee) Q CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) CCP 416.90 (authorized person) Q other (specify): 4. Q by personal delivery on (date): Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 2 of 39 _ C -010 ATTORNEY~R PAR7YINRHOUTATTORNBY(Neme.StafoBnmrmber,ertdeddrossx Ft?aC0(JRrUSEQNty Jacob cieorgc, Csq. SBN 213612 Mathew & George lectronically Filed 500 S. Grand Avcnuc, Suite 2050 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Su erior Court of CA y p , Te"HoNENo.: (310) 479-4349 FAxNo- (310) 478-9580 ounty of Santa Clara, ATTORNEY FOR Name : Prateek Saxena n 11 /21 /2019 2:10 PM UPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNIA, COUNTY OF Santa Ciara smEET Aomm: 191 N. First Street eviewed By: Yuet Lai n+NLMGAooRFM: Same -i ase #19CV358955 CFffA►+dZPCODE: San Jose, CA 95113 nvelope: 3682549 ewwCH wW-: Downtown Su erior Court DTS CASE NAME: PRATEEK SAXENA v. TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC. et al. CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ✓O Unlfmited ~ t.tmlted Complex Case Designation CASE "ua18M 19CV358955 (Amount (Amount ~ Counter Q Joinder demanded demanded is Fi led with fhst appearance by defendant JU°o£' exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) Kems 1-6 below must be com teted (see rnsbuctions on page 2). 1. Chedc one box below for the case type that best describes this case: Auto Tort ~ Auto (22) Contract 0 Breach of conUadtwarrarriy (06) Provlsionally Comptex Civil Lltigafton (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.4011-3.403) Uninsured motodst (48) =1 Rule 3.740 cotlections (09) = AntitrusNTnade regulation (03) Other PUPDlVYD (Parsonal Inlury/Property = ather collections (09) El Conslnrctton defed (10) DamagelWrongful Death) Tort ~ Asbestos (04) ED Insurance coverage (18) Q Other contract (37) E:1 &Uss tort (40) SecuriQes littgatton 0 Product Aabtlity (24) Real Property (28) EnvironnlentatIToxtc tort (30) ~ Medical malpractice (45) ~ Olher PUPDtWD (23) Q Eminent domaWtnverse condemnation (14) Insurance coverage daims arising from the atxsve listed provisEanally complex case Non-PIlPDIWD (Otherj Tort O Wrongful eviction (33) h(pes (41) ~ Buslness tortlunfair busfness pradlce (07) 081er real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment ~ CivA rights (08) Unlawful Detainer O Enforcement of judgmeni (20) El Mfamadon (13) ED Commerdal (31) pqiscellaneous Clvll Complalnt O Fraud (18) ED Residenlial (32) Q RICO (27) ~ Inteltedual property (19) = Drugs (38) Q Other compfaint (rtot speclned above) (42) 0 Professlanal negiigence (25) 0 Other Judletal Ravlaw 0 Asset forfeiture (05) Misceltaneours Civil PetiUon non-PI/PDM1D tort (35) 0 Q PaRnerstdp and corporate govemance (21) E_ mployment ✓ Wrongtul terminaUon (36) Petftion re: arbitraGon award (11) a Q~er petfion (rrot specytled above) (43) Writ of mandate (02) Q Other employment (15) Other Judicial review (39 2. This case U is LLJ is not complex under rule 3.400 of the Califomia Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exoeptionat judicial management: a. 0 Large number of separately represented parties d. ~ Large number of witnesses b. Ectensive motion practice raising diffrcult or novel e. 0 Coordination with related acNons pending in one or more oourts issues that vAll be tlme-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a feder•al oourt c. SubstanBal amount of dommentary evidence f. 0 Substantial postjudgment judidal supervision 3. Remedies sought (check all that appty): a.© monetary b. = nonmonetary; dedaratory or injunctive relief C. © punitive 4. Number of causes of action (specify): (9) NINE 5. This case [] is © is not a dass action suit. 6. If there are any known refated cases, flle and serve a notice of rdated case. (You may use forrn CM-015.) Date: November 21, 2019 Jacob George /s/Jacob Georae/s/ • Plain6ff must tile this oover sheet with. the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small daims cases or cases fited . under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Insfitutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to 51e may result in sanctions. • File this cover sheet in additlon to any Cover sheet required by local Court rule. • If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the Califomia Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other partles to the action or proceeding. • Unless this Is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cwver sheet will be used for statistfcal purposes onl . aa ~o / of: F- Aeo~,earaM~aaasr u:e CIVIL CASE COVERSWEET ~~•~ofCo ,e, rwesz.3o,aa20,a400-3.ana,3.7na 1u~at Coundl otCo~lomto CaL stm+darda olJucOdo! Admlabtratlon, a•d. 3.10 CM-0101Rev. Ju1r 1, 20071 www oowtlMo.capov Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 3 of 39 INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET CM-010 To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a first paper (for example, a oomplaint) in a civii case, you must complete and file, along with your first paper, the Civil t:ase Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This infomvation will be used to compile staNstics about the types and numbers of cases filed. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. tn item 1. you must check one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case fits both a general and a more specific type of case qsted in item 1. check the more specific one. If the case has muRiple causes of action, check the box that best indlcates the primary cause of action. To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be filed only with your initiai paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper fited in a civil case may subject a party. Its oounsel, or both to sanctions under rufes 2.30 and 3.220 of the Califomia Rules of Court. To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A"collectPons case" under nde 3.740 is defined as an acHon for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000. exclusive of interest and attomey's fees. arlsing from a transadion in which property, services, or money was acquin3d on credit. A coilections case does not indude an adion seektng the foUowing: (1) tort damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identfication of a case as a rule 3.740 colledions case on this form means that it will be exempt from the generat time-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case wiU be subjed to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740. To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civi! Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the cme is complex. if a plaintiH believes the casge is complex under ruie 3.400 of the Califomia Rules of Court, this must be indicated by completing the approprtate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be senred with the complaint on all parties to the acUon. A defendant may file and serve no later than the Ume of its first appearance a joinder in the plainqfrs designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, If the piaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case Is complex. CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Auto Tort Contract ProvisionaUy Comptex Civil Utigallon (Cal. Auto (22)-Personai InjurylProperiy Breach of ContradlWarranly (08) Rules of Court Rutes 3A00-3.403) DamagaM►rongfui Dealh Bns3ch of RentaULease AntlbusVrrade Regulalton (03) Uninsured MotorLst (46) (bthe Contract (nd anlawhrl detainer ConsUuctlon Defect (10) case tnvahres an uninsufed or wron9lul evlctfon) Cteims Invohrtng Mass Torl (40) motorkt dakn subJect to ContracUWarranly Breach-Selier Secufities Uligatlon (28) arblhaf7on, chack ttds item PtainUH (not baud ar negi•agence) Environmentatlroxic Tort (30) instead of Aulo) Ivegligent Breach of Contract/ Insuranae Coverage qaims Other PBRDIWD (Personal Injuryl Warrranty (ariskrg fiorn prrovislonaily oomplex Property DamageNflrongfui Death) OtherBreach of ConiraWWarranty cese /ype Iisted ebove) (41) Coqectlans (e.g., money owed, open EnforcmnOnt of Judgment T~Asbestos (04) book accounts) (09) Enforcement of .tudgment (20) Asbesros Property Damage CoAection Case-Sdler Piaintig Absiract of Judgment (Out of Asbestos Personal Injury/ Other Ptomtssory NotelCottedions Counly) yyrongful pealh Cas® Confession of Judgmenl (non- Product Liatu'Gty (nat asbestos or Insurance Coverage (not proyisionaHy domeslicaalatfans) foxir.Wm&onmenlaQ (24) oo'nPbx) (18) Sister State Judgmenl Medtcal Malpractice (45) Auto Subrogation AdminLatrafive Agenry Award Medical Maipradice- Olher Coverage (not unpald taxes) Ptrysi6ans & Surgeons Other Contracl (37) PeIHfoNCertification of Entry of Other Professbnal Health Care Contradaal Fraud Judgmenl on Unpaid Taxes Malpractfoe Other Contract Dispute O~f ne fon~ment of Judgment Olher PIIPDIWO (23) Reai Property Premises t.fabigty (e.g., stip Eminent Domain/inverse {ylisceUanoous Civlt Complaint and fa9) Candemnation (14) RICO {27) tntentional BOdily InJury/PDMtD Wrongfuf Eviction (33) Olher Comptaint (not spedr'red (e.g., assauEt, vandatism) IntenUonal InlGctlon of Other Real Property (e.g., quiel title) (26) Writ of Possession of Real Property above) (42) pederalory Retlef Oniy Emotional Dislress Mortgage Fon~tosure Injanetive Retiet Only (non-herass~rrenQ Negfigent Irdllction of Ernotional Distress ouiet fiie Other Real Property (nof eminent Mechardcs Uan Olher PUPDIWD domafn, ~rrdlordRenant; a Other Cammerdal Complaint Non-PUPDNVD (Other) Tort rorecrasrrre) Case (no►rfart/hon-=nplex) Other Civi! Comptaint Business TorWnfatr Business Unlawful Detainer (non-tal/honn-complex) Pradice (07) Civil Rtghts (e.g., discrimtnatior% Commerctal(31) Residentlal (32) Miscoilaneous Civll PetlHon Parinershlp and Cor~rale false arrest) (not cTvN On'9s (~) f~ lhe case Hwotves iHegal Gorremance (21) harassmenf) (OS) Defamatt~ (e.g., ~dander, dbel) ~s,acSeck ~~la or eside , ntlal) Other PetlUon (notspedlied abotre) (43) (13) Fraud (16) Judidat Revlew Asset Forfeiture (05) Civll Harassment Workplace Violenr.e intellectual Properly (19) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11) ElderlDepandent Aduli Professi0nal Ptegligence (25) Writ of Mandate (02) Abtise Legal Malpr•dctioe Writ AdministraUve Mandamus ElectFon Corriest Olher Professional Matpraclice Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court Petigon for Name Change nW madreal or Other Non-PUPDIVYD To~rt (35) Writ-Olhe~ Uumited Court Case Pe11Uon for ReHef From Late Claim Employment Wrongful Termination (38) Review Olher Judicial Review (39) Other Civa Petition Other Emptoyment (15) Review of Health Ofrxer Order Notice of Appeal-Labor Commissioner Aapeals ~010 P0V""'y ''i067j CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET P~'°x°r' Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 4 of 39 ATTACHMENT CV-5012 CIVIL LAWSUIT NOTICE 19CV358955 Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara CASE NUM®ER: 191 North First St., San Jose, CA 95113 PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE FORM PLAINTIFF (the person suing): Within 60 days after filing the lawsuit, you must serve each Defendant with the Complaint, Summons, an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Information Sheet, and a copy of this Civil Lawsuit Notice, and you must file written proof of such senrice. DEFENDANT (The person sued): You must do each of the following to protect your rights: 1. You must file a written response to the Complaint, using the proper legal form or format, in the Clerk's Office of the Court, within 30 days of the date you were served with the Summons and Complaint; 2. You must serve by mail a copy of your written response on the PlaintifPs attorney or on the Plaintiff if Plaintiff has no attorney (to "serve by mail" means to have an adult other than yourself mail a copy); and 3. You must attend the first Case Management Conference. Warning: If you, as the Defendant, do not follow these instructions, you may automatically lose this case. RULES AND FORMS: You must follow the California Rules of Court and the Superior Court of California, County of <-CountyName_> Local Civil Rules and use proper forms. You can obtain legal information, view the rules and receive forms, free of charge, from the Self-Help Center at 201 North First Street, San Jose (408-882-2900 x-2926). ■ State Rules and Judicial Council Forms: www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms and www.courtinfo.ca.govlrules ■ Local Rules and Forms: http:/lwww.sccsuperiorcourt.org/civil/rule1toc.htm CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE (CMC): You must meet with the other parties and discuss the case, in person or by telephone at least 30 calendar days before the CMC. You must also fill out, file and serve a Case Management Statement (Judicial Council form CM-110) at least 15 calendar days before the CMC. You or your attorney must appear at the CMC. You may ask to appear by telephone - see Local Civil Rule 8. Arand, Mary E 9 Your Case Management Judge is: Department: The 1 st CMC is scheduled for: (Completed by Clerk of Court) Date: 3/17/2020 Time: 1:30pm in Department: 9 The next CMC is scheduled for: (Completed by party if the 1 st CMC was continued or has passed) Date: Time: in Department: ALTERNAT►VE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR): If all parties have appeared and filed a completed ADR Stipulation Form (local form CV-5008) at least 15 days before the CMC, the Court will cancel the CMC and mail notice of an ADR Status Conference. Visit the Court's website at www.sccsuperiorcourt.org/civil/ADR/ or call the ADR Administrator (408-882-2100 x-2530) for a list of ADR providers and their qualifications, services, and fees. WARN/NG: Sanctions may be imposed if you do not follow the California Rules of Court or the Local Rules of Court. cv-5012 REvoarovis CIVIL LAWSUIT NOTICE Page 1 of 1 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 5 of 39 1 2 3 41 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ABRAHAM MATHEW, SBN 181110 czbrahcznzL&rncrthewand,.eoLge. com JACOB GEORGE, SBN 213612 iacobna,mathewand r~ge.coYn MATHEW & GEORGE 500 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2050 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (310) 478-4349 Fax: (310) 478-9580 Attorneys for Plaintiff, PRATEEK SAXENA PRATEEK SAXENA, Plaintiff, vs. TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC., a California corporation; SANJEEV MITTAL, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants. E-FILED 11/21/2019 2:10 PM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara 19CV358955 Reviewed By: Yuet Lai Case No.: 19CV358955 COMPLAINT (1) Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5 1 (2) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distresss (4) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Dist (5) Negligent Hiring, Retention, and Supervision (6) Breach of Contract (7) Negligent Misrepresentation (8) Quantum Meruit (9) Specific Performance DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 6 of 39 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 JURISIDICTION AND VENUE l. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court by virtue of the California statutes, decisional law and regulations, and the local rules under the San Jose County Superior Court Rules. 2. Venue in this Court is proper in that Tech Mahindra Americas Inc. has a principal place of business in San Jose, California. and, at all times herein mentioned, has been California corporation with the capacity to sue, and to be sued in San Francisco, California. 5. Defendant Sanjeev Mittal ("Defendant" or "Mittal") is an individual who is and has been a resident of Pune (Mumbai), India. 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges that each of the Defendants herein were at all times the agent, employee, or representative of each remaining Defendant and were at all times herein acting within the scope and purpose of said agency and employment. Plaintiff further alleges that each Defendant, whether named or referred to as a fictitious name, supervised, ratified, controlled, adopted, directed, substantially participated in, and/or approved the acts, errors, or omissions of each remaining Defendant. 6. The true names and capacities of the Defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, whether individual, corporate, partnership, association, or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will request leave of court to amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities at such time as they are ascertained. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 7. Plaintiff is a 50-year-old who earned his Bachelor of Engineering degree in Mechanical Engineering from Nagpur University in India. Plaintiff holds a Masters in Business Administration (MBA) from the University of Toronto. Page 1 COMPLAINT PARTIES 3. At all times Plaintiff Prateek Saxena ("Plaintiff' or "Saxena") is and has been a I resident of San Francisco, California. 4. Defendant Tech Mahindra Americas Inc. ("Defendaiit" or "Tech Mahindra") is Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 7 of 39 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 8. Plaintiff has over twenty eight years of experience in the energy sector. Plaintiff 2 successfully developed and implemented energy management technology and programs in 3 Canada and the United States before he was hired by Defendant. 4 9. Plaintiff began his employment with Tech Mahindra in May 2011 as Assistant Vice 5 I President for the Smart Grids division of Tech Mahindra. 6 10. Plaintiff worked primarily on Smart Grids which are made up of electricity supply 7 networks that use digital communication technologies to detect and react to local changes in 8 electricity usage needs. Plaintiff specifically worked on demand response arid energy 9 management for smart grids. Plaintiff's expertise lay in designing electrical systems with digital 10 connectivity and developing IT platforms, making grids more reliable and cost effective. 11 11. During his employment with Defendant,, Plaintiff excelled in innovating new technologies that assisted smart grids in being more efficient. As such, Plaintiff received several accolades for his work with smart grids. Among such accolades in 2015, Plaintiff won the First Runner Up Award from The Mahindra Group for his work associated with smart grids. This award was given to Plaintiff by Defendant where 200,000 associates were in competition for said award. In 2016, Plaintiff won the Top 10 Global Innovation Award given by the International Energy Agency as part of the Climate Change Summit in Paris. Plaintiff was recognized as being a pioneer in the area of innovation for smart grids. 12. Plaintiff received the highest ratings from Defendant at his appraisals for the years 2011, 1 2015 and 2017. In October of 2014 Plaintiff was awarded the Intrapreneur Award as internal entrepreneur. This selection was made out of 150,000 associates and was widely publicized by Tech Mahindra internally and externally through media outlets. 13. Plaintiff was publicly awarded for being the high achiever for 2017 and also received the prestigious award for TOP Innovation with Mahindra Group. 14. In addition to his accolades, Plaintiff was recognized for his ability to obtain financial grants from governmental agencies and municipalities. Plaintiff won over one million dollars in funding from the Ministry of Energy in Ontario, Canada to develop an Electriv Vehicle Charging platfoim. This resulted in a two-year contract between the Ministry of Energy in Page 2 COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 8 of 39 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 I Ontario and Tech Mahindra. Plaintiff also won GBP 300,000 in funding from Innovate UK to 2 create a community action platform. Plaintiff and his team worked on and successfully 3 completed the development of two IPs (Intelligent Processes) for Intelligent Electric Vehicle 4 Charging Systems. (IEVCS) and Community Action Platform for Energy (CAPE). 5 15. In 2017, Plaintiff spearheaded a new project as part of Tech Mahindra CFO's mandate, 6 to create a new business entity that would be a spin-off from Tech Mahindra. Tech Mahindra 7 President, Atul Kunwars, approved the Tech Mahindra incubated startup ("startup"). Plaintiff 8 and Tech Mahindra had agreed to a startup whereby both parties stood to benefit financially 9 from the startup. 10 16. Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiff's manager retired and Sanjeev Mittal ("Mittal") joined 11 I Tech Mahindra as Plaintiff's new boss. Mittal was based out of Tech Mahindra's offices in Pune (Mumbai), India. From the very beginning, Mittal and his business practices embodied corruption. Mittal made it no secret that he did not attach importance to what was contractually agreed to between Plaintiff and Tech Mahindra with respect to the startup. Mittal was acting as the gatekeeper for the startup and he made it known that he would have the final say as to what happened. In one of the initial meetings regarding the startup, Mittal asked how much money outside of Mittal's salary Mittal would receive if he were to "cooperate" and "support" the startup. Mittal bluntly asked why he should support the startup, stating, "You guys are going to be billionaires, what's there for me?" 17. Mittal again attempted to extract payment from Plaintiff during a conference call between Plaintiff and Mittal. On the call, Plaintiff noted that Mittal was to be an advisor for a another project that Plaintiff was working on. This project would require the use of Tech Mahindra's Pune, India campus as proof of concept. Plaintiff also informed Mittal that he was in discussions whereby Facebook was to contribute $100,000 toward the Pune campus project. Mittal immediately asked for a personal "signing bonus" for himself from any proceeds received from Facebook.. Page 3 COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 9 of 39 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 18. During this time, Mittal understood that his demands were not being met by Plaintiff refused to approve the renewal. The Ministry of Ontario Energy project requested an extension of the contract but Mittal did not approve the extension for several months. This extension was needed to procure the balance of money to be paid by the Ontario Government. The project required no capital injection from Tech Mahindra. The sole reason for Mittal's refusal to c provide approval was to damage PlaintifPs reputation with Ontario's government. When Plaintiff had to travel in order to facilitate a large deal, Mittal refused to approve travel costs and expenses. Plaintiff travelled at his own cost to close the deal. 21. When it became clear to Mittal that he would not receive his bribe money from Plaintiff for any "cooperation" for the startup, Mittal set out to terminate Plaintiff's employment with Tech Mahindra. In August of 2018, Mittal demanded that Plaintiff leave the startup project and quit his employment with Tech Mahindra. After this time Mittal was openly hostile toward I I Plaintiff and any of Plaintiff's work. 22. Finally, in February of 2019 Mittal terminated Plaintiff from his employment with Tech I Mahindra. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Retaliation and Wrongful Termination in Violation of California Labor Code § 1102.5-Whistleblower Protection Act (Plaintiff against all Defendants) Page 4 COMPLAINT with respect to the bribe money that Mittal demanded. As such Mittal set out on a campaign to force his agenda on Plaintiff and the startup by impeding Plaintiff's and the startup's progress. 19. Mittal consistently denied Plaintiff's requests and attempted to slow or stop the progress of the startup. Mittal put a hold on the patent process for the startup despite the fact that the previous manager had already approved the budget. Mittal deliberately delayed approving payment of Plaintiff's expenses for over two months although approval within one week was the norm in the company. 20. Mittal interfered with Plaintiff's other projects and even projects that were already completed. The CAPE project required the renewal of Amazon Web Services license but Mittal Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 10 of 39 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 19. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. 20. At all times set forth in this Complaint, Plaintiff was an employee of Tech Mahindra Americas, Inc. and DOES 1-10 and was protected by California Labor Code § 1102.5. 21. At all times set forth in this Complaint, California Labor Code § 1102.5 was in effect and provides, in part, that: "(a) An employer may not make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to... a person with authority over the employee, or to another employee who has authority to investigate, discovery, or correct the violation of noncompliance ...where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a local, state or federal rule or regulation. ... (b) An employer may not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information to... a person with authority over the employee, or to another employee who has authority to investigate, discovery, or conect the violation of noncompliance ...where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a local, state or federal rule or regulation. ... (c) An employer may not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a local, state or federal rule or regulation. (d) An employer may not retaliate against an employee for having exercised his or her rights under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) in any former employment." 22. As detailed above, Plaintiff refused to pay off Defendant Mittal for his cooperation on at least two projects and, as a result, Plaintiff was terminated. 23. Plaintiffl s refusal was the cause of Tech Mahindra's decision to terminate PlaintifPs employment. 24. By terminating Plaintiff's employment in retaliation for his Protected Activity, Page 5 COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 11 of 39 1 and as otherwise may be discovered, Defendants violated California Labor Code § 1102.5. 2 25. Defendants acted witli malice, oppression, and fraud and in conscious disregard 3 for Plaintiff s rights under the law, by violating California Labor Code § 1102.5, et seq. as is set 4 forth throughout this Complaint. 5 26. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' malicious, oppressive, 6 fraudulent, and despicable violations of California Labor Code § 1102.5, et seq. as set forth 7 herein, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer general and special damages, the need for 8 punitive damages, including, but not limited to the following: 9 (a) Damages for severe, excruciating and traumatic emotional distress and physical 10 manifestations of the emotional distress and exacerbation of those injuries and 11 symptoms, all in an amount to be determined by the jury at the trial of this ~ 12 matter; o~ N ~ a ~ 13 (b) Damages for past loss of earnings, bonuses and benefits, in spite of continuing w 14 attempts at mitigating damages, with such damages increasing each day, plus ~ ~ ~ Q Q ~ z~ 15 interest in an amount to be determined by the jury at the trial of this matter; H~W ~ H Q 16 (c) Damages for future loss of earnings, bonuses and benefits, in spite of continuing ~ O ~ o a 17 attempts at mitigating damages, in an amount to be determined by the jury at the 18 trial of this matter; 19 (d) Damages for consequential financial losses and additional emotional distress 20 damages, increasing with each day in an amount to be determined by the jury at 21 the trial of this matter; and 22 (e) The wrongful conduct of Defendants described above was intended by 23 Defendants, and each of them, to cause injury to Plaintiff and was despicable, 24 mean, and vile conduct carried on by Defendants with a willful and conscious 25 disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, subjecting him to cruel and unjust hardship, 26 and was an intentional misrepresentation and concealment of material facts 27 known to Defendants with the intent to deprive Plaintiff of property, legal rights, 28 or to otherwise cause injury, such as to constitute malice, oppression, and/or Page 6 COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 12 of 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 fraud under Civil Code section 3294, thereby entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the Defendants or to make an example of Defendants to prevent such conduct by others. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (Plaintiff against all Defendants) 27. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. 28. At all times herein mentioned in this complaint, California Labor Code §§ 1102.5 and 98.6 were in full force and effect and were binding on the Defendants, and the Defendants were subject to their terms. Defendants were required to refrain from violations of public policy, including terminating Plaintiff in retaliation for his Protected Activity. 29. Plaintiff performed competently and capably during his employment with Defendants. Nevertheless, as detailed above, Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated by Defendants, and each of them, because of his Protected Activity. 30. Defendants' above described conduct is in violation of various statutes and the decisional law of this state and country, including but not limited, California Labor Code §§ 1102.5 and 98.6. 31. As a direct and legal result of Defendants' discrimination and retaliatory actions against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer general, consequential and special damages including but not limited to substantial losses in earnings, other employment benefits, physical injuries, physical sickness, as well as emotional distress, plus medical expenses, future medical expenses, and attorneys' fees, all to his damage in an amount according to proof. 32. Said termination was wrongful and justifies the imposition of punitive damages since the termination was against public policy. Defendants intentionally discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff on account of his protected activity, and in doing so, Defendants acted maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff. Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants and each of them, in an amount according to proof. Page 7 COMPLAINT 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 13 of 39 1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 2 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against all Defendants) 3 33. Plaintiff incorporates, as though set forth fully herein, all of the allegations contained in all 4 previous paragraphs this Complaint. 5 34. Defendants' conduct, as alleged above was outrageous and exceeded all bounds of 6 common decency usually tolerated by a civilized society. Plaintiff worked diligently for 7 Defendants for seven years, but Defendant Mittal consistently undermined him and his 8 projects and subverted his efforts until he was terminated. Defendant Mittal was openly 9 hostile towards Plaintiff and his projects, attempting numerous times to stagnate them. 10 Defendants acted intentionally or unreasonably with the recognition that the acts were 11 likely to result in severe mental distress. CD 0 12 35. The Defendants acted with intent to inflict injury upon the Plaintiff and/or with the N ~ 13 realization that the injury was substantially certain to result from said Defendants' w W o 14 conduct. ~¢'Q W Q d ~ 15 36. Defendants' outrageous conduct was intentionally and deliberately directed at the Plaintiff F FC W ~ x Q 16 for the sole purposes of causing Plaintiff emotional distress. ~ 0 ~ g~ tn 17 37. As a direct and proximate result of said Defendants conduct, Plaintiff was caused to suffer 18 severe emotional distress all to Plaintiff's damage in an amount subject to proof at trial. 19 38. Defendants' conduct, as alleged above, was oppressive, fraudulent and malicious, and was 20 done willfully and intentionally with the intent to inflict harm upon the Plaintiff, with 21 conscious disregard for the probable harm said conduct would do to Plaintiff. Therefore, 22 Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish and 23 make an example of the Defendants. 24 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 25 (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress against all Defendants) 26 39. Plaintiff incorporates, as though set forth fully herein, all of the allegations contained in all 27 previous paragraphs this Complaint. 28 40. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants had a duty, as Plaintiff's employer, not to create Page 8 COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 14 of 39 1 a hostile work environment. 2 41. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants had a duty, as Plaintiff's employer, not to 3 interfere with Plaintiff's accomplishment of work goals and projects. 4 42. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants had a duty not_to attempt to extort payment 5 from Plaintiff for continued support of Plaintiff's projects. 6 43. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants had a duty, as Plaintiff's employer, not to 7 terminate Plaintiff for failing to accept Defendant's bribes. 8 44. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants had a duty not to willfully violate statutory 9 standards, including the statutory duty under California Labor Code § 1102.5. 10 45. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, Defendants breached said duties. 11 46. As a direct and proximate result of said breaches of duty, Plaintiff was caused to suffer 0 12 severe emotional distress all to Plaintiff' s damage' in an amount subject to proof at trial. 0 N ~ ~~ 13 47. Defendants, in engaging in the conduct alleged herein knew, or should have known, it was W z o 14 highly probable that harm to Plaintiff would result therefrom. Therefore, Plaintiff is 3 Q v F~ j 15 entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish and make an ~ 16 example of the Defendants. g a 17 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION ~ 18 (Negligent Hiring, Retention, and Supervision against Defendant Tech Mahindra) 19 48. Plaintiff incorporates, as though set forth fully herein, all of the allegations contained in all 20 previous paragraphs this Complaint. 21 49. At all times mentioned in this complaint, Defendants negligently and carelessly hired, 22 trained, and retained its employees including, but not limited to, Defendant Mittal. 23 50. Defendants breached their duty to exercise reasonable care and acted negligently and 24 carelessly in the hiring, training, and retention by failing to provide measures to safeguard 25 employees against retaliatory actions, including but not limited to, investigating new hires, 26 providing employees with appropriate reporting procedures, and properly monitoring 27 employees. 28 51. Defendants, as supervisors and operators of the business, negligently failed to investigate Page 9 COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 15 of 39 0 12 0 N ~ H CD~ 13 ~ 14 ~QU 15 H~a W 16 5 ~ 00 g a 17 ~ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 the background of Defendants' employees including, but not limited to, Defendant Mittal. 2 Defendants also failed to take reasonable steps to protect Plaintiff from retaliatory actions 3 of other employees including, but not limited to, Defendant Mittal. 4 52. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants as set forth above, 5 Plaintiff sustained mental anguish and pain and suffering and continues to suffer 6 humiliation, embarrassment, mental and emotional distress, and distress, and discomfort, 7 all to Plaintiff's damage in an amount to be determined by proof at trial. 8 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 9 ,(Breach of Contract against Defendant Tech Mahindra) 10 53. Plaintiff incorporates, as though set forth fully herein, all of the allegations contained in all 11 previous paragraphs this Complaint. 54. In 2013, Defendants agreed with Plaintiff to give Plaintiff stock options in lieu of a raise, effectively forming a contract with Plaintiff. 55. Plaintiff continued in his employment on the understanding that he could exercise his right to the stock options as promised. 56. Upon termination, Plaintiff did not receive the promised value of his stock options. 57. Defendants are in direct breach for failing to allow Plaintiff to exercise his right to the stock options. 58. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing breaches, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount according to proof at trial. 59. In 2017, Tech Mahindra entered into a contract with Plaintiff for Plaintiff and his team to create.a spin-off company, a Tech Mahindra incubated startup. 60. Plaintiff worked diligently on the startup and effectively fulfilled his obligations under the contract. 1 61. Defendant consistently obstructed Plaintiff's progress on the startup and terminated Plaintiff before the startup project was successfully completed. 62. Defendants are in direct breach for terminating Plaintiff and for failing to fulfill the terms of the startup contract. Page 10 COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 16 of 39 1 63. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing breaches, Plaintiff has been damaged in 2 an amount according to proof at trial. 3 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 4 (Negligent Misrepresentation against Defendant Tech Mahindra) 5 54. Plaintiff incorporates, as though set forth fully herein, all of the -allegations contained in all 6 previous paragraphs this Complaint. 7 55. Defendants represented to Plaintiff that he would receive compensation in the form of 8 stock options. 9 56. In reliance upon said representations, Plaintiff accepted the right to exercise his stock 10 options rather than obtain a raise in salary. Plaintiff could have fought for his rightful 11 raise rather than accept the stock options,,which would have accrued more compensation CD 12 for Plaintiff with each year of employment. Plaintiff continued his employment at Tech 0 N ~ ~~ 13 Mahindra forgoing an increased salary for the stock options. o z o 14 57. Plaintiff's reliance upon Defendant's representations was reasonable as companies and xz¢ W 15 employers often award employees with stock options. Further, Plaintiff s reliance upon F W W ~ F¢ 16 Defendant's representations was reasonable because Plaintiff had no reason to believe a 0 ~ g a 17 Defendant would fulfill the terms of this contract. 18 58. The foregoing representations were untrue and Defendant had no reasonable grounds to 19 believe the foregoing representations were true when made. 20 59. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, on that basis, alleges that Defendant made the 21 foregoing representations with the intent to induce Plaintiff to work without the raise he 22 deserved after his excellent appraisal. 23 60. Plaintiff did not discover said representations were false until February 2019, when after 24 Plaintiff was terminated, Plaintiff did not receive any stock options from Defendant. 25 61. As a result of said representations, and Plaintiff's reliance thereon, Plaintiff has been 26 damaged in an amount to be proven at trial. 27 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 28 (Quantum Meruit against Defendant Tech Mahindra) Page 11 COMPLA[NT Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 17 of 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 C> 12 o~ N ~ W13 F p ~ s Q °zoW 14 c~ ~aQ wz~ 15 ¢~W ~x¢ 16 ~ oa 17 0 0 ~ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 62. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. 63. Defendant is indebted to Plaintiff for the value of the stock options. 64. Plaintiff continued to work for Defendant with the understanding that Plaintiff could exercise his rights to the stock options. 65. Plaintiff gave up a higher salary for the stock options. 66. There is now due and owing to Plaintiff from the defendant the value of the stock options. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Specific Performance against Defendant Tech Mahindra) 67. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. 68. In reliance of Defendant's promise, Plaintiff gave up a higher salary in exchange for his right to stock options. Forgoing his right to make more money, he continued to work diligently at Tech Mahindra with the understanding he could exercise his right to the stock options. 69. The work, labor and services rendered to Defendant by the plaintiff were of such peculiar, extraordinary or exceptional character that it is impossible to estimate their value by any pecuniary standard or to adequately compensate for them in money. In addition, Plaintiff cannot, through an award of monetary damages, be restored to situation in which he was before the rendition of work, labor and services to Defendant. Therefore, Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. 70. As a result, Defendant should be ordered to specifically perform the agreement to give Plaintiff the stock options. Plaintiff prays for relief against Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows: 1. For special damages, including but not limited to, lost earnings, benefits and/or out-of-pocket expenses in an amount according to proof at the time of trial, all in an amount set forth above and/or according to proof at the time of trial; Page 12 COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 18 of 39 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. For further special damages, including but not limited to, lost future earnings, benefits and other prospective damages in an amount set forth above and/or according to proof at the time of trial; 3. For general damages in an amount set forth above, according to proof at trial; 4. For punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof at trial; 5. For interest; 6. For reasonable attorneys' fees; 7. For costs of suit; and 8. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. Dated: November 21, 2019 MATHEW & GEORGE By: /s/Jacob George/s/ Jacob George Attorneys for Plaintiff DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby respectfully demands a jury trial. Respectfully Submitted, Dated: November 21, 2019 MATHEW & GEORGE By: /s/Jacob George/s/ Jacob George Attorneys for Plaintiff Page 13 COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 19 of 39 Exhibit B Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 20 of 39 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 21 of 39 labVJDOUOO mama Glare mun P0 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Barnumber. and address) u FOR COURT USE ONLY _ JACOB GEORGE I SBN: 213612 System Sys mMATHEW & GEORGE 500 S‘ GRAND AVE STE 2050 LOS ANGELES. CA 90071 JTELEPHONE Ma: (310) 473-4349 | FAX N0. (31o; 4739580 IE-MAIL ADDRESS (0mm):mgmmmmmemm El ctronically Filed I ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plainlifl: Q(0kmL gut By "perior court of CA,‘ - u nty of Santa Clara,SANTA CLARA SUPERIOR COURT on 1/27/2020 2:43 PM STREET ADDRESS: 191 N. FlRST ST. MAILING ADDRESS Re Viewed By: SYStem sy$tem cm AND er cone: SAN JOSE. CA 951 13 gasel#1 9c‘3193453791585 amen me; cnvxL-NORTH & CENTRAL cou‘mv n “’e ope- PLAINTIFF: PRATEEK SAXENA ms: numasn; DEFENDANT: TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INc.. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; SANJEEV 19CV358955 MITTAL. AN INDIVIDUAL PROOF 0F SERVICE OF SUMMONS Raf. No. ct File No.2 (Separate proofofservice is required for each party served.) ,.1 . At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this action. 2. l served copies of: a-M Summons b. Complaint c. D Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) package d. Civil Case Cover Sheet (served in complex cases only) e- Cross-complaint f- other CIVIL LAWSUIT NOTICE 3.' a. Party served (specify name ofparty as shown on documents served): TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS |NC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION b.M Person (other than the party in item 3a) sewed on behaif of an entity or as an authorized agent (and not a person under item 5b on whom substituted service was made) (specify name and relationship to the party named in item 38): NlCOLE STAUSS - AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT - CSC - LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE - AGENT FOR SER Age: 30 Weight: 200 Hair: BLACK Sex: Male Height: SITTING Eyes: Race: AFRICAN AMERICAN 4. Address where the party was served: 2710 Gateway Oaks Dr Ste 150N Sacramento, CA 95833-3502 5. lserv dthe party a. by personal service. I personally delivered the documents listed in item 2 to the party or person authorized to receive service of process for the party (1) on (date): 1/20I2020 (2) at (time): 10:06 AM b.U by substituted service. On (date): at (time): Heft the documents listed in item 2 with or in the presence of (name and title or relationship to person indicated in item 3b): (1) U (business) a person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the office or usual place of business of the person to be sewed. I informed him of her of the general nature of the papers. (2) D (home) a competent member of the household (at Ieast 18 years of age) at the dwelling house or usuaf place of abode of the party. I informed him or her of the general nature of the papers. (3) U (physical address unknown) a person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the usual mailing address of the person to be served. other than a United States Postal Service post office box. l informed him of her ofthe general nature of the papers. ‘ (4) U ”hereafter mailed (by first-class, postage prepaid) copies of the documents to the person to be served at the place where the copies were left (Code Civ. Proc.. §41 5.20). | mailed the documents on (date): from (city): orD a declaration of mailing is attached. (5) D l attach a declaration of diligence stating actions taken first Io attempt personal service. Pago1012 Form Ap loved (at Mandatory Use Code o! CivilPW, 5 417.10 $$$§of£fi$§§§°f§mn PROOF OF SERV'CE 0F SUMMONS Poso1o-1I147ao7 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 22 of 39 PETITIONER: PRATEEK SAXENA CASE NUMBER: 1SCV358955 RESPONDENT: TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; SANJEEV MITTAL. AN INDIVIDUAL i c_ D by maii and acknowledgment of receipt of service. | mailed the documents listed in item 2 to the party. to the address shown in item 4. by first-class mail, postage prepaid. (1) on (date): (2) from (city): (3)D with two copies of lhe Notice and Acknowledgment ofReceiptand a postage-paid return envelope addresaed to me. (Attach completed Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt.) (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.30.) (9D to an address outside California with return receipt requested. (Code Civ. Proc.. § 415.40.) d,D by other means (Specify means ofservice and authorizing code section): v D Additional page describing service is attached. 6. The "Notice to the Person Served" (on the summons) was completed as follows: 3-D as an individual defendant. b-D as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): C- as occupant. d- On behalf of (specify): TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION under the following Code of Civil Procedure section: 41 5.95 (business organization. form unknown) 41 6.60 (minor) 41 6.70 (ward or conservatee) 416.90 (authorized person) 41 5.46 (occupant) other: 416.10 (corporation) D 416.20 (defunct corporation) D 416.30 (joint stock company/association) D 416.40 (association or partnership) D 416.50 (public entity) DDDDDD 7. Person who sewed papers a. Name: NICOLE KOGER - JPL PROCESS SERVICE, LLC b. Address: 14482 BEACH BLVD. STE S WESTMINSTER, CA 92683 c. Tetephone number: (866) 754-0520 d. The fee for service was: $ 99.00 e. lam: not a registered California process sewer. . (1) (2) gexempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b). (3) re istered California process server: (i) E owner employee M independentcontractor. (ii) Registration No.2 2018-20 (iii) County: SACRAMENTO BJM l declare under penaity of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. or 9.D i am a California sheriff or marshal andl certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: 1120/2020 JPL PROCESS SERVICE, LLC 14482 BEACH BLVD. STE S l WESTMINSTER, CA 92683 l (866) 754-0520 L; NICOLE KOGER b M .7 / (NAME OF PERSON WHO SERVED PAPERSISHERSFF OR MARSHAL) ( RE) ”WWWWW ‘-m" PROOF 0F SERVICE 0F SUMMONS V P08 0103:9272"; Exhibit C Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 23 of 39 CM>010 JjyOft^YpRPARTYWiTKOU^ATTORW^Wftme, StatoB»number, endadtínss): & George FOR COURTUSEONLY Mathew 500 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2050 Los Angeles, CA 90071 TELEPHONE NO.: ATTORNEY FOR (Mm); 본I예'onically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 11/21/2019 2:10 PM :eviewed By: Yuet Lai ase #19CV358955 nvelope: 3682549 (310)478-9580(310)479-4349 Prateek Saxena FAXNOu superior court of CAUFORNIA, county of Santa Clara STREET ADDRESS:⑼ N, FlfSt StTCet Same San Jose,CA 95113 name- Downtown Superior Court (DTS) MA0JNG ADDRESS: CnYANOZ»»OOD£: BRANCH NAME:CASE PRATEEK SAXENA v. TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC. et al. CASE NVhfBEitCIVIL CASE C (Z] Unnmitôd (Amount demanded OVER□ SHEET Complex Case Designation I t Counter í 1 Joinder 19CV358955Limited (Amount demanded is exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) JUDGE:Rled vwlh first appearance by defendant {Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT: __________________________ Hems f-6 befow must be compfeted (see instructions on page 2). 1. Check one Ik>x below for (he case type that best describes this case: Contract nally Complex Civil Litigation es of Court» rules 3.400-3.403) Provlsloi {Cal. Rut Auto Tort曰 Breach of conlract/warranty (06) Rule 3.740 collections (09) Other coiiecUons ㈣ Insurance coverage (18) Olher contract (37) Property Eminent domain/lnverse condemnation (14) Wrongful eviction (33) Other real property (26) Unlawful Detainer I I Commerça! (31) Resicfenlial (32) DnJ3s(36) Judicial Rovlow I__I Asset forfeiture (05) Petition re: arbUratîon award《11 > Writ of mandate (02) Other judicial review (39) Auto (22) Uninsured motorist (46) Other PI/PD/WD (Porsona!圓 niury/Property pamage/Wronflful Oaath) Tort _ Asbestos (04) 二]Product liability (24> -]Medical malpractice (45) HI Olher PimWD (23) Non-PliPWWD (Other) Tort -Bu^ness lort/unfalr bustoss pradice (07) Qvfl rights (08) -J Oofamation (13) Fraud (16) Intelteclual probity (19) Profesional negligence (25) Other non-R/POWD twt (35) oyment Wrongful termination (36) □ Antitiust/Trade regulation (03) Construction defect (10) ^sstoft(40) Securities ItUgatton (28) Envlronmenla 盯oxlc tort (30) Insurance cov above fisted pi types (41) 曰巳 Real n erage daims rising from the rovisionaily complex case□□ Enforcement of Judgment 1 I Enforcemoit of judgment (20) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint RICO (27) Other complaint (not specified abovo) (42) Mlscslfaneous Civil Petition Partnership and corporate governance (21) Other petition {not specified above) (43) □ 口□ 口□S □□□ nOther emptoymenl (15) 2. This c^e l_] is I / I is not factors requlifng exceptional judicial a. CHI targe number of separately repr^ented parties d. [ I Large number of witn b. I I Extensive motton practice raising difficult or novel e. 1 I Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that will be tiine /s/Jacob Georae/s/ (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY) NOTICE • Plaintiff must file thfe cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule in sanctions. • File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court ■ If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of Ihe California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding. • Unless this Is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case,this cover sheet will be used for statistica) purposes on claims cases or cases . 3.220.) Failure to file may result rule. 匕, of2 F Local Civil Rules and use proper forms. You can obtain legal information, view the rules and receive forms, free of charge, from the Self-Help Center at 201 North First Street, San José (408-882-2900 x-2926). 鼸 State Rules and Judicial Council Forms: www.courtinfo.ca.aov/forms and www.courtinfo.ca.qov/rules ■ Local Rules and Forms: httD://www.sccsuDeriorcourt.orq/civil/rule1toc.htm CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE (CMC): You must meet with the other parties and discuss the case, in person or by telephone at least 30 calendar days before the CMC. You must also fill out, file and serve a Case Management Statement (Judicial Council form CM-110) at least 15 calendar days before the CMC. You or your aftomey must appear at the CMC. You may ask to appear iby telephone - see Local Civil Rule 8. Arand, Mary E 9 Your Case Management Judge is: Department: The 1st CMC is scheduled for: (Completed by Clerk of Court) 3/17/2020 1:30pm 9Date: Time: in Department^ The next CMC is scheduled for: (Completed by party if the 1st CMC was continued or has passed) Time:Date: in Department: ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR): If all parties have appeared and filed a completed ADR Stipulation Form (local form CV-5008) at least 15 days before the CMC, the Court will cancel the CMC and mail notice of an ADR Status Conference. Visit the Court's website at www.sccsuperiorcourt.org/civil/ADR/ or call the ADR Administrator (408-882-2100 x-2530) for a list of ADR providers and their qualifications, services, and fees. WARNING: Sanctions may be imposed if you do not follow the California Rules of Court or the Local Rules of Court. CIVIL LAWSUIT NOTICE Page 1 of 1CV-5012 REV 08/01/16 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 27 of 39 Exhibit E Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 28 of 39 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 29 of 39 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations BABAK YOUSEFZADEH, Cal. Bar No. 235974 GAL GRESSEL, Cal. Bar N0. 2863 12 Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, California 941 1 1-4109 Telephone: 415.434.9100 Facsimile: 415.434.3947 E mail byousefzadeh@sheppardmullin.com ggressel@sheppardmullin.com Attorneys for TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC, a California corporation; SANJEEV MITTAL, an individual SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PRATEEK SAXENA, Case N0. 19CV358955 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S ANSWER TO V. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC., a Judge: Mary E. Arand California corporation; SANJEEV MITTAL, Dept: 9 an individual; and DOES 1 and through 10, , [Complaint Filed: November 21, 2019] Defendant. -1- Case N0. 19CV358955 SMRH34317'4604'4853-2 DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF ’S COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 30 of 39 Defendant Tech Mahindra (Americas) Inc. (erroneously sued as Tech Mahindra Americas Inc.) (“Defendant”) hereby answers the unverified complaint (the “Complaint”) filed by Plaintiff Prateek Saxena as follows: GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant t0 California Civil Procedure Code section 43 1 .30(d), Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every allegation in the Complaint. In addition, and without limiting the foregoing, Defendant denies that it is liable t0 Plaintiff or t0 any other person on Whose behalf relief is sought, that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever, and that Plaintiff has sustained, 0r will sustain, any damages, losses, or injuries 0f any kind or in any amount whatsoever by reason of any fault, act, omission, 0r other conduct on the part of Defendant. STATEMENT OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Without waiving or limiting any of the foregoing, and without assuming the burden 0f proof Where the burden of proof properly rests With Plaintiff 0r any other person 0n Whose behalf the Complaint seeks relief, Defendant also pleads the following affirmative defenses. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure t0 State a Claim) The Complaint does not state facts sufficient t0 establish a cause 0f action as t0 which relief from Defendant may be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute 0f Limitations) Plaintiff’ s causes 0f action against Defendant are barred, in Whole or in part, insofar as Plaintiff seeks relief for conduct falling outside 0f the applicable statute 0f limitations, including, but not limited t0, the statutes of limitation established by California Code of Civil Procedure sections 335.1, 337, 338, 339, 340, and/or 343. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Improper Venue) The Complaint, and each cause of action set forth therein, are barred, in Whole or in part, to the extent they have been filed in an improper venue. -2- Case N0. 19CV358955 SMRH14817-4604-4853-2 DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF ’S COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 31 of 39 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Forum Non Conveniens) The Complaint, and each cause of action set forth therein, are barred, in whole or in part, pursuant t0 the doctrine of forum non conveniens. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Personal Jurisdiction) The Complaint, and each cause of action set forth therein, are barred, in Whole or in part, t0 the extent that Defendant lacks sufficient contacts With the State of California to be subj ect to personal jurisdiction in this Court. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Arbitration Agreement) The Complaint, and each cause 0f action set forth therein, are barred, in Whole or in part, to the extent that Plaintiff is subject t0 binding arbitration 0f his claims and has waived the right t0 bring such claims in court. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Laches) Plaintiff unreasonably and inexcusably delayed in pursuing the claims alleged against Defendant, thereby prejudicing Defendant’s ability to find Witnesses and/or evidence to defend against Plaintiff’ s claims. Therefore, the equitable doctrine 0f laches Wholly 0r partially bars the claims alleged against Defendant in the Complaint. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) Plaintiff” s causes 0f action against Defendant are barred, in Whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine 0f estoppel. -3- Case N0. 19CV358955 SMRH14317-4604-4853-2 DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF ’S COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 32 of 39 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) Plaintiff’ s causes 0f action against Defendant are barred, in Whole or in part, because of Plaintiff” s “unclean hands” With respect to the alleged events upon Which the claims alleged against Defendant are based. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver) Through Plaintiff s words and/or conduct, Plaintiff waived Whatever right Plaintiffmay have had t0 assert the claims alleged against Defendant in the Complaint. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Outside the Scope of Authority) Even if Plaintiffwas subjected to unlawful conduct (Which Defendant denies), Defendant is not liable for such conduct insofar as it was carried out by agents 0r employees acting outside the course and scope 0f their authority and Without Defendant authorizing, ratifying, or condoning such acts With actual or constructive knowledge of the unlawful conduct. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Consent) Plaintiff s causes 0f action against Defendant are barred, in whole 0r in part, 0n the grounds that Plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily consented to and/or participated in some 0r all 0f the conduct upon Which the claims alleged against Defendant are based. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Privileged Conduct) Even if Plaintiff suffered damages as a result 0f any act or omission by Defendant (Which Defendant denies), Defendant is not liable for such damages insofar as the damages were caused by Defendant’s engagement in privileged acts, including the reasonable and legitimate exercise of legal rights enjoyed by Defendant. -4- Case N0. 19CV358955 SMRH14317-4604-4853-2 DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF ’S COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 33 of 39 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Legitimate Reasons for Employment Actions) Plaintiff’ s claims against Defendant for retaliation and wrongful termination are barred, because any adverse employment action taken against Plaintiff was made for legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Mixed Motive 0r Same Decision) Even if Plaintiffwere to prove that a protected status or protected activity contributed to, or motivated, an adverse employment action challenged in the Complaint (which Defendant denies) Plaintiff is not entitled to damages, backpay, 0r reinstatement, because the same decision would have been made for legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Avoidable Consequences) Plaintiff is not entitled to damages for any alleged retaliation or wrongful termination t0 the extent that Plaintiff unreasonably failed to use the preventive and corrective measures that Defendant made available Which would have prevented some or all of the harm that Plaintiff allegedly suffered. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Excuse) Plaintiff” s breach 0f contract and quasi-contract causes of action are barred, in Whole or in part, 0n the grounds that any obligation imposed on Defendant by law, contract, 0r equity is excused by reason 0f Plaintiff s own actions and/or omissions, including impracticality, frustration 0f purpose, and acceptance by Plaintiff. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure 0f Consideration) Plaintiff” s breach 0f contract and quasi-contract causes 0f action are barred, in Whole or in part, due to a failure 0f consideration to support any alleged contract between the parties. -5- Case N0. 19CV358955 SMRH14317-4604-4853-2 DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF ’S COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 34 of 39 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack 0f Consideration) Plaintiff’ s breach of contract and quasi-contract causes 0f action are barred, in Whole or in part, due to a lack of consideration t0 support any alleged contract between the parties. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Mistake) Plaintiff” s breach of contract and quasi-contract causes 0f action are barred, in Whole 0r in part, 0n the ground that Plaintiff” s claims are unenforceable as the result 0f a mutual and/or unilateral mistake 0f fact 0r law. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Illegality) Plaintiff’ s breach of contract and quasi-contract causes 0f action are barred, in whole 0r in part, t0 the extent that Plaintiff’ s claims are unenforceable based 0n the doctrine 0f illegality. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Accord and Satisfaction and Novation) Plaintiff” s breach of contract and quasi-contract causes of action are barred, in Whole 0r in part, on the grounds that that Plaintiffs claims have been released, settled, satisfied, extinguished, supported by adequate consideration in full accord and satisfaction 0f all of Defendant’s alleged obligations, and/or the doctrine 0f novation. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute 0f Frauds) Plaintiff” s breach 0f contract and quasi-contract causes 0f action are barred, in Whole 0r in part, by the Statute 0f Frauds. TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Adequate Remedy) Any equitable relief which Plaintiff seeks is barred because an adequate remedy at law exists and Plaintiff has failed to plead and/or allege sufficient facts establishing that specific performance and/or other equitable actions are warranted. -6- Case N0. 19CV358955 SMRH14817-4604-4853-2 DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF ’S COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 35 of 39 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Undue Hardship) Any equitable relief which Plaintiff seeks is barred to the extent it would impose an undue hardship on Defendant. TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unjust Enrichment) Plaintiff” s causes of action against Defendant are barred, in Whole or in part, on the grounds that Plaintiff would be unjustly enriched if permitted t0 recover on any of the causes 0f action contained in the Complaint. TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Comparative Fault of Plaintiff) Plaintiff’ s damages, if any, were proximately caused, and contributed t0, by Plaintiff s own negligence and/or intentional acts or omissions. Therefore, Plaintiff‘s recovery, if any, must be reduced in proportion to Plaintiff” s own fault in causing the damages for Which Plaintiff seeks recovery. TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Comparative Fault 0f Other Persons, Conditions, 0r Events) Even if Plaintiff sustained injuries or damages as a result 0f any act 0r omission by Defendant (Which Defendant denies), any such injuries and damages were Wholly or partially caused by the acts, wrongs, omissions, and/or negligence of other persons, entities, conditions (including preexisting conditions), forces, and/or things over which Defendant has 110 control and/or for Which Defendant is not responsible. Therefore, any award made in favor 0f Plaintiff must be reduced by an amount equal to the percentage of the fault of third parties, conditions, 0r events in causing or contributing t0 the damages Plaintiff seeks in the Complaint. TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Exclusive Remedy 0f Workers’ Compensation Act) Insofar as Plaintiff seeks damages for any physical 0r emotional injury allegedly attributable t0 Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff s claims are Wholly or partially barred and/or -7- Case N0. 19CV358955 SMRH14817-4604-4853-2 DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF ’S COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 36 of 39 preempted t0 the extent the California’s Workers” Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy for such injuries. THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure t0 Mitigate Damages) Even if Plaintiff suffered damages as a result 0f the facts alleged in the Complaint-Which Defendant denies-Plaintiff failed t0 take reasonable steps to mitigate, minimize, 0r prevent the claimed damages. Therefore, any damages actually suffered by Plaintiff must be reduced t0 the extent Plaintiff reasonably could have avoided 0r mitigated such damages. THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Intervening 0r Superseding Causes) The damages that Plaintiff claims to have suffered were caused or made worse by events outside of Defendant’s control after the events at issue in the Complaint. Consequently, Plaintiff is wholly 0r partially barred from recovering the alleged damages Plaintiff seeks. THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Offset) Any recovery t0 Which Plaintiff might otherwise be entitled must be offset by any unemployment benefits, workers’ compensation benefits, and/or other compensation and benefits Plaintiff has received or will receive. THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (De Minimis) Even if Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of an act 0r omission 0f Defendant (which Defendant denies), Plaintiff’ s damages are de minimis and not compensable as a matter 0f law. THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Speculative Damages) Even if the allegations in the Complaint are true (which Defendant denies), Plaintiff is not entitled to recover any damages, because Plaintiff” s alleged damages are too speculative. -8- Case N0. 19CV358955 SMRH14317-4604-4853-2 DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF ’S COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 37 of 39 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unconstitutional Punitive Damages) Plaintiff’ s claims for punitive damages are barred, in whole 0r in part, to the extent that the imposition 0f punitive damages would Violate the First, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and/or Article I of the Constitution of the State 0f California. THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (After-Acquired Evidence) Plaintiff’ s claims are barred, in whole 0r in part, t0 the extent Defendant acquires evidence 0fwrongdoing by Plaintiff during the course of this litigation that would have materially affected the terms and conditions of Plaintiff s employment or resulted in the adverse action(s) at issue in the Complaint had it been known during Plaintiff s employment. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS Defendant intends t0 rely upon such other further affirmative defenses that may become known and available to Defendant during discovery in this action. Accordingly, Defendant hereby reserves the right t0 amend this answer to assert any such defenses. Additionally, Defendant hereby gives notice that the foregoing is intended only as a statement of the affirmative defenses that must be included in an answer and is not an exhaustive statement 0f all defenses that Defendant may assert in the action. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for the following relief: 1. A judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff as t0 each claim and cause of action asserted against Defendant in the Complaint. 2. Dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice as to each and every cause 0f action alleged against Defendant, With Plaintiff taking nothing by the Complaint. 3. An award to Defendant 0f reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by Defendant in defending this action, in an amount according to proof, pursuant t0 California Code of Civil -9- Case N0. 19CV358955 SMRH14317-4604-4853-2 DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF ’S COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 38 of 39 Procedure section 128.5, California Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, and other applicable laws. 4. An award t0 Defendant of costs and expenditures incurred in defending this action, in an amount according t0 proof, pursuant t0 California Code 0f Civil Procedure section 1032(b) and other applicable laws. 5. A11 other relief that the Court deems just, equitable, and proper. Dated: February 19, 2020 Respectfully submitted, SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP By a°~éML~ BABAK YOUSEFZADEH GAL GRESSEL Attorneys for Defendant TECH MAHINDRA (AMERICAS) INC. (erroneously sued as TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.) _ 1 0- Case No. 19CV358955 SMRH14317-4604-4853-2 DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF ’S COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 39 of 39 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO At the time 0f service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party t0 this action. I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State 0f California. My business address is Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 941 1 1. On February 19, 2020, I served true copies 0f the following document(s) described as DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 0n the interested parties in this action as follows: Abraham Mathew Attorneysfor PZaintz'ffPRATEEK SAXENA Jacob George Mathew & George 500 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2050 Los Angeles, California 90071 Tel: (310) 487-4349 Fax: (3 10) 478-9580 BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope 0r package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the enveloe for collection and m_ailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily famil1ar With the firm's practice for collecting and processmg correspondenqe for mailing. On the same day that correspondence ls placed for collection and mailing, it is de osited 1n the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sea ed envelope With poatage fully prepaid. I am a resident 0r employed in the county Where the mailing occurre . I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws 0f the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed 0n February 19, 2020, at San Francisco, California. Qwfiym Name -1- Case No. 19CV358955 SMRH34817'4604'4853-2 DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT \OOOQQUI-PUJNt-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHt-ti-t OOQQU‘I-RUJNHOKOOONQUIAUJNF-‘O Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-2 Filed 02/19/20 Page 1 of 3 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations BABAK YOUSEFZADEH, Cal. Bar No. 235974 GAL GRESSEL, Cal. Bar No. 2863 12 Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, California 941 1 1-4109 Telephone: 415.434.9100 Facsimile: 415.434.3947 E mail byousefzadeh@sheppardmullin.com ggressel@sheppardmullin.com Attorneys for Tech Mahindra Americas Inc., a California corporation; Sanjeev Mittal, an individual UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION PRATEEK SAXENA, Case N0. Superior Court 0f California, Santa Clara - Plaintiff, Case No. 19CV358955 V. DECLARATION OF ANITHA RAMESH IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TECH TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC., a MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S NOTICE California corporation; SANJEEV MITTAL, OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION an individual; and DOES 1 and through 10, , UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1441 (DIVERSITY JURISDICTION) Defendant. -1- SMRHz48 10-7449-7461 .1 DECLARATION OF ANITHA RAMESH IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441 \OOOQQUI-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHt-ti-t OOQQU‘I-RUJNHOKDOONQUI-RWNF-‘O Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-2 Filed 02/19/20 Page 2 of 3 I, Anitha Ramesh, hereby declare and state: 1. I am employed as the Group Manager 0fHuman Resources for Tech Mahindra (Americas) Inc. (the “Company”). My primary responsibilities include managing and overseeing the Company’s human resources operations. 2. Based on my position as the Group Manager ofHuman Resources, Ihave personal knowledge, 0r knowledge based 0n the Company’s business, human resources, and payroll records that I obtained and reviewed in the course ofmy duties, of the information set forth in this declaration. This information is maintained in electronic form, kept in the ordinary course 0f business, is prepared at 0r near the time 0f the events or matters described therein, and are accurate to the best 0fmy knowledge. Ihave access t0 these records in the ordinary course 0f business, and Iperiodically refer to them. If called as a Witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. 3. Through my duties and obligations, I also have knowledge regarding the Company’s business operations and its corporate structure. The Company is incorporated in the State 0fNew Jersey and its corporate headquarters are located at 4965 Preston Park B1Vd., Suite 500, Plano, Texas 75093. 4. According t0 the human resources and payroll information which I have obtained and reviewed, Prateek Saxena’s employment With the Company ended 0n 0r around February 15, 2019. At that time, Mr. Saxena was earning a salary of $130,336 per year. 5. Ihave also reviewed parts of the human resources file for Sanjeev Mittal, a named defendant in this case. During his employment, Mr. Mittal was working in and based out 0f India. Mr. Mittal’s employment has since ended, and his last known address is in Mumbai, India. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February _19_, 2020 in Plano, Texas. -2- SMRHz4810-7449-7461.1 DECLARATION 0F ANITHA RAMESH 1N SUPPORT 0F DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’s NOTICE 0F REMOVAL 0F CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.s.c. § 1441 \OOOQQUI-RUJNp-t NNNNNNNNNHHb-ti-IHHD-IHHD-t OOQQU‘I-RUJNHOKOOONQUI-hWNF-‘O Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-2 Filed 02/19/20 Page 3 of 3 Anitha Ramesh -3- SMRH:4810-7449-7461.1 DECLARATION OF ANITHA RAMESH IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441 JS-CAND 44 (Rev. 07/19) Case 5:20-cv-0126%18?iu88$tfi gifigfigfflQ/ZO Page 1 of 2 The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service ofplgadings 0r other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules 0f court. Thls form, approved in 1ts origmal form by the Judicial Conference 0f the United States 1n September 1974, is requ1red for the Clerk 0f Court t0 initiate the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS 0NNEXTPAGE 0F THIS FORM) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS Prateek Saxena DEFENDANTS Tech Mahindra Americas Inc. and SanjeeV Mittal County 0f Residence of First Listed Defendant (IN US PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. Attorneys (IfKnown) Babak Yousefzadeh and Gal Gressel, SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, l7tl| Floor San Francisco, California 941 1 1-4109 4154349100 (b) County 0f Residence 0f First Listed Plaintiff (EXCEPTIN US. PLAINTIFF CASES) San Francisco, CA (10h) Attome S Firm Name Address and Telephone Number) Ab m Mathew and aco George, MATHEW & GEORGE 500 South Grand Ava, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90071 310. 478‘4349 II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an ”X in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Baxfbr Plaintlfl (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Boxfor Defendant) I I I PTF DEF PTF DEF 1 U's' Government Plamtlff 3 gdgrgggfzgzgt Not a Party) Citizen of This State x 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4 ' ' of Business In This State 2 U S G tD f dam x 4 D, ,ty Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incotporated and Principal Place 5 x 5 . . overnmen e en 1vers1 . ‘ ‘ ‘ . ‘ ‘ f Busmess In Another State 1 P I 111 °(ndlcaw Cltlzemhlp 0f “mes m (em ) Citizen 0r Subject of a 3 x 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 Foreign Country IV. NATURE 0F SUIT (Place an "X’ in One Box Only) CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES l 10 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 0f 422 Appeal 28 USC § 158 375 False Claims Act 120 Marine 3 10 Airplane 365 Personal Injury , Product Propefiy 21 USC § 331 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 130 Miller Am 3 15 Airplane Product Liability Liability 690 Other § 157 § 3729(a» 14o Negotiable Instrument 320 Assault, Libel & slander 367 Health Care/ LABOR PROPERTY RIGHTS 400 State Reappommmem 150 Recovery of 33o Federal Employers’ Phame‘ce‘g‘cal 36125.?“ 7 10 Fair Labor Standards Act 820 Copyrights 410 Am‘m‘“ _ Overpayment Of Liabili Inlury Pm “Ct L13 1 1W 430 Banks and Bankmg V , ty . 720 Labor/Management 830 Patent eteran s Benefits . 368 Asbestos Personal Injury . 450 C mm 1.340 Marme . . , Relatlons _ - ° e ce 1 51 Medicare Act product Llablhty 835 Patent Abbrev1ated New . 345 Marine Product Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 740 Railway Labor Act Drug Application 460 Depoflatlon 152 Recovery 0f Defaulted 350 Motor Vehicle 751 Family and Medical 840 Trademark 470 RaCketeer Influenced & Student Loans (Excludes 370 Other Fraud Corru t Or anizations Veterans) 355 Motor Vehicle Product , , Leave A“ SOCIAL SECURITY p g 1 53 R f Liability 371 Truth m Lendmg 79o Other Labor Litigation 430 Consumer Credit ecove o Overpagymem 360 Other Personal Injury 380 Other Personal ProPerty 791 Employee Retirement 861 HIA (1395ffl 485 T616911?“ consumer ’ 362 P 11 ‘ _Mcd1- 1 Damage Income security Act 862 Black Lung (923) Protectlon Act of Veteran s Benefits crsona “Jury ca 385 P D P d t , . Malpractice (Opétty amage r0 uc IMMIGRATION 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g» 490 Cable/Sat TV 16° St°Ckh°lderS Sluts L‘ab‘l‘W . . 864 SSID Tine XVI 850 Scounties/Commodities/ 1:: 2th“ “Em: L. bl, CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 462 12333023220“ 865 RSI (405(g)) Exchange ontract r0 uct 1a 1 lty , , , 890 Other Statute Actions 1 96 Franchise 440 Other C1V11 nghls HABEAS CORPUS 465 Other Immigration FEDERAL TAX SUITS 891 A ‘ lmr 1 2t 441 VOting 463 Alien Detainee Actions ~ ~ gncu a c S REAL PROPERTY 87° Taxes (U'S' Plamt‘ff 0r 893 Environmental MattersX 442 Employment 5 10 Motions to Vacate Defendant) _ 210 Land Condemnation 443 Housing/ Sentence 87 1 IRS-Third Party 26 USC 895 FArztedom 0f Informanon 220 Foreclosure AccomnwdatiOflS 530 General § 7609 I r , , . , . _ 896 Arbltratlon230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 445 Amer. w/Dlsablhtles 535 Death Penalty 8 A . _ . Pr d 240 Torts to Land Employment OTHER 99 (infinistfatlve oce um - - r 446 Amer w/Disabihties-Other ACWeV‘eW 0r Appeal 0f245 T011 Product L1ab111ty 448 Ed ' I 54o Mandamus & Other Agency Decision 290 A11 Other Real Property “cam“ 550 Civil Rights 950 Constitutionality of State 555 Prison Condition Statutes 560 Civil Detainee- Conditions of Confinement V. ORIGIN (Place an ”X" in One Bax Only) 1 Original x 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District (specifil) Litigation-Transfer Litigation-Direct File VI. CAUSE OF Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under Which V0u are filing (D0 nut cite iurisdictionul statutes unless diversitv): 28 U.S.C. 1332, 1441 b , d 1446.ACTION . §§. . “a“ Brlef descrmtlon 0f cause: Retaliation, wrongful termination of employment, emotional distress, contract, and negligent misrepresentation claims VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK 1F THIS Is A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No VIII. RELATED CASE(S)’ JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER IF ANY (See instructions): IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2) (Place an “X” in One Box Only) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND X SAN JOSE EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE DATE 02/19/2020 SIGNATURE 0F ATTORNEY 0F RECORD /S/ Gal Gressel JSCAND 44W. 07/19) Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 1-3 Filed 02/19/20 Page 2 of 2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS-CAND 44 Authority For Civil Cover Sheet. The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference 0f the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk 0f Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: I. a) b) C) II. III. VI. VII. VIII. Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title. County 0f Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name ofthe county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name 0f the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the “defendant” is the location of the tract of land involved.) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them 0n an attachment, noting in this section “(see attachment)” Jurisdiction. The basis ofjurisdiction is set forth under Federal Rule 0f Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an “X” in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis ofjurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. (1) United States plaintiff. Jurisdiction based on 28 USC §§ 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. (2) United States defendant. When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers 0r agencies, place an “X” in this box. (3) Federal question. This refers to suits under 28 USC § 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act 0f Congress or a treaty 0f the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff 0r defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. (4) Diversig of citizenship. This refers t0 suits under 28 USC § 1332, where parties are citizens ofdifferent states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.) Residence (citizenship) 0f Principal Parties. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party. Nature of Suit. Place an “X” in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient t0 enable the deputy clerk 0r the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the most definitive. Origin. Place an “X” in one 0f the six boxes. (1) Original Proceedings. Cases originating in the United States district courts. (2) Removed from State Court. Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed t0 the district courts under Title 28 USC § 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. (3) Remanded from Appellate Court. Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date ofremand as the filing date. (4) Reinstated or Reopened. Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. (5) Transferred from Another District. For cases transferred under Title 28 USC § 1404(a). D0 not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers. (6) Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 USC § 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above. (8) Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. Check this box when a multidistrict litigation case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. Please note that there is no Origin Code 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statute. Cause 0f Action. Report the civil statute directly related t0 the cause 0f action and give a brief description ofthe cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC § 553. Brief Description: Unauthorized reception 0f cable service. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an “X” in this box ifyou are filing a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction. Jug Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded. Related Cases. This section 0f the JS-CAND 44 is used t0 identify related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. Divisional Assignment. If the Nature of Suit is under Property Rights or Prisoner Petitions or the matter is a Securities Class Action, leave this section blank. For all other cases, identify the divisional venue according to Civil Local Rule 3-2: “the county in which a substantial part of the events or omissions which give rise t0 the claim occurred or in which a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated.” Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet. .p QGUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 2 Filed 02/19/20 Page 1 of 2 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations BABAK YOUSEFZADEH, Cal. Bar No. 235974 GAL GRESSEL, Cal. Bar N0. 2863 12 Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, California 941 1 1-4109 Telephone: 415.434.9100 Facsimile: 415.434.3947 E mail byousefzadeh@sheppardmullin.com ggressel@sheppardmullin.com Attorneys for Tech Mahindra Americas Inc., a California corporation; Sanjeev Mittal, an individual UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION PRATEEK SAXENA, Case N0. Superior Court of California, Santa Clara - Plaintiff, Case No. 19CV358955 V. DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S CERTIFICATION OF TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC., a INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS California corporation; SANJEEV MITTAL, an individual; and DOES 1 and through 10, , Defendant. -1- SMRH34814-6581-3685~1 DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS .5 QGUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266 Document 2 Filed 02/19/20 Page 2 of 2 TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT, PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEYS: Defendant Tech Mahindra (Americas) Inc. (erroneously sued as Tech Mahindra Americas Inc.) (“Defendant”) submits the following Disclosure Statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7. 1: Tech Mahindra Limited is a publicly corporation that owns more than 10% of Defendant’s stock. Pursuant t0 Civil L.R. 3-15, the undersigned certifies that the following listed persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations (including parent corporations) 0r other entities (i) have a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy 0r in a party t0 the proceeding, or (ii) have a non-financial interest in that subject matter or in a party that could be substantially affected by the outcome of this proceeding: (a) Prateek Saxena: Plaintiff. (b) Sanjeev Mittal: Defendant. (c) Tech Mahindra (Americas) Inc. (erroneously sued as Tech Mahindra Americas Inc.). (d) Tech Mahindra Limited: parent corporation of Tech Mahindra (Americas) Inc. Dated: February 19, 2020 Respectfully submitted, SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP By /S/ Gal Gressel BABAK YOUSEFZADEH GAL GRESSEL Attorneys for Defendant TECH MAHINDRA (AMERICAS) INC. (erroneously sued as TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.) -2- SMRHr4814-6581-3685.1 DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S CERTIFICATION 0F INTERESTED ENTITIEs 0R PERSONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266-VKD Document 4 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 3 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations BABAK YOUSEFZADEH, Cal. Bar N0. 235974 GAL GRESSEL, Cal. Bar N0. 2863 12 Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, California 941 1 1-4109 Telephone: 415.434.9100 Facsimile: 415.434.3947 E mail byousefzadeh@sheppardmullin.com ggressel@sheppardmullin.com Attorneys for Tech Mahindra Americas Inc., a California corporation; Sanjeev Mittal, an individual UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION PRATEEK SAXENA, Plaintiff, V. TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC., a California corporation; SANJEEV MITTAL, an individual; and DOES 1 and through 10, , Defendant. Case No. 5:20-cv-01266-VKD Superior Court of California, Santa Clara - Case N0. 19CV358955 CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE RE NOTICE T0 FEDERAL COURT 0F REMOVAL 0F ACTION PURSUANT T0 28 U.s.C. §§ 1441 [Complaint Filed: November 2 1 , 20 1 9] _ 1 _ Case N0. 5 :20-cv-0 1266-VKD SMRH:4839-1706-6421.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266-VKD Document 4 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Prateek Saxena. v. Tech Mahindra Americas Ina, et al. USDC, Northern District of California, Case No. 5:20-CV-01266-VKD At the time 0f service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party t0 this action. I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. My business address is Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor, San Francisco, CA 941 1 1-4109. On February 20, 2020, I served true copies 0f the following document(s) described as: DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1441 (DIVERSITY JURISDICTION) DECLARATION OF ANITHA RAMESH IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1441 (DIVERSITY JURISDICTION) COVER SHEET DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS on the interested parties in this action as follows: Jacob George, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Mathew & George PRATEEK SAXENA 500 S. Grand Ave., Suite 2050 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 310-478-4349 D BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope 0r package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the firm‘s practice for collecting and processing correspondencg for mailing. On the same day that correspondence 1s placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited 1n the ordinary course ofbusiness with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. I am a resident 0r employed in the county Where the mailing occurred. D BY FAX TRANSMISSION: I faxed a copy 0f the document(s) to the persons at the fax numbers listed 1n the Service List. The telephone number 0fthe sending facsimile machine was 415.434.3947. The transmission was reported as complete and Without error. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A transmission report was properly issued by the sending fax machine. D BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the document(s) to be sent fiom e-mail address lsegura@sheppardmullin.com to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, Within a reasonable time -2- Case N0. 5:20-cv-01266-VKD SMRH:4839-1706-6421.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-01266-VKD Document 4 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 3 after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed said document(s) in an envelope 0r package provided by the overnight service carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in the Service List. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office 0r a regularly utilized drop box 0f the overnight service carrier or delivered such document(s) t0 a courier or driver authorized by the overnight service carrier to receive documents. BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I delivered the document(s) t0 Express Network for personal service to the person at the addresses listed in the Service List. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made t0 the attorney 0r at the attorney's office by leaving the documents in an envelope or package Clearly labeled t0 identify the attorney being served With a receptionist or an individual in charge 0f the office. (2) For a party, delivery was made t0 the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not less than 18 years 0f age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening. I declare under penalty 0fperjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed 0n February 20, 2020, at San Francisco, California. /s/LuciaM Segum Lucia M. Segura -3- Case N0. 5:20-cv-01266-VKD SMRH:4839-1706-6421.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO At the time 0f service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party t0 this action. I am employed in the County 0f San Francisco, State 0f California. My business address is Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 941 1 1. On February 20, 2020, I served true copies 0fthe following document(s) described as DEFENDANT TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC.’S NOTICE TO STATE COURT OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT 0n the interested parties in this action as follows: Jacob George, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Mathew & George PRATEEK SAXENA 500 S. Grand Ave., Suite 2050 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 3 1 0-478-4349 D BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope 0r package addressed t0 the persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the firm‘s practice for collecting and processing correspondencg for mailing. On the same day that correspondence 1s placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited 1n the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. I am a resident 0r employed in the county where the mailing occurred. D BY FAX TRANSMISSION: I faxed a copy of the document(s) t0 the persons at the fax numbers listed 1n the Service List. The telephone number of the sending facsimile machine was 415.434.3947. The transmission was reported as complete and Without error. N0 error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A transmission report was properly issued by the sending fax machine. D BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the document(s) to be sent fiom e-mail address lsegura@sheppardmullin.com t0 the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, Within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. D BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed said document(s) in an envelope 0r package provided by the overnight service carrier and addressed t0 the persons at the addresses listed in the Service List. I placed the envelope 0r package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight service carrier 0r delivered such document(s) to a courier 0r driver authorized by the overnight service carrier to receive documents. E BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I delivered the document(s) t0 Express Network for personal service t0 the person at the addresses listed in the Service List. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorney' s office by leaving the documents 1n an envelope 0r package clearly labeled t0 identify the attorney being served With a receptionist 0r an individual 1n charge of the office. (2) For a party, delivery was made t0 the party 0r by leaving the documents at the party's residence with _ 1 _ Case No. 19CV358955 SMRH:4847-6615-1605.2 PROOF 01: SERVICE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 some person not less than 18 years of age between the hours 0f eight in the morning and Six in the evening. I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed 0n February 20, 2020, at San Francisco, California. Www Lucia M. Segura -2- Case No. 19CV358955 SMRH:4847-6615-1605.2 PROOF 01: SERVICE