Removal to Federal Court

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.January 13, 2020

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 200V361638 Santa Clara - Civil Christopher C. Hoffman (SBN 176334) E-Mail: choffman@fisherphillips.com FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000 San Diego, California 92121 Telephone: (858) 597-9600 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601 Nathan K. Low (SBN 299587) E-Mail: nlow@fisherphillips.com Kevin L. Quan (SBN 317798) E-Mail: kquan@fisherphillips.com FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2050 San Francisco, CA 941 11 Tel: 415-490-9000 Fax: 415-490-9001 Attorneys for Defendant KINDER MORGAN, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MARK ESQUIBEL, Plaintiff, V. KINDER MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS L.P.; SCOTT MANLEY; KINDER MORGAN, INC.; and DOES 2 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 4l7l2021 3:05 PM Reviewed By: R. Nguyen Case #20CV361 638 Envelope: 6194824 CASE NO.: 20CV361638 [Unlimited Jurisdiction] DEFENDANT KINDER MORGAN, INC.’S NOTICE TO THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT Complaint Filed: January 18, 2020 FAC Filed: October 8, 2020 Trial Date: Not Set guyen DEFENDANT KINDER MORGAN, INC.’S NOTICE TO THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT AND ADVERSEPARTYOFREMOVALTOFEDERALCOURT FP 40100737.1 \DOONQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AND TO PLAINTIFF MARK ESQUIBEL AND HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant KINDER MORGAN, INC. (“Defendant”) removed the above-entitled action t0 the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 7, 2021. Attached hereto as “Exhibit 1” is a true and correct copy of the Notice ofRemoval, Civil Cover Sheet, Certificate 0f Interested Parties, and Corporate Disclosure Statement Which has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in connection With the above-entitled action. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), the filing of the attached Notice 0f Removal with the federal court effects removal 0f this action, and this Court may proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded. DATE: April 7, 2021 FIS R & PHILLIPS LLP an/ , By3 @0- [/5 f J Christopherl‘C. Hoffman Nathan K. Low Kevin L. Quan Attorneys for Defendant KINDER MORGAN, INC. 2 DEFENDANT KINDER MORGAN, INC.’S NOTICE TO THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT FP 401 00737.1 flONUl-PWN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF 0F SERVICE (CCP §§1013(a) and 2015.5) I, the undersigned, am at least 18 years 01d and not a party t0 this action. I am employed in the County of San Francisco with the law offices of Fisher & Phillips LLP and its business address is One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2050, San Francisco, California 941 1 1. On the date set forth below, I served the foregoing document entitled, DEFENDANT KINDER MORGAN, INC.’S NOTICE TO THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT 0n all the appearing and/or interested parties in this action as follows: Donald Charles Schwartz, Esq. Attorneyfor Plaintifi” Law Offices of Donald C. Schwartz MARK ESQUIBEL 7960-B Soquel Drive, No. 291 Aptos, CA 95003 Tel: 83 1 -33 1 -9909 Fax: 8 1 5-30 1 -6556 email: donald@lawofficedonaldschwartz.com [by MAIL] - I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the person(s) Whose address(es) are listed above and placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business With the United States Postal Service in San Francisco California, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. D [by OVERNIGHT DELIVERY] - I enclosed the document(s) in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed t0 the person(s) at the address(es) listed above. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office 0r a regularly utilized drop box 0f the overnight carrier. D [by ELECTRONIC SERVICE] - Based on a court order 0r an agreement of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I electronically served the document(s) to the person(s) at the electronic service address(es) listed above. D [by PERSONAL SERVICE] - I delivered the document(s) t0 the person(s) at the address(es) listed above by (1) (a) personal delivery, or (b) by leaving the documents in an envelope/package with an individual 1n charge 0f the office, or (c) by leaving them 1n a conspicuous place in the office between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. or (2) by messenger - a copy 0f the Messenger Declaration ls attached. I declare under penalty ofperjury, under the laws of the State 0f California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed April 7, 2021, at San Bruno, California. Yorleny Hernandez By; / Print Name fl] fl /Signature 0 PROOF OF SERVICE FP 401 00737.1 EXHIBIT 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 1 of 25 Christopher C. Hoffman (SBN 176334) E-Mail: choffman@fisherphillips.com FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000 San Diego, California 92 1 21 Telephone: (858) 597-9600 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601 Nathan K. Low (SBN 299587) E-Mail: nlow@fisherphillips.com Kevin L. Quan (SBN 317798) E-Mail: kquan@fisherphillips.com FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2050 San Francisco, CA 941 11 Tel: 4 1 5-490-9000 Fax: 41 5-490-9001 Attorneys for Defendant KINDER MORGAN, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARK ESQUIBEL, Case N0: Plaintiff, [From the Santa Clara Superior Court; Case No. 20CV361638] V. NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION KINDER MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 AND 1446 L.P.; SCOTT MANLEY; KINDER MORGAN, INC.; and DOES 2 through 100, inclusive, Complaint Filed: January 18, 2020 Defendants. FAC Filed: October 8, 2020 Trial Date: Not Set NOTICE OF REMOVAL FP 400992922 A QONM 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 2 of 25 TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, AND TO PLAINTIFF AND HIS COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant KINDER MORGAN, INC. (“Defendant”) hereby removes the above-captioned action from the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of Santa Clara, t0 the United States District Court for the Northern District 0f California. This removal is based 0n diversity jurisdiction, pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. sections 1332, 1441, and 1446, for the reasons stated below: I. THE STATE COURT ACTION 1. On or about January 18, 2020, PlaintiffMARK ESQUIBEL (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of Santa Clara, thereby initiating the civil action entitled “Mark Esquibel V. Kinder Morgan Energy Partner, L.P.; Scott Manley; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,” designated as Case Number 20CV361638. Plaintiff did not serve this originally filed Complaint 0n any of the named defendants. 2. On or about October 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of Santa Clara, entitled “Mark Esquibel V. Kinder Morgan Energy Partner, L.P.; Scott Manley; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,” designated as Case Number 20CV361638. On 0r about January 4, 2021, Plaintiff substituted Doe Defendant 1 as Kinder Morgan, Inc.1 3. The County of Santa Clara is within the territory 0f the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 4. Plaintiff’s FAC alleges causes of action for: (1) Defamation 0f Character by Slander Per Se - Employment; (2) Knowing and Intentional Failure t0 Comply with Itemized Employee Wage Statement Provisions; (3) Violation 0f Business & Professions Code, Sections 17200, et. seq.; (4) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; (5) WrongfiJI Termination for Violation of Public Policy; and (6) Breach of Oral Contract (the “State Court Action”). 1 On February 18, 2021, Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Drew Takaichi issued an order t0 show cause hearing for Plaintiff’s failure to serve his FAC. 2 NOTICE OF REMOVAL FP 400992922 A QONM 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 3 of 25 5. The FAC was served Via certified mail 0n February 26, 2021 to Kinder Morgan, Inc.’s Chief Executive Officer. A true and correct copy 0f the FAC is attached hereto as Exhibit A.2 6. Based 0n information and belief, n0 other pleadings have been filed in this matter. 7. As of the date 0f this Notice 0f Removal, n0 other parties have been validly served with the Summons and FAC in this matter. Because no other defendant has been served, they need not join or consent to Defendant’s Notice of Removal. Community Bldg. C0. v. Maryland Casualty C0., 8 F.2d 678, 678-79 (9th Cir. 1925) (named defendants not yet served in state court action need not join the notice 0f removal). II. REMOVAL IS SUBJECT TO A LIBERAL PLEADING STANDARD 8. In 2014, the United States Supreme Court held that notices of removal are subject to the same general pleading standards applicable to complaints pursuant to Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that accordingly such notices need not attach evidence or meet a burden 0f proof, but rather need only contain a “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating C0., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 84-89 (2014) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1446(3)). This governing principle also applies to a removing party’s allegations as to the amount in controversy. Id.; Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Ina, 775 F.3d 1193, 1196-1 197 (9th Cir. 2015); Gamett v. ADTLLC, 74 F. Supp. 3d 1332, 1334 (E.D. Cal. 2015). Only if the Court, 0r another party, contests the allegations of removability must the removing party submit evidence supporting its allegations, whereupon removability is decided under a preponderance of the evidence standard. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating C0,, LLC, 574 U.S. at 86-89. III. REMOVAL IS BASED ON DIVERSITY JURISDICTION 9. This is a civil action over which this Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1332. This action is one Which may be removed to this Court pursuant t0 the provisions 0f 28 U.S.C. section 1441(b) in that it is a civil action between citizens of different states and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum 0f $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 2 Plaintiff did not serve a Summons, Civil Cover Sheet, or Notice of Case Management Conference 0n Kinder Morgan, Inc. when he served his FAC Via certified mail on February 26, 202 1. 3 NOTICE OF REMOVAL FP 400992922 A QONM 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 4 of 25 10. Further, because the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has original jurisdiction over this lawsuit pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. section 1332, this action may be removed in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1441(a) and (b). In addition, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over all state claims that are so related to the claims Within the Court’s original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case 0r controversy, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(a). A. Plaintiff’s Citizenship 11. T0 establish citizenship for diversity purposes, a natural person must be domiciled in a particular state. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd, 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983). Natural persons are domiciled in the places they reside With the intent t0 remain or t0 which they intend to return. Kanter v. Warnter-Lambert C0,, 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Residence is primafacie evidence 0f domicile. Mondragon v. Capital One Auto Fin., 736 F.3d 880, 886 (9th Cir. 2013); Marmquin v. Wells Fargo, LLC, N0. 11CV163-L BLM, 2011 WL 476540, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 201 1). 12. An existing domicile is presumed to continue. Mitchell v. United States, 88 U.S. 350, 353 (1 875) (“[D]0rnicile, once acquired, is presumed t0 continue until it is shown to have been changed”); Mintzis v. Scott, No. 2:14-CV-01799-CAS, 2014 WL 3818104, at *5 (CD. Cal. July 30, 2014). It is presumed that a natural person’s residence is also his domicile, and a party resisting this presumption bears the burden ofproducing contrary evidence. Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1986). 13. Defendant is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff is now, and was at all material times, a citizen of the State 0f California within the meaning 0f 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a). See FAC 1] 2.3 Accordingly, Plaintiff is domiciled in and a citizen 0fthe State of California for the purposes 0f diversity jurisdiction. See Sololoflv. LRN Corp, No. CV 13-4910-CAS (AGRX), 2013 WL 4479010, at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2013) (finding that the removing defendant “carried its burden of showing diversity” because it had presented evidence of plaintiff’ s residence, which was “prima facie evidence 0f his domicile, and thus of his citizenship”). 3 See also Plaintiff’s caption page in which he lists his address as “1621 Franky Court, Santa Cruz, CA 95065.” 4 NOTICE OF REMOVAL FP 400992922 A QONM 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 5 of 25 B. Defendant’s Citizenship 14. A corporation is “a citizen 0fany State by which it has been incorporated and 0fthe State where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1). A corporation’s “principal place ofbusiness” refers to the place Where the corporation’s high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities, i.e., its “nerve center.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010). In practice, the nerve center is normally the corporation’s headquarters, provided that the headquarters is the actual center of direction, control, and coordination. Id. 15. For purposes 0f determining jurisdiction, Defendant is now, and was at the time this action was commenced, a citizen 0f the State of Delaware and Texas Within the meaning 0f 28 U.S.C. section 1332(c)(1). Defendant was incorporated in Delaware and at all material times, has maintained its company headquarters and principal place 0f business in Houston, Texas. See Declaration 0f Gloria Mendoza (“Mendoza Decl.”) W 3-6, Ex. A. Therefore, Defendant is a citizen of both Delaware and Texas for purposes 0f diversity jurisdiction. 16. Named defendants Kinder Morgan Energy Partners L.P. and Scott Manley’s citizenship need not be considered in connection with Defendant’s Notice of Removal because neither was validly served at the time of this remova1.4 See Perez v. McNamee, 2006 WL 3462791, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (denying the plaintiff’s motion t0 remand and concluding that because the named defendant was not a properly joined and served party at the time of the notice 0f removal, the notice 0f removal was proper pursuant t0 § 1441(b)). 17. The FAC also names Defendants Does 1 through 100, inclusive (“Doe Defendants”). Unnamed defendants sued as Does are not required t0 join in a removal petition, and their citizenship is disregarded for purposes of removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1); Fristoe v. Reynolds Metal Ca, 615 F.2d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir. 1980). Accordingly, the citizenship 0f the alleged Doe Defendants does not impact the diversity analysis for removal. 4 A true and correct copy of the State Court Action’s Docket is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Notably, Plaintiff has failed to file a proof of service evidencing that Plaintiff has served a copy of the FAC or Summons on Kinder Morgan Energy Partners L.P. or Scott Manley. 5 NOTICE OF REMOVAL FP 400992922 A QONM 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 6 of 25 C. Complete Diversitv Exists 18. Because Plaintiff is a citizen of California and Defendant is a citizen 0f Delaware and Texas, complete diversity of citizenship exists. D. Amount in Controversv 19. The Court has diversity jurisdiction over an action in which the parties are not citizens of the same state and “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 20. Establishing the $75,000 threshold necessary for diversity jurisdiction is not burdensome. When seeking removal 0f a state action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, “a defendant’s notice 0f removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Ca, 574 U.S. at 89. 2 1. A defendant need only t0 establish by a preponderance of evidence that the claims exceed the jurisdictional minimum. Rodriguez v. AT & T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 975, 982 (9th Cir. 2013); Singer v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. C0., 116 F.3d 373, 376 (9th Cir. 1997). 22. Defendant denies Plaintiff” s allegations, denies any liability, and denies that Plaintiff has suffered any damages. Nevertheless, in assessing the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction purposes, a court must assume that a jury will return a verdict for the plaintiff 0n all claims made in the complaint. Bank 0f California Nat. Ass’n v. Twin Harbors Lumber C0,, 465 F.2d 489, 491 (9th Cir. 1972); Roth v. Comerica Bank, 799 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1117 (C.D. Cal. 2010); Kenneth Rothchild Trust v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 199 F. Supp. 2d 993, 1001 (C.D. Cal. 2002). This includes any possible award 0f attorneys’ fees Where, as here, a statute at issue awards attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party. See Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp, 432 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The amount in controversy includes the amount 0f damages in dispute, as well as attorney’s fees, if authorized by statute 0r contract”); Gait G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 1998). Therefore, the ultimate inquiry is what amount is put in controversy by the plaintiff’s complaint, not what the amount 0f a defendant’s liability (if any) Will ultimately be. Gait G/S, 142 F.3d at 1155. 23. The amount in controversy may include general and special compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees which are recoverable by statute. Galt G/S, 142 F.3d at 1155-56. 6 NOTICE OF REMOVAL FP 400992922 A QONM 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 7 of 25 24. Sgecial Damages. In this instance, the FAC and prayer for relief contained therein reasonably demonstrate that the amount in controversy does, in fact, exceed $75,000. According t0 Plaintiff’ s FAC, Plaintiff is seeking “special damages in the sum of $10,000,000” for each of his causes 0f action for defamation and fraudulent misrepresentations in addition t0 emotional distress damages and punitive damages “in a sufficient amount to deter each and every defendant.” See FAC 1W 11, 12, 13, 34, 39, 45, 50, and Prayer for Relief. 25. Additionally, Plaintiff’s second cause 0f action for failure t0 comply With itemized employee wage statements seeks statutory damages pursuant to Labor Code § 226 in the amount of no less than $4,000.00. See FAC 11 20(b). 26. General Damages, Including Emotional Distress. Plaintiff also seeks an award emotional distress damages. See FAC 11 11, 13, and Prayer for Relief. Emotional distress damages have value for purposes of determining the amount in controversy. See Kroske, 432 F.3d at 980; see also Simmons v. PCR Technology, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1035 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (“emotional distress damages in a successful employment discrimination case may be substantial”). See Ontiveros v. Michaels Stores, Inc. , No. CV 12-09437MMM FMOX, 2013 WL 8 1 5975, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2013) (a court may consider verdicts in similar cases when determining whether the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum where the complaint 0n its face does not identify a specific amount in controversy); Marcel v. Pool Co., 5 F.3d 81, 83 (5th Cir. 1983) (court properly considered jury verdicts in other similar cases to reach conclusion that the amount in controversy was satisfied). 27. Recent verdicts in employment cases demonstrate that emotional distress awards can be significant: i. Lave v. Charter Communications, LLC, Superior Court, Riverside County, Case No. RIC 1508865, 2017 WL 2901375 (Cal. Super. Ct. June 7, 2017) (verdict awarding $575,000 in emotional distress damages where plaintiff experienced depression, insomnia, irritability, and anxiety). ii. Andrews vs. Hansa Stars Ina, Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. 5 In total, according to Plaintiff‘s FAC, Plaintiff is seeking $20,000,000 for only two of his causes 0f action (defamation and fraudulent misrepresentation). See FACW 12, 39. 7 NOTICE OF REMOVAL FP 400992922 A QONM 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 8 of 25 BC384912, 2009 WL 1587809 (Cal. Super. Ct. Apr. 16, 2009) (in connection with wrongful termination claims, two of the plaintiffs were awarded $375,000 and $225,000 for emotional distress damages). iii. Sonia Lozano v. Alcoa Ina, Alcoa Fastening Systems, Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. BC329868, 2006 WL 2561276 (Cal. Super. Ct. Apr. 19, 2006) (jury awarded the plaintiff $9,065,000 after determining that the plaintiffwas wrongfully terminated and that defendant intentionally inflicted emotional distress on her). iv. Silverman vs. Stuart F. Cooper Ina, Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case N0. BC467464, 2013 WL 5820140 (Cal. Super. Ct. July 19, 2003) (jury awarded the plaintiff $151,333 for past and future emotional distress in wrongful termination, FEHA discrimination, FEHA retaliation, FEHA harassment/ failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, and failure t0 pay final wages and waiting time penalties case). 28. Punitive Damages. Plaintiff also seeks t0 recover punitive damages as alleged in the FAC and in his prayer for relief. See FAC 1N 13, 50, and Prayer for Relief. “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). Where a plaintiff alleges serious claims for a defendant’s misconduct and seeks both compensatory and punitive damages, courts have found it to be facially apparent that the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. See, e.g., White v. FCI USA, Ina, 319 F.3d 672, 674-76 (5th Cir. 2003); Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 171 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1999). For instance, the Court might find useful the following punitive damages verdicts: i. Yang v. ActionNet, Ina, N0. 2:14-cv-00792-AB-PJW, 2016 WL 2748603 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2016) (wrongful termination case Where $2,400,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000,000 in punitive damages awarded to the plaintiff). ii. Leggins v. Thrifty Payless Inc. d/b/a Rite Aid, Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. BC511139, 2015 WL 4748037 (Cal. Super. Ct. July 17, 2015) (Employee alleged wrongfill termination, disability discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in Violation of FEHA and the FMLA, and failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Jury verdict for the plaintiff in the amount 0f $8,769,128, including $5,000,000 in punitive damages, $213,213 for past economic loss, $1,055,915 for future economic loss, $1,500,000 for past non-economic loss, and 8 NOTICE OF REMOVAL FP 400992922 A QONM 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 9 of 25 $1,000,000 for future economic loss). iii. Verdine v. McDonnel-Douglas Corporation et al., Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. BC-168266, 1998 WL 35471332 (Cal. Super. Ct. July 7, 1998) ($26,000,000 in punitive damages, $544,205 in economic damages; and $1,500,000 in non-economic damages awarded in wrongful termination case). iV. Songco v. Century Quality Management, Ina, Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case N0. BC-118303, 1997 WL 682397 (Cal. Super. Ct. Oct. 1, 1997) ($245,000 in punitive damages 0n $17,982 in compensatory damages awarded in wrongful termination case). 29. Although Defendant adamantly denies that any award of damages, let alone punitive damages, is recoverable, Plaintiffs prayer for punitive damages, by itself, also satisfies the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement. 30. Attorneys’ Fees. Moreover, Plaintiff seeks to recover his attorneys’ fees as provided by statute. FAC 1H 34, 45, and Prayer for Relief. Where an underlying statute authorizes the award 0f attorneys’ fees, as is the case here, such fees may be included in calculating the amount in controversy. See Gait G/S, 142 F.3d at 1156; Goldberg v. CPC Int’l, Ina, 678 F.2d 1365, 1367 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, Plaintiffs causes of action under the California Labor Code carry a prevailing party attorneys’ fee provision. See Cal. Labor Code § 226(e)(1). 3 1. As other courts have noted, litigating employment actions often “require substantial effort from counsel.” Simmons, 209 F. Supp. 2d at 1035. Reasonable attorneys’ fees for a successful employment case through trial could not possibly be less than $75,000. Id. It is more likely that Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees, alone, Will exceed $75,000 if this matter goes to trial. 32. Although Defendant denies any award of damages is appropriate here, the evidence is sufficient t0 establish that Plaintiff has placed in controversy an amount exceeding the jurisdictional amount 0f $75,000, exclusive of costs and interest. Accordingly, this State Court Action may be removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District 0f California because, at the time this action was filed and at the present time, diversity jurisdiction exists. / / / / / / 9 NOTICE OF REMOVAL FP 400992922 A QONM 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 10 of 25 III. TIMELINESS 0F REMOVAL 33. Under 28 U.S.C. section 1446(b), a “notice of removal 0f a civil action or proceeding shall be filed Within 3O days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, . . .” The 30-day period for removal is triggered once service occurs. Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Ina, 526 U.S. 344, 347-48 (1999) (“According1y, we hold that a named defendant’s time to remove is triggered by simultaneous service of the summons and complaint, 0r receipt 0f the complaint, ‘through service or otherwise,’ after and apart from service of the summons, but not by mere receipt of the complaint unattended by any formal service.”). 34. The 30-day removal period runs when the party seeking to remove receives a “paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is . . . removable.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). Plaintiff served the FAC 0n Defendant on February 26, 2021 Via certified mail. When service is made by mail using the procedure in Code of Civil Procedure section 41 5.40, service is “deemed complete on the 10th day after such mailing.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.40. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), this Notice of Removal is therefore timely filed as it is filed within thirty (30) days after Defendant was effectively served with the FAC and within one year after commencement of this action. IV. NOTICE PROVIDED T0 STATE COURT AND PLAINTIFF 35. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. section 1446(d), the undersigned counsel certifies that a copy 0f this Notice 0f Removal and all supporting papers will be promptly served on Plaintiff and filed With the Clerk of the Santa Clara County Superior Court. Therefore, all procedural requirements under 28 U.S.C. section 1446 have been satisfied. 36. This Notice of Removal is effected properly and timely pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. sections 1441 and 1446. V. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 37. Assignment to the San Jose Division is proper because the state action filed by Plaintiff is pending in Santa Clara County Superior Court and arose in Santa Clara County. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), 1446(a); Local Rule 3-2(e). 38. In the event this Court has a question regarding the propriety 0f this Notice 0f Removal, Defendant requests that it issue an Order to Show Cause so that it may have an opportunity to more fully 10 NOTICE OF REMOVAL FP 400992922 A QONM 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 11 of 25 brief the basis for this removal, and t0 produce supporting evidence. WHEREFORE, Defendant removes the above-entitled action now pending in Santa Clara County Superior Court t0 this Court. DATE: April 7, 2021 FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP Byz/s/ Kevin L. Quan Christopher C. Hoffman Nathan K. Low Kevin L. Quan Attorneys for Defendant KINDER MORGAN, INC. 11 FP 400992922 NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 12 of 25 EXHIBIT A Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 13 of 25 mumm‘AmNu-«QemSSE-Eafiza AUUVOO IOOO Santa Clara - Civil Electronically Filed Mark Esquibel by Superior Court of CA, 152k Franky Court County of Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, CA 95065 on 10/8/2020 6:42 PM 83E~43L3362 Reviewed By: A. Rodriguez Case #20CV361638 In Pro Per Envelope: 5078927 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Mark EsquibeL ] No. 20CV361 638 ] Plaintiff, ] FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTFOR ] DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF vs. ] ] DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.; Scott ] Manley; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, ] ] Defendants. ] 1 COMES NOW PLAINTIFF Mark Esquibel, who alleges on information and belief and demands, ajury trial as foflows: SUMMARY [I] This, is a case of a fraudulent employment termination in violation of Whistlcblowcr protections which termination is implemented in furtherance of a corporate policy created by defendants Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (hereinafter “Kinder”) and defendant Kinder’s Pacific Northern Region Director Scott Manley. PARTIES [2] At all times relevant pkaintiff Mark Esquibel (hereinafter referred to as “plaintiff ' : Esquibel”) is an individual and was employed by defendant Kinder - until illegally terminated. [3] At all times relevant defendant Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP. (hereinafter FIRST AMENDED COMPLAKNT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 14 of 25 “Kinderfi is and was doing business in the County of Santa Clara. [4} At, aIl times relevant defendant Scott Manley, is and was, the Pacific Northern Region Director for defendant Kinder. [5} The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise of defendants Does 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to plaintiff at this time, who therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names and when ihe true names and capacities of such defendants have: been ascertained, plaintiff will amend this First Amended Complaint accordingly. Plaintiff is infanned, and believe, and thereupon alleges, that each defendant designated herein as a Doe is responsibie, negligently, intentionafly or in some manner, including within the ambit of the operation of a conspiracy, a fi'audulent scheme and for the acts, facts, events, representations and happenings hereinafier referred to, and caused injuries and damages proximately thereby to plaintiff Esquibel, as herein alleged, either through said defendants’ own intentional, negligent, fi‘audulent or other conduct or through the conduct of their agents, servants or employees, or in some other manner, including ratification. [6} Plaintifi‘ is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all times stated herein defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants, employees, alter egos, joint venturers and/or conspirators of and with their co-defendants and were as such acting within the scope, course and authority of such agency, employment, joint venture and/or conspiracy, and that each and every defendant, as aforesaid, when acting as a principal, was negligent in the selection and hiring of each and every other defendant as, agent, servant, employee and/or joint venturer, including within the mbit 0fthe operation ofa conspiracy. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS [7] After 13-years of successful employment performance defendants, and each of them, illegally suspended and then terminated plaintiffEsquibel without just cause. PlaintiffMark Esquibel therefore alleges as follows: FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION [Defamation 0f Character by Slander Per Se - Employment] E8} PlaintiffMark Esquibel by this reference incorporates each and every other paragraph FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 15 of 25 a3 thaugh quy set, forth and re-alleged in this Complaint for Equitable Reliefand Damages herein. [9}? Defendants, and each ofthem, illegally terminated plaintiffEsquibel without cause. [10] By each 0f the acts, facts and events as set forth hereinabove, defendants, and each 0f them, defamcci plaintiffMark Esquibel in his business, profession and trade. [1 I} Saicf defendants’ conduct was negligent as well as wanton and reckless under the law. Said defendants’ conduct caused a severe emotional distress to plaintiff Esquibel and further proximately causing serious injury, including general, special damages to said plaintiff in a sum according to proof at time of trial. The purpose of the tortious conduct was, inter alia, part of an effort 1:0- cover-up the illegal anci unethical business practices of defendants, and each ofthem. [12'] As a proximate result of each and every defendants’ conduct, plaintiff Mark Escmibel has suffered general, special damages in the sum of $10,000,000 or as according to proof. [13] The aforementioned conduct of defendants, and each of them, were intentional acts known to said defendants to be untrue with the intention on the part of said defendants to deprive plaintiff Esquibcl of property or legal rights, or otherwise causing injuly, and was despicable conduct that subjected plaintiff Esquibel to a cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of plaintifl‘ Esquibel’s rights, so as to justify an award of emotional distress, special, exemplary and punitive damages. As such, plaintiffEsquibel suffered mental and emotional suffering and humiliation, WHEREFORE, plaintiffMark Esquibel prays judgment against defendants, and each ofthem, as: figrther set forth. below. SECOND CAUSE 0F ACTION {Knowing and Intentional Failure to Comply with Itemized Employee Wage Statement Provisions] [E4] Plaintiff by this reference incorporates each and every other paragraph in this Compkaint far Equitable Relief and Damages as if fully re-alleged herein. [15] Labor Code Section 226 requires an employer to furnish its employees with an accurate itemized statement in writing showing, among other things, (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by each respective individual, (3) all deductions, (4) net wages earned audior (5): all applicable hourly rates in effect during each respective pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by each respective individual. Wage statements also FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 16 of 25 Le), 10' E 1 E2 1,3 1:4 15 16 17 18' 19 20 2‘1 2‘2 2‘31 24 25 26 27 237 require accurate infomation as to the identity and location of the employer, which in this case is also lacking on afl of plaintiff’s wage statements for at least all or a significant portion of plaintiffs emptoy. Defendant Kinder systematically failed to provide such wage statements with accurate infomation and engaged in a policy of under-reporting and paying for all hours actually worked in violation of law. [16] Moreover, pursuant to Labor Code Section 226, California employers are required to maimain accurate records pertaining t0 the total hours worked for defendant Kinder, including, but not limited to, the totaE hours worked per pay period and applicable rates ofpay. Plaintiffis informed and believes and based thereupon alleges that defendant Kinder did not maintain accurate records of r all hours worked and imtead failed to keep accurate time records of all hours worked and/or directad plaintiff tor only report 8 hours per work-day irreSpective of actual hours worked. [17] Defendant Kinder did not accurately record all hours plaintiff Esquibel was actually caused: 0r suffered tor work, nor did said defendant pay overtime compensation for plaintiffi [I 81; As a pattern and practice, in violation ofLabor Code Section 226(a), defendant Kinder dict not filmish plaintiff Esquibel with an accurate itemized statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by plaintiff, (3) all deductions, (4) net wages earned andlor (5) all applicable hourly rates in effect during each pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by plaintiff Esquibel. r [I9] As a pattern and practice, in violation of Labor Code Section 226(a), defendant Kinder did mt maintain accurate records pertaining to the total hours worked for said defendant by plaintifi‘, incfudiflg, but not limited to, beginning and ending of each work period, the total daily hours worked, andi the tom! hours worked per pay period and applicable rates ofpay. [20} Pursuant to Labor Code Section 226(6), plaintiff Esquibel is entitled to penalties as foilowsr: (A) Fifiy dollars ($50.00) for the initial pay period in which a violation occurs; and (B) One hundred dollars ($100.00) for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not to exceed $4,000. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 17 of 25 H @mwmwawm MNNMMMNNMNM H mqmmkmNmeE§a$E$555 [21} Pursuant to Labor Code Section 226(g), plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief to ensure defendant’s compliance with Labor Code Section 226. [22} Plaintiff is entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. [2:31 Labor Code Section 226(a) requires defendant Kinder to itemize in wage statements all deductions from wages of plaintiff. [24]? Defendant Kincfer has knowingly and intentionally failed to comply With Labor Code section 226(a) on each and every wage statement provided to plaintiff. WHEREFORE‘, plaintiffMark Esquibel prays judgment against defendants, and each ofthem, as fimher set forth below. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation ofBusiness & Professions Code, Sections 17200, et. seq.) E25} Plaintiff Esquibel by this reference incorporates paragraphs 1 through 24 set forth in this First Amended Complaint for Equitable Relief and Damages as if fully set forth and re-aileged herein. [26} During the course of plaintiffs employment at defendant Kinder, plaintiff was subjected tio- an illegal ancf concealed microphone (audio) surveillance system because of plaintifi’s union organizing activities. [27] Plaintiff is under Whistleblower protection as a result of his having reported to the California State Fire Marshal that defendant Kinder was not going to dig-up any of the 300 B-Sleave piping, systems throughout the San Francisco Bay Area eve though the piping has a 20 percent leak rate. [2‘8]: Plaintiff, who is of indigenous peoples decent (i.e., North American Apache Tribe), became: the tayget ofracial was targeted for a pretextual employment suspension and termination. [291 Pfaintiff, who is a single father of three young daughters, was targeted for a pretextual employmenfi suspension and termination. [3G] Plaintiff; who was in a no fault automobile accident during his employ because the target of a pretextual employment suSpension and termination because it was revealed that false representations has been made pertaining to auto insurance coverages. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 18 of 25 mqmm-wawQOOOflaagaggg [31] Plaintiff, who suffered a concussion in" the on-the-job auto accident was not provided ADA Accommodation andi became targeted for a pretextual employment suspension and termination. [32] Defendant Manley solicited plaintiffto falsify his timecards. [33] Plaintifi‘EsquibeE has no adequate remedy at law for the injuries suffered and which are- threatened and continue to be perpetrated upon him as claimed herein. [34} Plaintiff Esquibel therefore seeks a permanent injunction as well as attorney’s fees and costs of suit pursuant to the remedies afforded by Business and Professions Code, Section 17200, et seq. and restitutionary disgorgement of all ill-gotten gain as according to proof. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants, and each of them, as further set ' ferth below. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraudulent Misrepresentation) [35] Plaintiff by this reference incorporates paragraphs 1 through 34 as though fully set forth and re-alleged in this Complaint for Equitable Reliefand Damages herein. [36] When plaintiffwas hired he was informed by Betty Temple, a policy-level manager for the, Main Northern California District Office for defendant Kinder, that plaintiff was fully covered for all California auto insurance coverages, including underinsurance coverage, when operating a company truck. [3171 Plaintiff at the time the representations were made, believed them to be true and, in refiance on them, was induced to do those things alleged herein. Had plaintiff known the truc facts, he would not have acted in reliance thereon. [3 8] The representations made by defendants were in fact false. [39} As a proximate result of each and every defendant’s fiaud and deceit and the facts herein alleged, plaintiffhas been induced to expend hours oftime and energy in an attempt to recover his losses, as well as to hire an attorney to pursue his legal rights. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recovery for general and special damages in the sum of $10,000,000 according to proof as according £0 proof [40] The primary purpose ofthe tortious conduct was, inter alia, to avoid payment of FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 19 of 25 marries, for the purpose of enhancing the profitability of defendant Kinder and was to cover-up the iflegal and unethical business practices of defendants Kinder and each and every other defendant herein. [41] The aforementioned conduct of defendants, and each of them, is an intentional misrepresentation, deceit or concealment of a material facts known to said defendants With the intention on the part of said defendants to deprive plaintiffs 0f property or legal rights, or otherwise causing injury, and was despicable conduct that subjected plaintiff to a cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of said, plaintiff’s rights, so as to justify an award of general, special, exemplary and punitive damages. [42]: There can be little doubt that defendants, and each of them, should be ordered to pay punitive and exemplary damages. During the operation of the aforementioned illegal schemes, the profitability of defendant Kinder was enhanced at the expense of the health and safety 0f plaintiffand employees like plaintiff. WHEREFORE, plaintiffMark Esquibel prays judgment against defendants, and each ofthem, as further set forth below. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Wrongfuk Termination for Violation ofPublic Policy) [431} Plaintiff by this reference incorporates each and every other paragraph set forth in this Complaint for Equitable Relief and Damages as if fiJIly set forth herein. [44] Plaintifi“ has no adequate remedy at law for the injuries suffered and which arc Weatenecfi and continue to be perpetrated upon him as claimed herein. [45] Plaintiff therefore seeks a permanent injunction as well as attorney’s fees and costs of suit pursuant to the remedies afforded by Business and Professions Code, Section 17200, et seq. and restitutionary disgorgement of all ill-gotten gain as according to proof. £46] By the acts, fact and events as alleged herein, each and every defendant, acting in a conspiracy, has wrongfully terminated plaintiff’s employment with defendant. The purpose of the wrongful termination was for profit motives and to enhance the profitability of defendant Kinder as well as to cover-up the illegal and unethical business practices 0f defendants, and each FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 7 Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 20 of 25 10: 1:1 12 1&3 £4» 1:5 16 17' 18: 19 2:0: 2,1 2'2 23 24 2‘6 27 23 ofthem [47], By eliminating plaintiff from the employ of defendant Kinder, said defendants could continue With their illegal, unfair and/or fiaudulent business scheme with impunity, e.g., harvesting iIl-gotten gain fOr themselves. [48] As a proximate result 0f the intentional acts of defendants, and each of them, plaintiff has been hurt and injured in his health, strength and activity, sustaining injury to his nervous system anci person, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, plaintiff great mental, physical ‘ and nervous pain and suffering. As a proximate result of the wrongful termination, plaintiff has further suffered general, special damages, and will continue to suffer general, special damages in the amount of$li0,000,000 or otherwise in amounts according to proof. [4'9] Each and every defendants’ wrongful conduct as herein alleged was done intentionally amf was malicious, oppressive and fraudulent in nature such that plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages/exemplary damages according to proof. [50] There can be little doubt that defendants, and each of them, should be ordered to pay punitive and exemplary damages. During the operation of the aforementioned illegal schemes, défendants engaged the illegal and fraudulent activities to enhance the profitability of defendant Kinder as well as to harvest bonuses. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants, and each of them, as further set forth below. SIXTH CAUSE 0F ACTION (Breach of Oral Contract) [51} Plaintifi‘ by this reference incorporates each and every other paragaph as though fully set forth and re-alleged in this Complaint for Equitable Reliefand Damages herein. [52] As an inducement to plaintiff to leave his previous employment, defendants, and each i 0fthem, made the: afleged oral agreement. E53} Defendant Kinder breached the above oral agreement when it failed to provide full California auto insurance coverages, including underinsured coverage as promised. [54] As a proximate result of the breach of oral agreement plaintiffhas sufi‘ered special FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 21 of 25 t0 I 1 12 1'3 1:4 15 16, 1,7 28 19 2,07» 2E 22 23: 24 25 26 27 28 damages, and will continue to suffer special damages in the amount of $10,000,00 or according to proof WHEREFORE, plaintiff Mark Esquibel prays judgment against defendants, and each of them, as folfiows: E1} For general damages, mental distress, pain, suffering and other emotional distress, in the amount of $ 10,000,000 or all according to proof; [2] For special damages, in the amount of $10,000,000 or as according to proof; [3} For punitive and exemplary damages in a sufficient amount to deter each and every defendant from acting in such a capricious, malicious, arbitrary, fiaudulent and conspiratorial r manner ever again and to make a proper example of said defendants so that no one in defendants’ position would ever try such antics anywhere in the United States and/or State of California ever again; [4} For such temporary, preliminary and/or permanent injunctions sufficient to cause each and every defendant, as well as their partners, agents, employees, assignees, and all persons acting in concert, or participating with therewith, to cease and desist the illegal, unfair andlor fraudulent business practices as alleged hereinabove; [5] For pre-judgment interest from the time of the breach of contract and other duties to ‘ the time of trial and/or otherwise as according to proof; [6} For restitution and disgorgement of any and all financial benefit derived fi'om the operation of the scheme and otherwise in violation ofB & P Code §17200, et seq.; [7] For attorneys” fees and all costs, including costs of suit, according t0 proof; [8} For a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions preventing I defendants, and each ofthem, fi'om continuing to defame, libel and/or slander plaintiff; [9]? For damages, interest, penalties, trebling, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to, inter alia, California Labor Code Sections 201-2186, 203, 226, 226(3), 226(e), 226(g) 1102.5, 1198.5 remedies; [10] For costs 0f suit herein incurred; and [I I} For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. FIRSTAMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 22 of 25 Ulgu‘lm w 11 12 13 14 Es. 1&6; 17‘ 1 g 19 20 21% 22 23 24: 2:5 2‘6, 27‘ 28 Date: October 8, 2020 . 747w 59W I Mark Esqufbel FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 10 Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 23 of 25 EXHIBIT B Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 24 of 25 20CV361 638 Mark Esquibel vs Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP et al Case Information Case Type: Defamation Unlimited (13) Case Number: 20CV361638 Filing Date: 1/13/2020 Case Status: Active Court Location: Civil EVENTS Show A|| ventries v File Date File Type 2/10/2021 Minute Order 1/8/2021 Complaint: Amendment To (New Party) 1/4/2021 Complaint: Amendment To (New Party) PARTIES Show A|| ventries seam“ A Type First Name Middle Name Defendant Defendant Scott Defendant Plaintiff Mark Showing 1 to 4 of4 entries Previous Attorneys Show AII ventries Search: A Representing First Name Mark Esquibel Donald Showing 1 to1 of1 entries Previous < Search: Filed By Comment Mark Kinder Morgan, Inc. Esquibel, Mark Kinder Morgan, Inc Esquibel, 1 Next 1 Next Documents v File Date 12/31/2020 10/20/2020 10/8/2020 10/8/2020 10/8/2020 1/13/2020 1/13/2020 1/13/2020 1/13/2020 1/13/2020 1/13/2020 Case 5:21-cv-02510 File Type Substitution: Attorney Minute Order Statement: Case Management Conference Advancejury fee (Nonrefundable) Amended Complaint Filed - No Fee New Filed Case Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) Civil Case Cover Sheet Summons: Issued/Filed Fee Waiver Application Fee Waiver Order-G rant Showing 1 to 14 of 14 entries HEARINGS Show A|| ventries Department Department 2 Department 6 Department 6 Type OSC: Dismissal Failure to Serve Docgfigggxgl Fileqocrw‘oeyfl Page 25 0f25 Mark Esquibel, Mark Esquibel, Mark Esquibel, Mark Esquibel, Mark Esquibel, Mark Esquibel, Mark Esquibel, Mark Esquibel, Mark Esquibel, Hearing: OSC Dismissal Failure to Appear Conference: Further Case Management Showing 1 to 3 of3 entries Su bstitution of Attorney Case Management Statement $1 50.00 jury fee deposited for Plaintiff, pro SE. FIRST signed by clerk Search: v Date 4/22/2021 1 [14/2021 10/20/2020 Time 10:00AM 10:00AM 10:00AM Previous Result Held Held Previous Documents B 1 Next Documents EQ @QE @QE 1 Next JS-CAND 44 (Rev. 10/2020) Case 5:21-cv-0251é19ffiummW/W/Zl Page 1 of 2 The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings 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 of Court t0 initiate the civil docket sheet. {SEE INSTRUCTIONS ONNEXTPAGE 0F THISFORM) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS MARK ESQUIBEL (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Santa Cruz, California (EXCEPTIN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (C) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Donald Charles Schwartz 7960 Soquel Drive, No. 291 Aptos CA 95003 83 1-33 1-9909 DEFENDANTS KINDER MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS L.P.; SCOTT MANLEY; KINDER MORGAN, INC. County of Residence 0f First Listed Defendant (IN US. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLW NOTE: THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED Attorneys (IfKnown) IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF Christopher Hoffman | Nathan Low | Kevin Quan (415) 490-9000 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2050 San Francisco, CA 941 11 II. D 1 U‘SA Government Plaintiff D 3 FederalQuestion (US Government Not a Party) D 2 U.S. Government Defendant E 4 DiVeTSity (Indicate Citizenship ofParties in Item III) BASIS 0F JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Box Only) Citizen ofA Citizen of This State Citizen 0r Subject ofa Foreign Country PTF E1 D2 D3 mother State III CITIZENSHIP 0F PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X" in One Boxfi2r Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Boxfor Defendant) DEF PTF DEF D 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 0f D 4 D 4 Business In This State D 2 Incorporated and Principal Place D 5 E 5 0f Business In Another State D 3 Foreign Nation D 6 D 6 IV. D 110 Insurance D 120 Marine D 130 Miller Act D 140 Negotiable Instrument D 150 Recovery 0f Overpayment Of Veteran’s Benefits D 151 Medicare Act D 152 Recovery ofDefaulted Student Loans Gixcludes PERSONAL INJURY U 310 Airplane D 3 1 5 AinlaJle Product Liability D 320 Assault, Libel & Slander D 330 Federal Employers’ Liability D 340 Marine D 345 Marine Product Liability U 350 Motor Vehicle NATURE 0F SUIT (Place an "X" in One Box Only) PERSONAL INJURY U 365 Personal Injury - Product Liability D 367 Health Care/ Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability D 368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY D 370 Other Fraud D 625 Drug Related Seizure of D 422 Appeal 28 USC § 158 Property 21 USC § 881 D 690 Other D 423 Withdrawal 28 USC § 157 D 710 Fair Labor Standards Act D 720 Labor/Management Relations D 740 Railway Labor Act D 751 Family and Medical Leave Act D 820 Copyrights D 830 Patent D 835 Patent-Abbreviated New Drug Application D 840 Trademark U 375 False Claims Act D 376 Qui Tam (31 Usc § 3729(a)) D 400 State Reapportionment D 410 Antitrust D 430 Banks and Banking D 450 Commerce U 460 Deportation U 470 Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations V t D 355 Motor Vehicle Product , , D 880 Defend Trade Secrets D 1 53 11:6er6115)“ Liability U 371 Truth m Imdmg D 790 Other Labor Litigation Act of2016 D 480 Consumer Credit Ovemayinyem D 360 Other Personal Injury D 380 gther Personal PmPefly D 791 Employee Retirement D 485 Telephone Consumer . ' _ ' amage Income Security Act Protection Act ofVeteran s Benefits D 362 fifiggilfilélimy Medlcal D 385 Property Damage Product D 861 HIA (139511) D 490 Cable/Sat TVD 150 Stockholders” Suits Liability D 862 Black Lung (923) D 850 SecuritieS/Commodities/D 190 Other Contract D 462 Naturalization D 363 DIWC/DIWW (405(9) Exchange D 195 Contract Product Liability Application D 364 SSID Title XVI D 890 Other Statutory Actions D 196 Framh‘se D 440 Other Civil Rights HABEAS CORPUS D 465 Other Immigration D 865 RSI (405(9) U 891 Agricultural Acts D 441 Voting D 463 Alien Detainee Actions D 893 EnV‘mnmemal Matters E 442 Employment D 5 10 Motions to Vacate D 895 Freedom oflnformation D 210 Land Condemnation D 443 Housing/ Sentence U 870 Taxes (U.S‘ Plaintiffor Act D 220 Foreclosure AccommOdafions D 530 General Defendant) D 896 Arbitration D 230 Rent Ease & Ejectmem D 445 Amer. w/Disabilities- D 535 Death Penalty U 371 IRS-Third PaITy 26 USC D 899 Admmsmive 1,1.de D 240 Tons to Land EmploYmem OTHER § 7609 Act/Review or Appeal of D 245 Tort Product Liabihty D 446 Ame“ W’Dlsab‘hnew‘h“ D 54o Mandamus & Other Agency 13601510“ D 290 A11 Other Real Property D 448 Educatlon D 550 Civil Rights D 950 (Slfantittlgnonahty ofState D 555 Prison Condition D 560 Civil Detainee- Conditions of Confinement V. ORIGIN (Place an “X" in One Box Only) D 1 Original E 2 Removed fiom D 3 Remanded from D 4 Reinstatcd 0r D 5 Transferred from Another D 6 Multidistrict D 7 Multidistrict Proceeding State Conn Appellate Court Reopened District (specifig Litigation-Transfer Litigation-Direct File VI. CAUSE OF Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under Which you are filing (Do nut citejurisdictinmll statutes unless diversity): Brief description of cause: Defamatlon; V101at10n 0f Labor Code § 226; V101at10n of Busmess & Professmns Code; Fraudulent Mlsrepresentatlon; Wrongful Termination; and Breach 0f Oral Contract VII. REQUESTED IN D CHECK IF THIS Is A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ 10,000,000.00 CHESIEEE/IS onlxifdemageg in comfilaibrllt: COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. J UR AND- es ° VIII. RELATED CASE S( )’ IUDGE DOCKET NUMBER IF ANY (See instructions): IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2) (Place an “X” in One Box Only) D SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND E SAN JOSE D EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE DATE 4/7/2021 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY 0F RECORD /s/ Kevin L. Quan JSCAND 44(rev'10/2020) Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1-1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 2 0f 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 coun. This fonn, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk 0fCoun 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) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) ofplaintitf and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use b) c) II. III. VII. 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 of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time 0f filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name 0f the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time 0f 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 0f record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section “(see attachment).” Jurisdiction. The basis ofjurisdiction is set forth under Federal Rule of 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 ofCongress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a patty, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 0r 2 should be marked. (4) Diversity of citizenship. This refers to suits under 28 USC § 1332, Where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship 0f 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 0f action, in Section VI below, is sufficient t0 enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office t0 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 ofthe six boxes. (1) Original Proceedings. Cases originating in the United States district courts. (2) Removed fiom State Coufi. 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 of remand 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). Do not use this for within district transfers 0r multidistrict litigation transfers. (6) Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority 0f 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 of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause 0f action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC § 553. BriefDescription: Unauthorized reception of cable service. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an “X” in this box if you are filing a class action under Federal Rule 0f 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. VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is used to identify related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket IX. 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 0r omissions which give rise to the claim occurred or in which a substantial part of the property that is the subject 0f the action is situated.” Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet. American LegalNet, Inc. www,FormsWorkFlcw‘com OOQQ \O 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/21 Page 1 of 4 Christopher C. Hoffman (SBN 176334) E-Mail: choffman@fisherphillips.com FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000 San Diego, California 92121 Telephone: (858) 597-9600 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601 Nathan K. Low (SBN 299587) E-Mail: nlow@fisherphillips.com Kevin L. Quan (SBN 3 17798) E-Mail: kquan@fisherphillips.com FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2050 San Francisco, CA 941 11 Tel: 4 1 5-490-9000 Fax: 41 5-490-9001 Attorneys for Defendant KINDER MORGAN, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARK ESQUIBEL, Plaintiff, V. KINDER MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS L.P.; SCOTT MANLEY; KINDER MORGAN, INC.; and DOES 2 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case N0: [From the Santa Clara Superior Court; Case No. 20CV361638] DECLARATION OF GLORIA MENDOZA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT KINDER MORGAN INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL Complaint Filed: January 18, 2020 FAC Filed: October 8, 2020 Trial Date: Not Set DECLARATION OF GLORIA MENDOZA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT KINDER MORGAN, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL FP 401 00322.1 Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/21 Page 2 of 4 10 ll 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I, Gloria Mendoza, declare as follows: l. I have personal knowledge ofthe facts set forth herein and, if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto. 2. I am cunently employed as a Senior Paralegal for Defendant KINDER MORGAN, INC. (“Defendant”). As Defendant’s Senior Paralegal, I am familiar with the general business operations and business structure ofDefendant. 3. Defendant is incorporated in the State ofDelaware with its company headquaflers located at 1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000, Houston, Texas 77002. 4. Defendant’s leadership is located at its company headquaflers in Houston, Texas, and its core executive and administrative flmctions are primarily carried out 0f its company headquaflers in Houston, Texas. 5. Defendant’s officers and directors direct the operations of Defendant from its emporate headquaflers in Houston, Texas. 6. A true and correct copy of the Statement 0f Information filed by Defendant with the California Secretary of State 0n December 11, 2019, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. As set forth in the Statement of Information, Defendant’s principal executive office is 1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000, Houston, Texas 77002. I declare under penalty 0fpteuIy under the laws 0f the State 0f California and the United States ofAmerica that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed 011 031299021 at Houston Texas DATE CIrY STATE £421an a. (mmi wa- Gloria Mendoza 2 DECLARATION 0F GLORIA NIENDOZA IN SUPPORT 0F DEFENDANT KINDER MORGAN, ]NC.’S NOTICE 0F REMOVAL I-r' 4111003221 Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/21 Page 3 of 4 EXHIBIT A Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 1-2 Filed 04/07/21 Page 4 of 4 F State of California Secretary of State Statement of Information 6332221 (Foreign Corporation) FEES (Filing and Disclosure): $25.00. FILED If this is an amendment, see instructions. In the office of the Secretary of state IMPORTANT - READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING THIS FORM of the State of California 1. CORPORATE NAME DEC-11 2019 KINDER MORGAN, INC. 2' CALIFORNIA CORPORATE NUMBER C4528502 This Space for Filing Use Only No Change Statement (Not applicable if agent address of record is a P.O. Box address. See instructions.) 3. If there have been any changes to the information contained in the last Statement of Information filed with the California Secretary of State, or no statement of information has been previously filed, this form must be completed in its entirety. D If there has been no change in any of the information contained in the last Statement of Information filed with the California Secretaryof State, check the box and proceed to Item 13. Complete Addresses for the Following (Do not abbreviate the name ofthe city. Items 4 and 5 cannot be P.O. Boxes.) 4. STREET ADDRESS 0F PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICE CITY STATE ZIP CODE 1001 LOUISIANA ST STE 1000, HOUSTON, TX 77002 5. STREET ADDRESS 0F PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OFFICE IN CALIFORNIA, IF ANY CITY STATE ZIP CODE s. MAILING ADDRESS OF THE CORPORATION, IF DIFFERENT THAN ITEM 4 CITY STATE ZIP CODE Names and Complete Addresses of the Following Officers (The corporation must list these three officers. A comparable title for the specific officer may be added; however, the preprinted titles on this form must not be altered.) 7. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE STEVEN J KEAN 1001 LOUISIANA ST STE 1000, HOUSTON, TX 77002 8. SECRETARY ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE ADAM S FORMAN 1001 LOUISIANA ST STE 1000, HOUSTON, TX 77002 9. CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER/ ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE DAVID MICHELS 1001 LOUISIANA ST STE 1000, HOUSTON, TX 77002 Agent for Service of Process If the agent is an individual, the agent must reside in California and Item 11 must be completed with a California street address, a P.O. Box address is not acceptable. If the agent is another corporation. the agent must have on file with the California Secretary of State a certificate pursuant to California Corporations Code section 1505 and Item 11 must be left blank. 1o. NAME 0F AGENT FOR SERVICE 0F PROCESS - ’7' ~ SI we wees :mcm * “ ‘ " ~ CAPITOL CORPORATE SERVICES, INC. 11. STREET ADDRESS 0F AGENT FOR SERVICE 0F PROCESS IN CALIFORNIA, IF AN INDIVIDUAL CITY STATE ZIP CODE Type of Business 12. DESCRIBE THE TYPE 0F BUSINESS 0F THE CORPORATION HOLDING 13. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN Is TRUE AND CORRECT. 12/1 1/201 9 ADAM FORMAN SECRETARY DATE TYPE/PRINT NAME 0F PERSON COMPLETING FORM TITLE SIGNATURE SI-350 (REV 01/201 3) APPROVED BY SECRETARY OF STATE OOQQ \O 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 2 Filed 04/07/21 Page 1 of 2 Christopher C. Hoffman (SBN 176334) E-Mail: choffman@fisherphillips.com FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000 San Diego, California 92121 Telephone: (858) 597-9600 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601 Nathan K. Low (SBN 299587) E-Mail: nlow@fisherphillips.com Kevin L. Quan (SBN 3 17798) E-Mail: kquan@fisherphillips.com FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2050 San Francisco, CA 941 11 Tel: 4 1 5-490-9000 Fax: 41 5-490-9001 Attorneys for Defendants KINDER MORGAN, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARK ESQUIBEL, Plaintiff, V. KINDER MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS L.P.; SCOTT MANLEY; KINDER MORGAN, INC.; and DOES 2 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case N0: [From the Santa Clara Superior Court; Case No. 20CV361638] DEFENDANT KINDER MORGAN, INC.’S CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES PURSUANT T0 CIVIL LOCAL RULE 3-15 Complaint Filed: January 18, 2020 FAC Filed: October 8, 2020 Trial Date: Not Set DEFENDANT KINDER MORGAN, INC.’S CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES - L.R. 3-15 PF 401 58543.1 \IONUI-D 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 2 Filed 04/07/21 Page 2 of 2 Defendant KINDER MORGAN, INC. (“Defendant”), by and through counsel, hereby submits this Certification of Interested Parties pursuant to Rule 3-1 5 of the Northern District 0f California Civil Local Rules. Pursuant to Civil L. R. 3-15, as of this date, the undersigned certifies that, as a publicly traded company listed on the New York Stock Exchange, there may be thousands of persons 0r entities that may have some level 0f financial interest, as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 455(d)(4) in Kinder Morgan, Inc., and the list 0f such persons and entities changes over time. DATE: April 7, 2021 FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP Byz/s/ Kevin L. Quan Christopher C. Hoffman Nathan K. Low Kevin L. Quan Attorneys for Defendants KINDER MORGAN, INC. 2 DEFENDANT KTNDER MORGAN, INC. ’S CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES - L.R. 3-15 FP 401 58543.1 OOQQ \O 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 3 Filed 04/07/21 Page 1 of 2 Christopher C. Hoffman (SBN 176334) E-Mail: choffman@fisherphillips.com FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000 San Diego, California 92121 Telephone: (858) 597-9600 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601 Nathan K. Low (SBN 299587) E-Mail: nlow@fisherphillips.com Kevin L. Quan (SBN 3 17798) E-Mail: kquan@fisherphillips.com FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2050 San Francisco, CA 941 11 Tel: 4 1 5-490-9000 Fax: 41 5-490-9001 Attorneys for Defendants KINDER MORGAN, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARK ESQUIBEL, Plaintiff, V. KINDER MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS L.P.; SCOTT MANLEY; KINDER MORGAN, INC.; and DOES 2 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case N0: [From the Santa Clara Superior Court; Case No. 20CV361638] DEFENDANT KINDER MORGAN, INC.’S CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO FRCP RULE 7.1 Complaint Filed: January 18, 2020 FAC Filed: October 8, 2020 Trial Date: Not Set DEFENDANT KINDER MORGAN’S CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO FRCP RULE 7.1 FP 401 00262.1 \IONUI-D 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-02510 Document 3 Filed 04/07/21 Page 2 of 2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7. 1 , Defendant Kinder Morgan, Inc., by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby discloses that Kinder Morgan, Inc. is a publicly held corporation traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). No publicly held corporation owns 10% 0r more of Kinder Morgan, Inc.’s stock. DATE: April 7, 2021 FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP Byz/s/ Kevin L. Quan Christopher C. Hoffman Nathan K. Low Kevin L. Quan Attorneys for Defendants KINDER MORGAN, INC. 2 DEFENDANT KINDER MORGAN’S CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO FRCP RULE 7.1 FP 401 00262.1