Removal to Federal Court

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.May 26, 2020

LANE POWELL PC 601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3 158 503.778.2100 FAX 503.778.2200 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 200V366792 Santa Clara - Civil P. Hernande Rishi Puri, BarNo. 252718 E'ec"°"'°a"y Wed - by Superior Court of CA,urlr lane 0well.com ?(risgn L.E’rice, Bar N0. 299698 county 0f santa Clara: pricek@lanepowell.com 0n 7/9/2020 2:20 PM LANE POWELL PC Reviewed By: P. Hernandez 601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 2100 case #zocv366792 Portland, Oregon 97204-3 158 Envelope: 4575700 Telephone: 503.7782 1 00 Facsimile: 503.778.2200 Attorneys for Defendant KinderCare Education LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION ISABEL PEREZ, an individual, Case N0. 20CV366792 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT’S NOTICE TO CLERK OF THE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF V. FILING OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT KINDERCARE EDUCATION LLC, and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Assigned t0 Judge Laurie Mikkelsen Dept: 6 Defendants. Complaint Filed: May 26, 2020 Trial Date: Not yet set TO: THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, AND TO PLAINTIFF AND HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, LORI J. COSTANZO AND CHELSEA HILL. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT 0n July 9, 2020, Defendant KinderCare Education LLC filed a Notice of Removal (“Notice”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District 0f California, San Jose Division. A true and correct copy of the Notice and all documents filed in support 0f the Notice are attached as Exhibit 1. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, by the filing of such Notice and by the filing herein 0fthis notice to superior court ofremoval to federal court, the above-entitled action has been removed from this Court t0 the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, -1- DEFENDANT’S NOTICE TO CLERK OF THE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF FILING OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT 130589.2305/8088976.1 LANE POWELL PC 601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3 158 503.778.2100 FAX 503.778.2200 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 San Jose Division, pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction) and this Court may proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded. DATED: July 9, 2020 LANE POWELL 12c By /s/ Kristen L. Price Rishi Puri, Bar No. 2527 1 8 Kristen L. Price, Bar No. 299698 Attorneys for Defendant KinderCare Education LLC -2- DEFENDANT’S NOTICE TO CLERK OF THE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF FILING OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT 130589.2305/8088976.1 EXHIBIT 1 I I \OOOQONUI-PUJNH HHHr-AHHH QUIAUJNHO LANE POWELL PC 601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3 158 503.778.2100 FAX 503.778.2200 NNNNNNNNNHHH OONQUI-PUJNb-‘OKOOON Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 1 of 5 William E. Weiner, Bar No. 285321 welnerw@lanepowell.com Kristen . Price, Bar No. 299698 rlcekgpne owell.com ANE O ELL PC 601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 2100 Portland, Ore 0n 97204-3 158 Telephqne: 5 3.778.2100 Fa031mlle: 503.778.2200 Attorneys for Defendant KinderCare Education LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ISABEL PEREZ, an individual, Civil No. 5:20-cv-4562 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF REMOVAL V. Filed concurrent] with Declaration 0f risten L. Price, ivil Case Cover KINDERCARE EDUCATION LLC, and Sheet, Cor orate Disclosure Statement DOES 1-25, 1nclus1ve, and Certifgration oflnterested Entities] Defendants. Santa Clara Coun Superior Court ase No. 20CV36 792 State Court Action Filed: May 26, 2020 TO: The Honorable Judges 0f the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Defendant KinderCare Education LLC (“Defendant” or “KinderCare”), hereby removes the above-captioned action currently pending in the Superior Court 0f Santa Clara County, California, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Removal is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction) and authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. As grounds for removal, Defendant states as follows: - 1 - CASE NO. 5 :20-CV-4562 NOTICE OF REMOVAL 130589.2178/8101838.1 Exhibit 1 Page 1 of 62 \OWQQUI-PUJNr-b r-tHr-tr-tr-tt-r-t ONUIhUJNr-to LANE POWELL PC 601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3 1 58 503.778.2100 FAX 503.778.2200 NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-t OOQQU‘IhUJNb-‘OOOOQ Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 2 of 5 I. BACKGROUND 1. Plaintiff Isabel Perez (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action 0n or about May 26, 2020, by filing a Complaint (“Comp1.”) with the clerk of the Superior Court 0f Santa Clara County, California (the “State Court Action”). The State Court Action has been assigned case number 20CV366792. On July 6, 2020, KinderCare filed an Answer to the Complaint in the State Court Action. True and correct copies of the Summons, Complaint, Answer, and any attached documents are filed jointly herewith as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Kristen L. Price (“Price Decl.”). II. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS 2. Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 exists because this action is between citizens ofdifferent states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. a. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff is a citizen 0f California. (Price Decl. 1] 4, Comp]. at 1] 2). b. Defendant KinderCare Education LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company with its principal place 0f business in Oregon. (Price Decl. 1T 5, Exhibit C.) c. While Plaintiff has named fictitious Doe defendants, “the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious named shall be disregarded” in determining whether a civil action is removable based 0n diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1). d. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. In her Complaint, Plaintiff brings claims for: (1) Failure t0 engage in the Interactive Process; (2) Retaliation; (3) Whistleblower Retaliation; (4) Wrongful Termination; (5) Breach 0f Implied-in-Fact Contract; and (6) Breach 0f the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. (Compl. at 111133-60). With respect t0 these claims, Plaintiff seeks special damages, including loss 0f income and benefits, an exacerbation of her medical conditions, emotional distress, and other general damages. (Price Decl. 1] 6, Compl. at W 38, 48). While working for KinderCare in 2018, Plaintiffs gross pay was -2- CASE NO. 5:20-cv-4562 NOTICE OF REMOVAL 130589.2178/8101 838.1 Exhibit 1 Page 2 of 62 \OWQQUI-bUJNr-t Hu-HH-t-H ONUI#UJ[\Jr-to LANE POWELL PC 601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3 158 503.778‘2100 FAX 503.778.2200 NNNNNNNNNI-tflr-I OOQQUIhUJNb-‘OOOOQ Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 3 of 5 approximately $57,150. Id. The alleged loss of this income, in addition to the value 0f any benefits allegedly lost and medical specials brings the amount in controversy beyond the jurisdictional minimum. Plaintiff is further seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. (Compl. Prayer 1H} 3-7). A claim for attorneys’ fees is also included in determining the amount in controversy, regardless whether the fee award is mandatory 0r discretionary. Gait G/S v. JSS Scandinavia (9th Cir. 1998) 142 F.3d 1150, 1155- 1156. Further, a brief survey of verdicts and/or settlements in similar wrongful termination cases in Santa Clara County, the surrounding counties, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California revealed a number of cases in which the plaintiff recovered in excess 0f $75,000. (Price Decl. 1T7, Exhibit D). III. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 3. Removal to This Court Is Proper. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)-(b) and 1446(3), KinderCare is filing this Notice 0fRemoval in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which is the federal district court embracing the state court where plaintiff has brought the State Court Action-Santa Clara County, California. Venue is proper in this district pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). 4. Removal Is Timely. KinderCare accepted service 0f the Complaint on May 12, 2020. (Price Decl. 1] 2, Ex. A.) KinderCare has thirty days from the date 0f receipt 0f the Complaint through service to file a notice 0f removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). However, where the thirtieth day is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, the thirty-day period runs until the end 0f the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, 0r holiday. Fed. R. CiV. P. 6(a)(1); Wells v. Gateways Hosp. Mental Health Ctr., 76 F.3d 390 (published in full-text format at 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 2287, 1996 WL 36184 at *1 (9th Cir. 1996) (Unpub. Disp.) (holding that Rule 6(a) specifically -3- CASE NO. 5:20-cv-4562 NOTICE OF REMOVAL 130589.2178/8101 838.1 Exhibit 1 Page 3 of 62 \OWQQUI-PUJNH r-tr-r-tr-tr-tr-r-t ONUIhUJNF-‘O LANE POWELL PC 601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3 158 503.778.2100 FAX 503.778.2200 NNNNNNNNNr-tr-r-n OOQQU‘IhUJNHOOOOfl Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 4 of 5 applies to the thirty-day removal deadline). Because July 12, 2020 is a Sunday, this Notice 0f Removal is timely filed on 0r before July 13, 2020. 5. Bond and Verification. Pursuant to Section 1016 0f the Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act of 1988, no bond is required in connection With this Notice 0f Removal. Pursuant t0 Section 1016 0f the Act, this Notice of Removal need not be verified. 6. Signature. This Notice of Removal is signed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). 7. Pleadings and Process. True and correct copies 0f all available pleadings 0n file in the State Court Action, including the operative complaint and a current docket sheet, are submitted herein as Exhibits A and B t0 the Declaration 0f Kristen Price. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). KinderCare has paid the appropriate filing fee to the Clerk of Court upon the filing of this Notice 0f Removal. 8. N0 Waiver. By seeking removal, KinderCare does not waive, and expressly reserves all rights, defenses, 0r obj ections of any nature that it may have to Plaintiff’s claims. Specifically, KinderCare does not waive any 0f its affirmative defenses as to sufficiency of process, sufficiency 0f service and/or 0f process, jurisdiction, venue, right to arbitration, failure to state a claim, failure to join a party, 0r any other affirmative defense in this matter. 9. NLice. KinderCare Will promptly serve Plaintiffand file With this Court its Notice of Removal t0 Plaintiff, informing Plaintiff that this matter has been removed t0 federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), (d). KinderCare will also promptly file with the clerk of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California, and serve on Plaintiff, a Notice 0f Removal t0 Federal Court pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). -4- CASE NO. 5:20-cv-4562 NOTICE OF REMOVAL 130589.2178/810183SJ Exhibit 1 Page 4 of 62 LANE POWELL PC 601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3 158 503.778‘2100 FAX 503.778.2200 \OOOQONUI-war-t NNNNNNNNNr-p-r-p-‘h-ar-‘r-‘r-‘p-dr-a mflothNb-‘ONOOOQONUI&WNHO Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 5 of 5 WHEREFORE, this action should proceed in the United States District Court for the Northern District 0f California, as an action properly removed thereto. DATED: July 9, 2020 LANE POWELL pc By /s/ Kristen L. Price William E. Weiner, Bar No. 285321 Krlsten L. Prlce, Bar No. 299698 Attorneys for Defendant KinderCare Educatlon LLC -5- CASE NO. 5:20-cv-4562 NOTICE OF REMOVAL 130589.2178/8101838.1 Exhibit 1 Page 5 of 62 \OOOQQMJkWNr-t p-‘u-ar-‘r-‘Hr-dr-a ONUIhUJNr-to LANE POWELL PC 601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3 158 503.778‘2100 FAX 503.778.2200 NNNNNNNNNHHH OOQONLAhWNr-OOOOQ Case 5:20-cv-O4562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 1 of 57 William E. Weiner, Bar N0. 285321 welnerwglanepowellfiom Kristen . Price, Bar No. 299698 ricek lane owell.com ANE O LL PC 601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 2100 Portland, Ore on 97204-3158 Telephone: 5 3.778.2100 Facs1mile: 503.778.2200 Attorneys for Defendant KinderCare Education LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ISABEL PEREZ, an individual, Civil N0. 5:20-cv-4562 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF KRISTEN L. PRICE IN SUPPORT OF V. KINDERCARE EDUCATION LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL KINDERCARE EDUCATION LLC, and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants. I, Kristen L. Price, declare under penalty 0f perjury as follows: 1. I am an attorney at Lane Powell PC, attorneys for Defendant KinderCare Education LLC (“Defendant” 0r “KinderCare”). I am over the age 0f majority, and have personal knowledge 0f the facts stated herein and am competent to testify. 2. On June 12, 2020, KinderCare accepted service 0f the Summons and Complaint filed against it by Plaintiff Isabel Perez (“Plaintiff’). Plaintiff filed the Complaint 0n May 26, 2020 in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California, Case No. 20CV366792. On July 6, 2020, KinderCare filed an Answer to the Complaint. True and correct copies of the Summons, Complaint, Answer, and any attached documents are attached jointly hereto as Exhibit A. 3. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the docket sheet for - l- CASE NO. 5:20-cv-4562 130589.2178/8101772.1 DECLARATION OF KRISTEN L. PRICE Exhibit 1 Page 6 of 62 \OWQQUI-PUJNH r-tHr-tr-tr-tt-r-t ONKIIhUJNHO LANE POWELL PC 601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3 158 503.778.2100 FAX 503.778.2200 NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-t OOQQU‘IhUJNb-‘OCOOQ Case 5:20-cv-O4562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 2 of 57 Case No. 20CV366792. 4. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she is an individual residing in Santa Clara County, California. (Complaint at 1] 2.) 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Oregon Secretary 0f State business registration data for Defendant showing that it is a Delaware Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business in Oregon. 6. In the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks special damages, including loss of income and benefits, an exacerbation of her medical conditions, emotional distress, and other general damages. (Compl. at 1W 38, 48.) While working for KinderCare in 20 1 8, Plaintiff” s gross pay was approximately $57, 1 50. Plaintiff is further seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. (Compl. PrayerW 3-7.) 7. A brief survey of verdicts and/or settlements in wrongful termination cases in Santa Clara County, surrounding counties, and the United States District Court for the Northern District 0f California revealed a number 0f cases in Which the plaintiff recovered in excess 0f $75,000. Attached collectively hereto as Exhibit D is verdict information for three such cases: Fischler v. T. Bajitos, et al., JVR N0. 1405190057, 2013 WL 8563632 (Santa Clara Sup. Ct); Jones v. City 0f Redwood, et al., JVR N0. 190468, 1996 WL 7773030 (San Mateo Sup. CL); and Burley v. City and County 0f San Francisco, JVR N0. 1807190018, 2018 WL 3497095 (N.D. Cal.). I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 9th day of July, 2020. /s/ Kristen L. Price Kristen L. Price -2- CASE NO. 5:20-cv-4562 130589.2178/8101772.1 DECLARATION OF KRISTEN L. PRICE Exhibit 1 Page 7 of 62 Case 5:20-cv-O4562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 3 of 57 EXHIBIT A Exhibit 1 Page 8 of 62 Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 4 of 57 SUM-1 00 SUMM0N3 (SOLZ°5A%Z”55T°”§E Ef‘cZRrE) (CITACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE To DEFENDANT: EHLED (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): 5/26/2020 2,28 PM KINDERCARE EDUCATION LLC, and DOES 1-25, inclusive. Clerk of Cou'rt Superior Court of CA, YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: County of Santa Clara (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): 20CV366792 ISABEL PEREZ, an individual Reviewed By: P- Lai Envelope: 4377586 NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are sewed on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal 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 court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you d0 not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifomia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), 0r by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $1 0,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. [A VISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responds dentro de 30 dias, Ia corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versio'n. Lea Ia informacio'n a continuacién. Tiene 30 DI'AS DE CALENDARIO despue’s de que le entreguen esta citacién y papeles legales para presenter una respuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefénica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en Ia corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de Ia corte yma’s informacién en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en Ia biblioteca de [eyes de su condado o en Ia corte que Ie quede ma’s cerca. Si no puede pagarla cuota de presentacién, pida al secretario de la cone que Ie de' un formulario de exencién de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder eI caso porincumplimiento yla corte le podra’ quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin ma’s advertencia. Hay otros requisites legales. Es recomendable que [lame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede Ilamar a un sen/icio de remisién a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de Iucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centre de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.suoorte.ca.gov) o poniéndose en contacto con la corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Parley, Ia corte tiene derecho a reclamarlas cuotas y Ios costos exentos porimponer un gravamen sobre cualquier recuperacio’n de $10,000 z’) ma’s de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesién de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de Ia corte antes de que Ia corte pueda desechar eI caso. The name and address of the co rt 's: CASE NUMBER: 's) Santa Clara (”mm “'9’ 035°” 20CV366792 191 N. lst Street San Jose, CA 951 13 he name, address, and telephone number of plalntlff's attorney, or plalntlff wnthout an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direccién y el nUmero de teléfono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Lori Costanzo, Costanzo Law, 111 W. St. John St. #700, San Jose, CA 95 1 13 DATE: . Clerk, by - , Deputy (Fecha) 5/26/2020 2.28 PM Clerk of Court (Secretario) P. LaI (Adjunto) (For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).) (Para prueba de entrega de esta citatién use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)). NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are sewed 1.E as an individual defendant. 2.E as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): [SEAL] 3_E on behalf of (speciw: under:E CCP 416.10 (corporation) E CCP 416.60 (minor)E CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) E CCP 416.70 (conservatee)E CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) E CCP 416.90 (authorized person)E other (specify): 4-E by personal delivery on (date): Page 1 of 1 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use SUMMONS Code of Civil Procedure §§ 412.20, 465 Judicial Council of California www.coudinfo.ca.gov SUM-100 [Rev. July 1. 2009] Exhibit A Page 1 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 9 of 62 ©Wfl©m¥WNH SAN JOSE, CA 95113 G E G S Z S 111 W. ST. JOHN STREET #700 a COSTANzo LAW FIRM, APC NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘H WQGLII$WNHO©OOQ Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 5 of 57 Lori J. Costanzo, SBN 142633 Chelsea Hill, SBN 328066 COSTANZO LAW FIRM, APC 111 W. St. John Street, Ste. 700 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 993-8493 Fax: (408) 993-9496 Lori costanzo-law.c0m Chelsea.Hill@costanzo-law.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, Isabel Perez E-FILED 5/26/2020 2:28 PM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara 20CV366792 Reviewed By: P. Lai SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ISABEL PEREZ, an individual Plaintiff, -V- KINDERCARE EDUCATION LLC, and DOES 1-25, inclusive. Defendants Case No_20CV366792 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. E" E" Failure t0 Engage in the Interactive Process (Gov. Code § 12940(n)) Retaliation (Gov. Code § 12940(h)) Whistleblower Retaliation (Labor Code §1102.5) Wrongful Termination Against Public Policy Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract Breach 0f the Covenant 0f Good Faith and Fair Dealing DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL COMES NOW PlaintiffISABEL PEREZ (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff” or “Ms. Perez”) by and through her attorneys of record herein, who bring this Complaint against the above- named Defendants, and in support thereof allege the following: \\ \\ 1 Complaint for Damages Exhibit A Page 2 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 10 of 62 COSTANzo LAW FIRM, APC 111 W. ST. JOHN STREET #700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 \OOOQGUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNfi-b-Ifi-b-r-tb-r-tp-HH OOQQUIhUJNHOOOOQGUILWNHO Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 6 of 57 PARTIES . Plaintiff Isabel Perez was, at all times material hereto, an individual residing in Santa Clara County, California, and was an employee of Defendant KinderCare Education, LLC (hereinafter “Defendant” or “KinderCare”). . Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Defendant KinderCare, a Limited Liability Company, does business in California and employs the requisite number of employees in California t0 be governed by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code §12900 et seq. (“FEHA”), and is an “employer” as that term is defined in FEHA, and under the California Labor Code. . At all times mentioned here, each and every Defendant was the agent or employee of each and every other Defendant. In doing the things alleged herein, each and every Defendant was acting within the course and scope of this agency and/or employment, and was acting with the consent, permission and authorization of each of the remaining defendants. A11 actions of each Defendant alleged herein were ratified and approved by every other Defendant. . Does 1 through 25, inclusive, are sued herein under fictitious names. Their true names and capacities are unknown to Plaintiff. When their true names and capacities are ascertained, Plaintiff will amend this Complaint by inserting their true names and capacities herein. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the fictitiously named Defendants are responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff s damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by those Defendants. Each reference in this Complaint to “Defendant,” “Defendants,” or to a specifically named Defendant, refers also to all Defendants sued under fictitious names. JURISDICTION AND VENUE . The monetary value of Plaintiff s claim exceeds $25,000, and the amount in controversy is within the jurisdiction of this Court. . Plaintiff, at all relevant times, was and is a resident of the County of Santa Clara. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the named Defendants are entities in the County of Santa Clara. 2 Complaint for Damages Exhibit A Page 3 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 11 of 62 COSTANzo LAW FIRM, APC 111 W. ST. JOHN STREET #700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 \OOOQGUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNfi-b-Ifi-b-r-tb-r-tp-HH OOQQUIhUJNHOOOOQGUILWNHO 10. 11. Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 7 of 57 Plaintiff alleges on information and belief, that Does 1-50 were and are California entities or individuals authorized to do and did business in the County of Santa Clara. The acts, omissions, damages and injuries that form the basis of this lawsuit were sustained in the County of Santa Clara. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES Plaintiff Perez has exhausted all administrative remedies necessary to bring this action. She filed a charge of discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH) and was issued a right-to-sue letter on June 11, 2019. A true and correct copy of Ms. Perez’s right to sue letter and DFEH complaint are attached hereto collectively as Exhibit “A.” FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL CAUSES Ms. Perez started working at the Guadalupe Elementary School years before KinderCare was an organization in the Bay Area. She was only eighteen (18) years old when she began working at the school in September of 1998. She was guided to the school by her father, Who also worked for the Union School District for thirty-three years. He was beloved by the organization, students, and family. In fact, When her father retired a reading garden was constructed in his honor along with a lovely ceremony attended by many in the community. Ms. Perez would volunteer at the school and in the daycare while her father worked at the Guadalupe school location for twenty-eight years. Plaintiffwas subsequently offered a position at the daycare. Her love of children and desire to teach drove her to this vocation. Within a few years Plaintiff was asked t0 be the Daycare Site Director. She initially turned down the position because she was taking classes in order to get a degree in early childhood development through Harcourt Learning Direct. After three (3) unsuccessful Site Directors came and went, Plaintiff felt obligated and accepted the role to ensure that the programs and learning opportunities were structured properly for the children. As the Site Director, Ms. Perez created lesson plans for daily activities and acted as a liaison between students, parents, and staff as well as creating a partnership With the Guadalupe school personnel. She also ensured that the daycare children had proper school supplies, incurring out- of-pocket costs, or bringing her own supplies, such as DVDs, puzzles, a TV, and a Kindle Fire. 3 Complaint for Damages Exhibit A Page 4 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 12 of 62 COSTANzo LAW FIRM, APC 111 W. ST. JOHN STREET #700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 ©Wfl©m¥WNH NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-Ir-IHr-tr-IHHp-‘p-n OOQO‘xUI-bUJNr-‘OGOOQONU‘I-bwwb‘o 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 8 of 57 Kindercare Education LLC owns and operated the daycare at the school. Kindercare entered into an agreement whereby they rented space from the Union School District to house the daycare at the Guadalupe Elementary School campus on Vera Cruz Drive in San Jose. Plaintiff loved her job and took it very seriously. Not only did Ms. Perez treat the children as her own, but the children and parents loved her for the care, support, guidance, and impact she had on their children. Students often came back to Visit Plaintiff after they had graduated and lefi for high school. They affectionately called her Ms. Izzie. She worked more than nineteen (19) years, just roughly two (2) months shy oftwenty (20) years, at the Guadalupe Elementary School campus where she developed long-term relationships with school staff, student parents and students, as well as the school’s administrative personnel and community. Ms. Perez’ efforts have been recognized, receiving an Excellence in Education Award from the Knowledge Learning Corporation (KLC) in 2006. The Program Administrator ofKLC at the time, stated that Ms. Perez truly puts each child first, offering a program rich in character development and fitness awareness. She also noted that Isabel has a superb understanding of child development and classroom management, where Ms. Perez strives to work harder to improve and grow her program for the children and families she serves. Ms. Perez was a valued and strong employee Which is why she was asked to mentor new incoming KLC employees in 2013/2014. In fact, in 2014 Plaintiffwas sent to Atascadero to help that KLC site get organized and up to standard, including training and setting up the program. She then became the Field Coach in 2015 to help with further training and hiring employees. Ms. Perez was the Field Coach up to the time KinderCare dismissed her employment. In early 2015, Ms. Perez was also chosen by KLC to promote the Kinder program she had developed and taught at Guadalupe. Through Ms. Perez’ demonstration of her program and it’s success, this effort helped to renew the contract with the Union School District; the promotion was so successfill that the Union School District entered into a long-term contract with Kinder Care, resulting in a long-term (10) year contract. 4 Complaint for Damages Exhibit A Page 5 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 13 of 62 COSTANzo LAW FIRM, APC 111 W. ST. JOHN STREET #700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 ©Wfl©m¥WNH NNNNNNNNNh-‘t-AHHHHHHHH OOQO‘xUI-bUJNr-‘OGOOQONU‘I-bwwb‘o 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Case 5:20-cv-O4562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 9 of 57 A. Maintaining Proper Ratios at the Daycare were Problematic Ms. Perez constantly struggled to maintain that the proper ratios because she was never provided sufficient staffing by KLC. She regularly asked for help, but the company did not always provide assistance. Parents from the community were very vocal about their appreciation for Ms. Perez. For example, a parent of a child with special needs was particularly concerned about leaving her child in an after-school program but after talking with Ms. Perez, she was satisfied that her child was safe. On or about March 14, 2017 a film crew from KLC arrived t0 film footage of Ms. Perez’ program to use in their training Videos. They used this Video for their summer training in 2017 as well as the following year’s 2018 training. B. Ms. Perez is Retaliated Against for Disciplining a Subordinate, Kalaya Payne-Alex In or about January 2018, Ms. Perez received a number of complaints regarding teacher Kalaya Payne-Alex’ behavior. Kalaya is the daughter of Tamara Payne-Alex, a long time KLC Area Manager. Kalaya made very inappropriate comments to the children, including, but not limited to, “We are all going to die anyway,” and “I’m not your mother” to adopted boys who did not have a mother, humiliating the children and causing them to be sad and upset. Ms. Perez wrote down the statements and gave the writing t0 Helen De 1a Cruz, another KLC Area Manager. Nothing was ever done about these comments made to children. On January 15, 2018, Ms. Perez gave Ms. Payne-Alex a verbal coaching, then informed Ruby Alter, the Associate Area Manager, regarding the meeting. Ms. Perez seemed to have the support of Ms. De 1a Cruz and Ms. Alter; on January 16th, Ms. Alter scheduled a follow-up meeting stating: “I think a formal, verbal warning with a personalized goal sheet would be great.” However, Defendants never held the follow-up meeting. In February 2018, a staffmember was left alone with a large group of students making this situation noncompliant in terms of proper ratios. An Area Manager of KinderCare, Tamara Payne-Alex, was present yet she failed to ensure that ratios were met. In fact, she created the unsafe condition by Visiting with her daughter (Kalaya Payne-Alex) inside the building, leaving 5 Complaint for Damages Exhibit A Page 6 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 14 of 62 COSTANZO LAW FIRM, APC 111 W ST JOHN STREET #700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 KOOOQGUI$UJNH NNNNNNNNNh-‘t-AHHHHHHHH OOQGUI#UJNh-‘O©OOQO\UIJ>UJNHO 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Case 5:20-CV-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 10 0f 57 the other staffmember alone with the students. When the staffmember reported this incident to Ms. Perez, she in turn brought this to the attention of Ms. De 1a Cruz, Who simply ignored the complaint. In March 20 1 8, another staff member reported that Kalaya Payne-Alex stood by a door and yelled at a special need’s child who was at the playground - hunched over, covering his face with his hands. Ms. Payne-Alex continued yelling at the child until another employee overheard and ended her lunch break early t0 tend to the child, who was found to have accidently wet himself. Kalaya Payne-Alex continued her offensive conduct towards children, including an incident in May 2018, where she refused to give a student an eraser they had asked for, telling the student, “Well, I can’t help you with that.” Ms. Perez subsequently gave Kalaya Payne-Alex a verbal warning emphasizing the fact that she was there to facilitate and help the children, not to belittle them and make them feel small and inconsequential. Following this verbal exchange, Kalaya Payne-Alex began to behave inappropriately towards Ms. Perez. For example, on or about June 2, 2018, Plaintiffmade a report to upper management. Kalaya Payne-Alex accused Plaintiff of being a snitch and made derogatory remarks about Plaintiff. When Ms. Perez brought this to Ms. De 1a Cruz’s attention on or about June 8, 2018 it was shrugged it off as being a joke. However, the comment made by Kalaya, Who clearly used her mother to get away With inappropriate conduct, was threatening to Plaintiff in that she said: “Snitches get stiches”. C. Ms. Perez is Fired Immediately upon Release from Medical Leave On or about January 9, 2018, Ms. Perez pulled her shoulder at work. She was seen by Dr. Stephanie Sobczynski-Patton, an Operational Medicine Specialist, who issued work restrictions which prevented Plaintiff from engaging in any overhead lifting, pulling, or pushing of anything weighing more than 10 lbs. Ms. Perez began a course of physical therapy and found that she was able to improve somewhat. However, afler a few months of physical therapy, Dr. Sobczynski-Patton did not find 6 Complaint for Damages Exhibit A Page 7 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 15 of 62 COSTANzo LAW FIRM, APC 111 W. ST. JOHN STREET #700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 ©Wfl©m¥WNH NNNNNNNNNh-‘t-AHHHHHHHH OOQO‘xUI-bUJNr-‘OGOOQONU‘I-bwwb‘o 28. 29. 30. 31. Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 11 of 57 that her condition had resolved. Therefore, Plaintiffwas scheduled to meet with Dr. Daniel Haber, a surgeon on May 29th. During a preoperative call on May 25th, Plaintiff asked to postpone the appointment and ultimately, the surgery until after she completed the school year. Immediately following the May 25th discussion With her orthopedics’ assistant, Ms. Perez emailed Ms. De la Cruz about her scheduled June 12th surgery. Instead of engaging in the interactive process with Plaintiff to determine what accommodations she may need following her surgery, Ms. De la Cruz responded: “Now I’m going t0 have to tell Luis (the Site Director at the Leitz location) that he can’t take his vacation because you’re out.” Ms. Perez suggested temporarily recruiting a site director from another location (another site actually had two (2) site directors) for their summer program, but Ms. De 1a Cruz failed to respond t0 Plaintiffs suggestion. D. Plaintiff is Fired Under Pretext of a Posting on Her Facebook Page On or about June 8, 2018, with KLC’s full knowledge 0f Ms. Perez’s upcoming June 12th procedure, KLC placed Ms. Perez on administrative leave pending an investigation into an allegedly inappropriate Facebook post, that supposedly referenced Kalaya Payne-Alex. The Facebook post stated: “I am glad I get to eat some good food with good company rather than the boring uptight company at training.” Nowhere in the Facebook post is any reference made to Kalaya Payne-Alex, nor does the Facebook post mention work or KinderCare. It is simply a comment made by Plaintiff following a particularly difficult training session she had at KLC. On June 12, 2018, Ms. Perez undergoes the shoulder procedure, necessitating a medical leave through June 20, 2018. Upon her return, no-one engaged with Plaintiff to determine what, if any accommodations she might need following her shoulder adjustment procedure. In fact, KLC failed to ever engage in the interactive process with Plaintiff either when she was injured, after they learned she needed medical leave nor on her return from leave. Just two (2) days later after she returned from medical leave, on June 22nd, KLC terminated Ms. Perez relying on pretextual reasons. They claimed that Plaintiffs benign Facebook Post was Violative of company policies and procedures. The claim that this nineteen (19) year devoted employee targeted a co-worker and committed social media harassment. They also asserted that 7 Complaint for Damages Exhibit A Page 8 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 16 of 62 COSTANzo LAW FIRM, APC 111 W. ST. JOHN STREET #700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 \OOOQGUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNfi-b-Ifi-b-r-tb-r-tp-HH OOQQUIhUJNHOOOOQGUILWNHO Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 12 of 57 Plaintiff created a hostile work environment for Kalaya Payne-Alex, ignored, ostracized and belittled Kalaya in front of children and fellow staff members. This could be nothing further from the truth. In fact, the true reason they fired Plaintiff is because she was the only employee brave enough to stand up for the children against the daughter of an Area Manager. 32. In a follow-up appointment with Dr. Haber on August 1, 2018, he notes that Ms. Perez has been “an ideal patient,” anxious to return to work sooner than most patients do. While he does not know the circumstances surrounding her termination, Dr. Haber notes that Ms. Perez “has been what appears to be a valued employee for 19 years and for her to be terminated afier a procedure such as this really in my opinion smacks 0f retaliation.” FIRST CAUSE 0F ACTION Failure t0 Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of Gov’t Code § 12940(n) (Against All Defendants) Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference, all previous allegations set forth in this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 33. At all times relevant to this Complaint, California Government Code section 12940 et seq., and its implementing regulations were in full force and effect. 34. Pursuant to California Government Code section 12940(n), it is unlawful for an employer to fail to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee or applicant to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee with a known physical or mental disability 0r known medical condition. 35. Pursuant to California Government Code section 12926(m), Ms. Perez’s medical conditions qualified as physical disabilities. In addition, the Defendants regarded or treated Plaintiff as though she had a disability as defined by these two sections. 36. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff was qualified for and could perform the essential functions of his position With the Defendants With reasonable accommodation. 37. The Defendants violated California Government Code section 12940(n) by, among other things, failing to engage in a timely, good faith interactive process, and failing to provide reasonable accommodations. 8 Complaint for Damages Exhibit A Page 9 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 17 of 62 COSTANzo LAW FIRM, APC 111 W. ST. JOHN STREET #700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 \OOOQGUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNfi-b-Ifi-b-r-tb-r-tp-HH OOQQUIhUJNHOOOOQGUILWNHO 38. 39. Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 13 of 57 As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongfill conduct, Plaintiff has suffered damages including, but not limited to, loss of income and benefits, an exacerbation of her medical conditions, emotional distress, and other general damages. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has been forced to hire attorneys to prosecute his claims herein and has incuxTed and is expected to continue to incur attorneys’ fees and costs in connection therewith. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs under California Government Code section 12965(b). WHEREFORE, Plaintiffprays for relief as set forth below. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Retaliation in Violation 0f Gov’t Code §12940 et seq. (Against All Defendants) Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference, all previous allegations set forth in this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. At all times herein mentioned, California Government Code §12940 et seq. was in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendants and each of its employees. After Plaintiffrequested disability-related accommodations due to her workplace injury and took a medical leave after undergoing surgery for her workplace injury, Defendant terminates Plaintiff’s employment. Defendant thus took adverse employment actions against her for participating in activity which is legally protected from retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, i.e., informing Defendant of her pregnancy and submitting complaints. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongfiJl conduct, Plaintiff suffered damages including, but not limited to, loss of income and benefits, an exacerbation 0f her medical condition, emotional distress, and other general damages. By reason of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as alleged herein, Plaintiff has necessarily had to retain attorneys to prosecute the within action. Plaintiff, therefore, is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, including expert witness fees and costs incurred in bringing the within action. Defendants are directly liable for the conduct of their owners, managers, directors, supervisors and other employees and agents. 9 Complaint for Damages Exhibit A Page 10 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 18 of 62 COSTANzo LAW FIRM, APC 111 W. ST. JOHN STREET #700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 \OOOQGUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNfi-b-Ifi-b-r-tb-r-tp-HH OOQQUIhUJNHOOOOQGUILWNHO Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 14 of 57 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code §1102.5 (Against All Defendants) Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all previous allegations set forth in this Complaint. 45. When Plaintiffcomplained to upper management that she is unable to adhere to her doctor’s work restrictions without Violating the teacher-to-student ratio, she was engaging in activity protected under California Labor Code §1 102.5. 46. Defendants were substantially motivated in retaliating against Plaintiff for voicing her complaints by placing her on administrative leave and ultimately terminating her on June 22, 20 1 8. 47. By reason of the conduct of Defendants as alleged herein, Plaintiff has necessarily had to retain attorneys to prosecute the within action. Plaintiff, therefore, is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, including expert witness fees and costs, incurred in bringing the within action. 48. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiffhas suffered damages including, but not limited to, a loss of income and benefits, an exacerbation of her medical condition, has further suffered emotional distress, and other general damages. 49. Defendants are directly liable for the conduct of its owners, managers, directors, supervisors and other employees and agents. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (Against All Defendants) Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference, all previous allegations set forth in this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 50. At all times mentioned, the public policy of the State of California, is designed to protect all employees and to promote the welfare and wellbeing of the community at large. Accordingly, the actions of Defendants in terminating Plaintiff after she suffer an injury and required a 10 Complaint for Damages Exhibit A Page 11 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 19 of 62 COSTANzo LAW FIRM, APC 111 W. ST. JOHN STREET #700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 KOOOQGUI$UJNH NNNNNNNNNfi-b-Ifi-b-r-tb-r-tp-HH OOQGUI#UJNh-‘O©OOQO\UIJ>UJNHO 51. 52. Case 5:20-CV-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 15 0f 57 procedure, were wrongful and in contravention of the express public policy of the State of California. By reason of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff has necessarily had to retain attorneys to prosecute the within action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, including expert witness fees and costs, incurred in bringing the within action. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has sustained economic damages to be proven at trial. As a further result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffhas suffered emotional distress resulting in damages according to proof. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Breach of Written and Implied-in-Fact Contract (Against All Defendants) Plaintiffre-alleges and incorporates herein by reference, all previous allegations set forth in this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 53. 54. 55. 56. \\ Plaintiff performed all conditions, covenants and promises required, consistent with a course 0f conduct or as a result of usage of trade or personal understanding between Plaintiff and Defendants, as well as performing all conditions consistent with her written or implied-in-fact employment agreements With Defendants. Defendants voluntarily accepted Plaintiff’s performance in accordance with the terms and conditions of both the parties’ written or implied contracts. Defendants breached the written or implied-in-fact contracts with Plaintiffs by failing to engage in the interactive process, failing to reasonably accommodate Ms. Perez, and then terminating her based upon her disability and voicing her concerns regarding the teacher-student ratio. As a result of Defendants’ breaches of the written or implied employment contracts with Plaintiff, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount according to proof at trial. Defendants are directly liable for the conduct of their owners, managers, directors, supervisors and other employees and agents. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below. 11 Complaint for Damages Exhibit A Page 12 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 20 of 62 COSTANzo LAW FIRM, APC 111 W. ST. JOHN STREET #700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 \OOOQGUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNfi-b-Ifi-b-r-tb-r-tp-HH OOQQUIhUJNHOOOOQGUILWNHO Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 16 of 57 SIXTH CAUSE 0F ACTION Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Against All Defendants) Plaintiffre-alleges and incorporates herein by reference, all previous allegations set forth in this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 57. Plaintiff performed all conditions, covenants and promises required, consistent with a course of conduct or as a result 0f usage 0f trade 0r personal understanding between Plaintiff and Defendants, as well as performing all conditions consistent with their written or implied-in-fact employment agreements with Defendants. Defendants voluntarily accepted Plaintiff s performance in accordance with the terms and conditions of both the parties’ written or implied contracts. 58. Defendants breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the employment agreements with Plaintiff by, inter alia, failing to engage in the interactive process, failing to reasonably accommodate Ms. Perez, and then terminating her based upon her disability and voicing her concerns regarding the teacher-student ratio. 59. As a result of Defendants’ breaches of the covenant ofgood faith and fair dealing with Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount according t0 proof at trial. 60. Defendants are directly liable for the conduct of their owners, managers, directors, supervisors, and other employees and agents. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below. PRAYER 1. For general damages, according to proof, on each cause of action for which such damages are available; 2. For special damages, according to proof, on each cause of action for which such damages are available; 3. For declaratory relief to declare Defendants’ conduct to be in Violation of Plaintiffs rights; 4. For injunctive relief to enjoin Defendants from engaging in such conduct; 12 Complaint for Damages Exhibit A Page 13 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 21 of 62 COSTANzo LAW FIRM, APC 111 W. ST. JOHN STREET #700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 \OOOQGUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNfi-b-Ifi-b-r-tb-r-tp-HH OOQQUIhUJNHOOOOQGUILWNHO Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 17 of 57 5. For a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in violation of relevant provisions of the California Government Code, including the Fair Employment and Housing Act; 6. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interests according to law; 7. For reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in this action on those causes of action for which such fees are recoverable under applicable law; 8. For costs 0f suit incurred in this action; and 9. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffhereby demands a trial by jury on all causes of action alleged herein in the Complaint for Damages. Dated: May 26, 2020 Respectfully submitted, [?flw Lori Costanzo Chelsea Hill Attorneys for Plaintiff Isabel Perez 13 Complaint for Damages Exhibit A Page 14 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 22 of 62 Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 18 of 57 EXHIBIT A Exhibit A Page 15 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 23 of 62 Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 19 of 57 /’¢’@~3fi STATE OF CALIFORNIA Business Consumer Services and Housing Agencv GAVIN NEWSOM GOVERNOR / "\ ‘\I \ \ g 3%, DEPARTMENT 0F FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING KEV'“ K'SH' “REG“ w 11/] 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 | Elk Grove | CA | 95758W (800) 884-1684 (Voice) l (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California‘s Relay Service at 711 htlp://www.dfeh.ca.gov | Email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov June 11, 2019 Andrea Justo 111 W. St. John Street San Jose, California 951 13 RE: Notice to Complainant’s Attorney DFEH Matter Number: 201906-06460611 Right to Sue: Perez / KinderCare Education LLC et al. Dear Andrea Justo: Attached is a copy of your complaint of discrimination filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. Also attached is a copy of your Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue. Pursuant to Government Code section 12962, DFEH will not serve these documents on the employer. You must serve the complaint separately, to all named respondents. Please refer to the attached Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue for information regarding filing a private lawsuit in the State of California. A courtesy "Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint" is attached for your convenience. Be advised that the DFEH does not review or edit the complaint form to ensure that it meets procedural or statutory requirements. Sincerely, Department of Fair Employment and Housing Exhibit A Page 16 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 24 of 62 Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 20 of 57 ”?mm\ STATE OF CALIFORNIA Business Consumer Services and Housing Agencv GAVIN NEWSOM GOVERNOR I \‘\ ‘\ VII.“ ‘3‘}; DEPARTMENT 0F FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING KEV'“ K'SH' D'RECTOR kw @yy 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 | Elk Grove | CA | 95758W (800) 884-1684 (Voice) | (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California's Relay Service at 7117" http://www.dfeh.ca.gov | Email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov June 11, 2019 RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint DFEH Matter Number: 201 906-06460611 Right to Sue: Perez / KinderCare Education LLC et al. To All Respondent(s): Enclosed is a copy of a complaint of discrimination that has been filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) in accordance with Government Code section 12960. This constitutes service of the complaint pursuant to Government Code section 12962. The complainant has requested an authorization to file a lawsuit. This case is not being investigated by DFEH and is being closed immediately. A copy of the Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue is enclosed for your records. Please refer to the attached complaint for a list of all respondent(s) and their contact information. No response to DFEH is requested or required. Sincerely, Department of Fair Employment and Housing Exhibit A Page 17 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 25 of 62 Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 21 of 57 @¢®§% GAVINWWW t9», “‘3" DEPARTMENT 0F FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING KEV'“ K's” DREW“vw @A/ 2218 Kausen Drive Suite 100 | Elk Grove | CA | 95758 (800) 884-1684 (Voice) I (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711 http:/lwww.dfeh.ca.gov | Email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov June 11, 2019 Isabel Perez 1381 Forrestal Avenue San Jose, California 951 1O RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue DFEH Matter Number: 201906-06460611 Right to Sue: Perez / KinderCare Education LLC et al. Dear Isabel Perez, This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint was filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective June 11, 2019 because an immediate Right to Sue notice was requested. DFEH will take no further action on the complaint. This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be filed within one year from the date of this letter. To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must contact the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this DFEH Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act, whichever is earlier. Sincerely, Department of Fair Employment and Housing Exhibit A Page 18 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 26 of 62 A OQmVOOI-wa Case 5:20-cv-O4562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 22 of 57 COMPLAINT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) In the Matter of the Complaint of Isabel Perez DFEH No. 201906-06460611 Complainant, vs. KinderCare Education LLC 650 NE Holladay Street Suite 1400 Portland, Oregon 97232 Helen De Ia Cruz 650 NE Holladay Street Suite 1400 Portland, Oregon 97232 Respondents 1. Respondent KinderCare Education LLC is an employer subject t0 suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). 2. Complainant Isabel Perez, resides in the City of San Jose State of California. 3. Complainant alleges that on or about June 22, 2018, respondent took the following adverse actions: Complainant was harassed because of complainant's disability (physical or mental). Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's disability (physical or mental) and as a result of the discrimination was terminated, denied hire or promotion, reprimanded, denied equal pay, suspended, denied a work environment free of discrimination and/or retaliation, denied any employment benefit or privilege, denied reasonable accommodation for a disability, denied family care or medical leave (cfra) (employers of 5O or more people), denied work opportunities or assignments. -1- Complaint - DFEH No. 201906-0646061 1 Date Filed: June 11, 2019 Exhibit A Page 19 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 27 of 62 A O(OWVOO'l-kwN Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 23 of 57 Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted any form of discrimination or harassment, requested or used a disability-related accommodation, participated as a witness in a discrimination or harassment complaint, requested or used leave under the california family rights act or fmla (employers of 50 or more people) and as a result was terminated, denied hire or promotion, reprimanded, denied equal pay, suspended, denied a work environment free of discrimination and/or retaliation, denied any employment benefit or privilege, denied reasonable accommodation for a disability, denied family care or medical leave (cfra) (employers of 50 or more people). Additional Complaint Details: Ms. Perez started at the Guadalupe school years before Kinder Care was an organization in the Bay Area. She was only eighteen (18) years old when she began working in September of 1998. She was guided to the school by her father, who also worked for the Union School District. He was similarly beloved by the organization, students, and family. Ms. Perez would volunteer her time while her father worked at the Guadalupe school location and was subsequently offered a position. Her love of children and desire to teach drove her to this vocation. Not only did Ms. Perez love the children as her own, but the children loved her - affectionately calling her Ms. Izzie. She worked more than nineteen (19) years, just roughly two (2) months shy of twenty (20) years, at the Guadalupe Elementary School campus where she developed Iong-term relationships with parents and students, as well as the school’s personnel and community. Ms. Perez’s efforts have been recognized, receiving an Excellence in Education Award from the Knowledge Learning Corporation (KLC) in 2006. The Program Administrator of KLC at the time, stated that Ms. Perez truly puts each child first, offering a program rich in character development and fitness awareness. She also noted that Isabel has a superb understanding of child development and classroom management, where Ms. Perez strives to work harder to improve and grow her program for the children and families she serves. Ms. Perez was also chosen to mentor incoming Champions employees in 2013/2014. She then became the field coach in 2015 to help with training and hiring employees. In early 2015, Ms. Perez was also chosen by Kinder Care to promote the kinder program in an effort to renew the contract with the Union School District; the promotion was so successful that the Union School District entered into a Iong-term contract with Kinder Care, i.e. a nine (9) or ten (10) year contract as opposed to the standard five (5) year contract. -2- Complaint - DFEH No. 201906-0646061 1 Date Filed: June 11, 2019 Exhibit A Page 20 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 28 of 62 A O(OWVOO'I-kwN Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 24 of 57 After only one year as an employee for KinderCare, Ms. Perez was offered the Site Director position; she initially turned down the role due to taking online classes through Harcourt Learning Direct, the commute time, and to further her understanding of family/student needs in order to run an effective program. After three (3) unsuccessful Site Directors came and went, she accepted the role to ensure that the programs and learning opportunities are structured with the children in mind. As the Site Director, Ms. Perez created lesson plans for daily activities and acted as a liaison between students, parents, and staff as well as creating a partnership with the Guadalupe school personal. She also ensured that children had proper supplies, incurring out-of-pocket costs, or brining her own supplies, such as DVDs, puzzles, a TV, and a Kindle Fire. Ms. Perez would also try to ensure that the proper ratios (i.e., one (1) staff member to fourteen (14) children) were maintained. Parents from the community were very vocal about their appreciation for Ms. Perez. For example. a parent of a child with special needs was particularly concerned about leaving her child in an after-school program but after talking with Ms. Perez, she was satisfied that her child was safe. In January 2018, Ms. Perez received a number of complaints regarding teacher Kalaya Payne-Alex’s behavior and her statements to children, including “We are all going to die anyway," and "I’m not your mother” to adopted boys who did not have a mother. Ms. Perez brought the written statements to Helen De Ia Cruz, KinderCare's Area Manager, who took the only copy and tucked it in her planner. On January 15, 2018, Ms. Perez provided Ms. Payne-Alex a verbal coaching, then informed Ruby Alter, the Associate Area Manager, regarding the meeting. Ms. Perez seemed to have the support of Ms. De la Cruz and Ms. Alter; on January 16th, Ms. Alter scheduled a follow-up meeting for either January 22nd or 23rd, and on January 21st, Ms. De la Cruz states, “I think a formal, verbal warning with a personalized goal sheet would be great." A follow-up meeting never came to fruition. In February 2018, a staff member reported to Ms. Perez that she was outside, alone with students, and out of the proper ratios, when the Area Manager of KinderCare, Tamara Payne-Alex, called her daughter (Kalaya Payne-Alex) inside the building. Ms. Perez brought this to the attention of Ms. De la Cruz, who stated that she “trusts Tamara (Payne-Alex) to make the best decisions." In March 2018, another staff member reported that Ms. Kalaya Payne-Alex stood by a door and yelled at a child to “hurry up and come inside,” who was at the playground hunched over, covering his face. Ms. Payne-Alex continued this verbal abuse until the employee heard the yelling and ended her lunch break early to tend to the child, who was found to have peed his pants. -3- Complaint - DFEH No. 201906-0646061 1 Date Filed: June 11, 2019 Exhibit A Page 21 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 29 of 62 A O(OWVOO'I-kwN Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 25 of 57 Ms. Payne-Alex continued her offensive conduct towards children, including an incident in May 2018, where a student asked her for an eraser, to which she retorted, “Well, | can’t help you with that.” Ms. Perez subsequently reminded Ms. Payne-Alex how she should be addressing children. Ms. Payne-Alex then turned her inappropriate behavior towards Ms. Perez. On June 2, 2018, Ms. De Ia Cruz was providing a summer training session to her employees. An employee provided a hypothetical scenario, which Ms. Perez would report to upper management. Ms. Payne-Alex responded with, “Ms. Izzie, snitches get stitches." When Ms. Perez brought this to Ms. De Ia Cruz’s attention on June 8, 2018 about Ms. Payne-Alex’s inappropriate comment, Ms. De Ia Cruz shrugged it off, saying, “I take snitches get stiches as nothing, it’s like a joke.” Simultaneous to the incidents described above, Ms. Perez pulled her shoulder on January 9, 2018. Dr. Stephanie Sobczynski-Patton, Operational Medicine Specialist, issued the following work restrictions: (1) No overhead work, and (2) Limited lift, limited pull and limited push up to 10 lbs. Ms. Perez went through physical therapy and found that she was able to improve slowly without restrictions. However, after a few months of physical therapy, Dr. Sobczynski-Patton did not find that her condition improved. Dr. Daniel Haber conducted an orthopedic evaluation 0n May 25, 2018, recommended manipulation under anesthesia and scheduled the procedure for June 12, 2018. The procedure was previously scheduled for the end of May but needed to be rescheduled because (1) Ms. Perez is diabetic and should undergo a procedure only in the early morning, and (2) Ms. Perez needed to finish the end of the school year. Immediately after the May 25th evaluation, Ms. Perez emails Ms. De Ia Cruz about her June 12th surgery. Ms. De Ia Cruz responded: "Now I’m going to have to tell Luis (the Site Director at the Leitz location) that he can’t take his vacation because you’re out.” Ms. Perez suggested temporarily recruiting a site director from the Noddin location (since there were two (2) site directors for the summer program), but Ms. De Ia Cruz failed to respond t0 this accommodation recommendation. On June 8, 2018, with KinderCare’s knowledge of Ms. Perez’s June 12th procedure, KinderCare places Ms. Perez on administrative leave pending an investigation into an allegedly inappropriate facebook post, that supposedly references Ms. Payne- Alex. The facebook post states: “I am glad | get to eat some good food with good company rather than the boring uptight company at training.” In the various versions of this facebook post included in Ms. Perez's personnel file, there is no reference to Ms. Payne-Alex, nor does the facebook post mention work or KinderCare. -4- Complaint - DFEH No. 201906-0646061 1 Date Filed: June 11, 2019 Exhibit A Page 22 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 30 of 62 O(OWVOO'l-PCDNA NNNMNNNNNAAAAAAAAA-x mflmm¥CADNAOCOWNQU1$OONA Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 26 of 57 On June 12, 2018, Ms. Perez undergoes the shoulder procedure, necessitating a medical leave through June 20, 2018. Just two (2) days later, KinderCare terminates Ms. Perez's employment, after nineteen (19) years of devoted service, for allegedly violating company policy in targeting a co-worker and social media harassment, and creating a hostile work environment, where a specific employee is ignored, ostracized and belittled in front of children and fellow staff members. It should be noted that if Ms. Perez was deemed a hostile and threatening employee, then Kinder Care should have removed all interaction with Ms. Payne-Alex. In a follow-up appointment with Dr. Haber on August 1, 2018, he notes that Ms. Perez has been “an ideal patient,” anxious to return to work sooner than most patients d0. While he does not know the circumstances surrounding her termination, Dr. Haber notes that Ms. Perez “has been what appears to be a valued employee for 19 years and for her to be terminated after a procedure such as this really in my opinion smacks of retaliation.” -5- Complaint - DFEH No. 201906-0646061 1 Date Filed: June 11, 2019 Exhibit A Page 23 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 31 of 62 A OQmVOOI-kwN Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 27 of 57 VERIFICATION I, Andrea Justo, am the Attorney in the above-entitled complaint. | have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The matters alleged are based on information and belief, which | believe to be true. On June 11, 2019, | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. San Jose -6- Complaint - DFEH No. 201906-06460611 Date Filed: June 11, 2019 Exhibit A Page 24 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 32 of 62 Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 28 of 57 ATTORNEY 0R PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY(Name state Barnumbeer anda3d 2r8 ss 0:) FOR coum'uss ouLv CM 010 -LoriJ. Costanzo (SBN 142633), Chelsea Hill(SB 8066) Costanzo Law Firm W . . TELEPLONENo: 408-993-8493 mo; 408-993-8496 E'°°"°""?a"y F"ed ATTORNEY FOR(Name): Plaintiff: Isabel PCI‘CZ by superlor court 0f CA’ SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F Santa Clara County Of Santa Clara, STREETADDRESS: 191 N lqt Street on 5/26/2020 2:28 PM MAILING ADDRESS: - . - CITYAND ZIP CODE: San Jose, CA951 1.3 CReVIe#v;eodc5gé6P7I9l-2al BRANCH NAME santa Clara superlor court Fase CASE NAME: :nvelope: 4377586 erez . inder are d ation LLC CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET co e ca eDe g a o CASENUMBER: 200VB66792 U ed E L ed E E(Amount (Amount co er ° der JUDGE demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant ' exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT: Items 1 6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). 1. Check o e box below for the case type that best describes this case: AoTor Co ra Pro oa Co eC Lgao Auto (22) E Breach of contract/warranty(06) ca R e 0f c° r r e 0° 0E Uninsured motorist (46) E Rule 3.740 collections (09) E Antitrust/Trade regulation (O3) O er PIPD D Per o a | r Pro er E Other collections(09) E Construction defect(10) D3 399 r0 9f Dea Tor D Insurance coverage (18) E Masstort<40)E Asbestos (O4) E Other contract<37) E Securities litigation (28)E Pmducuiabi'itHM) Rea Pro er E EnvironmentallToxictort(30)E Medical malpradice (45) E Eminent domain/Inverse E Insurance coverage claims arising from theE Other PI/PD/WD (23) condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case No _p|pD D o er 1-0, D Wrongfuleviction(33) types(41)E Business tortlunfair business practice (O7) E Other real propertyae) E f°r e e °f d9 eE Civil rights (08) U a f De a er ME Enforcementofjudgment(20)E Defamation (13) Commemia' (31) e a eo C Co aE Fraud (16) E Residential (32) ME RICO ()27E Intellectualproperty(19) E DFU95(38) Other complaint(notspecified above)(42)E Professional negligence (25) d a Re e M e a eo C Pe 0E Other non'PI/PD/WD tort (35) E Asset forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21) E o e D Petition re: arbitration award (11) E Other petition (not Specified above) (43) Wrongful termination (36) E Writof mandate (02)E Otheremployment(15) E Otherjudicial review(39) 2. This case E is m is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. lfthe case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a.E Large number of separately represented parties d.E Large number of witnesses b.E Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e.E Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that wi|| be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court c.E Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. E Substantial postjudgmentjudicial supervision Remedies sought (check all that apply): am monetary b.- nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. punitive Number of causes of action (specify): This case E is is not a class action suit. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM-015.) Date: 5 0 0 Lori J. Costanzo ’ (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATUWF PARTY OR ATTO FOR PARTY) NOTICE o Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result in sanctions. 0 File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. 0 If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on a other parties to the action or proceeding. 0 Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only. 9391?.“ age 1 of Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.30, 3.220, 3.400-3.403, 3.740; Judicial Council of California CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal. Standards of JudicialAdministration, std. 3.10 CM-010 [Rev. July 1, 2007] www.courtinfo.ca.gov Exhibit A Page 25 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 33 of 62 Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 29 0f 57 CM-010 INSTRUCTIONS ON HO TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET To P a ff a d O er F g Fr Pa er If you are filing a first paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you complete and file, along with your first paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases filed. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check o e box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item 1, check the more specific one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the r ar cause of action. To assist you in completing the sheet, examples ofthe cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be filed only with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 ofthe California Rules of Court. To Par e R e 0 Co e o Ca e A "collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it wi|| be exempt from the general time-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining ajudgment in rule 3.740. To Par e Co e Ca e In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the plaintiff's designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex. A o Tor Auto (22)-Personal Injury/Property DamageNVrongful Death Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the case involves an uninsured motorist claim sub ect to arbitration, check this item instead of Auto) O erPIPD D Pero al r Pro er Da age ro gf Dea Tor Asbestos (04) Asbestos Property Damage Asbestos Personal Injury/ Wrongful Death Product Liability (not asbestos or to ic environmental) (24) Medical Malpractice (45) Medical Malpractice- Physicians & Surgeons Other Professional Health Care Malpractice Other Pl/PDNVD (23) Premises Liability (e.g., slip and fall) Intentional Bodily Injury/PD/WD (e.g., assault, vandalism) Intentional lnfliction of Emotional Distress Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Other PI/PDNVD No -Pl PD D O er Tor Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice (07) Civil Rights (e.g., discrimination, false arrest) (not civil harassment) (08) Defamation (e.g., slander, libel) (13) Fraud (16) Intellectual Property (1 9) Professional Negligence (25) Legal Malpractice Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal) Other Non-Pl/PD/WD Tort (35) E o e Wrongful Termination (36) Other Employment (1 5) CM-010 [Rev. July 1, 2007] CASE TYPES AND E AMPLES Co ra Breach of Contract/Warranty (06) Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) Contract/Warranty Breach-Seller Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) Negligent Breach of Contract] Warranty Other Breach of Contract/Warranty Collections (e.g., money owed, open book accounts) (09) Collection Case-Seller Plaintiff Other Promissory Note/Collections Case Insurance Coverage (not provisionally comple ) (1 8) Auto Subrogation Other Coverage Other Contract (37) Contractual Fraud Other Contract Dispute Rea Pro er Eminent Domain/lnverse Condemnation (14) Wrongful Eviction (33) Other Real Property (e.g., quiet title) (26) Writ of Possession of Real Property Mortgage Foreclosure Quiet Title Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord tenant, or foreclosure) U a f De a er Commercial (31) Residential (32) Drugs (38) (if the case involves illegal drugs, check this item otherwise, report as Commercial or Residential) d a Re e Asset Forfeiture (05) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (1 1) Writ of Mandate (02) Writ-Administrative Mandamus Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter Writ-Other Limited Court Case Review Other Judicial Review (39) Review of Health Officer Order Notice of AppeaI-Labor Commissioner Appeals CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Pro oa Co eC Lgao Ca R e of Co r R e 00 0 Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03) Construction Defect (10) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) Securities Litigation (28) Environmental/Toxic Tort (30) Insurance Coverage Claims (arising from provisionally comple case type listed above) (41) E for e e of dg e Enforcement of Judgment (20) Abstract of Judgment (Out of County) Confession of Judgment (non- domestic relations) Sister State Judgment Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid ta es) Petition/Certification of Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Other Enforcement of Judgment Case M e a eo C Co a RICO(27) Other Complaint (not specified above)(42) Declaratory Relief Only Injunctive Relief Only (non- harassment) Mechanics Lien Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tort non-comple ) Other Civil Complaint (non-tort non-comple ) M e a eo C Pe o Partnership and Corporate Governance (21) Other Petition (not specified above) (43) Civil Harassment Workplace Violence EIder/Dependent Adult Abuse Election Contest Petition for Name Change Petition for Relief From Late Claim Other Civil Petition Page of Exhibit A Page 26 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 34 of 62 Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 30 of 57 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ALTERNA TIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION INFORMATION S EET Many cases can be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties without the necessity of traditional litigation, which can be expensive, time consuming, and stressful. The Court finds that it is in the best interests of the parties that they participate in alternatives to traditional litigation, including arbitration, mediation, neutral evaluation, special masters and referees, and settlement conferences. Therefore, all matters shall be referred to an appropriate form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) before they are set for trial, unless there is good cause to dispense with the ADR requirement. What is ADR? ADR is the general term for a wide variety of dispute resolution processes that are alternatives to litigation. Types of ADR processes include mediation, arbitration, neutral evaluation, special masters and referees, and settlement conferences, among others forms. What are the advantages of choosing ADR instead of litigation? ADR can have a number of advantages over litigation: o ADR A dispute can be resolved in a matter of months, 0r even weeks, while litigation can take years. o ADR Attorney’s fees, court costs, and expert fees can be reduced or avoided altogether. o ADR r d r r Parties have more opportunities with ADR to express their interests and concerns, instead of focusing exclusively on legal rights. o ADR r d r r d Parties can choose the ADR process that is most likely to bring a satisfactory resolution to their dispute. o ADR r d r ADR encourages cooperation and communication, while discouraging the adversarial atmosphere of litigation. Surveys of parties who have participated in an ADR process have found much greater satisfaction than with parties who have gone through litigation. What are the main forms ofADR offered by the Court? M d is an informal, confidential, flexible and non-binding process in the mediator helps the parties to understand the interests of everyone involved, and their practical and legal choices. The mediator helps the parties to communicate better, explore legal and practical settlement options, and reach an acceptable solution ofthe problem. The mediator does not decide the solution to the dispute; the parties do. Mediation may be appropriate when: o The parties want a non-adversary procedure o The parties have a continuing business or personal relationship o Communication problems are interfering with a resolution o There is an emotional element involved o The parties are interested in an injunction, consent decree, or other form of equitable relief N r ,sometimes called “Early Neutral Evaluation“ or “ENE”, is an informal process in which the evaluator, an experienced neutral lawyer, hears a compact presentation of both sides of the case, gives a non-binding assessment of the strengths and weaknesses on each side, and predicts the likely outcome. The evaluator can help parties to identify issues, prepare stipulations, and draft discovery plans. The parties may use the neutral‘s evaluation to discuss settlement. Neutral evaluation may be appropriate when: o The parties are far apart in their view of the law or value of the case o The case involves a technical issue in which the evaluator has expertise o Case planning assistance would be helpful and would save legal fees and costs o The parties are interested in an injunction, consent decree, or other form of equitable relief -OVeI'- cv-soos REV 6/26/13 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION INFORMATION S EET CIVIL DIVISION Exhibit A Page 27 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 35 of 62 Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 31 of 57 Ar r is a less formal process than a trial, with no jury. The arbitrator hears the evidence and arguments ofthe parties and then makes a written decision. The parties can agree to binding or non-binding arbitration. In binding arbitration, the arbitratofs decision is final and completely resolves the case, without the opportunity for appeal. In non-binding arbitration, the arbitrator's decision could resolve the case, without the opportunity for appeal, unless a party timely rejects the arbitrator‘s decision within 30 days and requests a trial. Private arbitrators are allowed to charge for their time. Arbitration may be appropriate when: o The action is for personal injury, property damage, or breach of contract o Only monetary damages are sought o Witness testimony, under oath, needs to be evaluated o An advisory opinion is sought from an experienced litigator (if a non-binding arbitration) C J d ADR allows parties to have a mediation or settlement conference with an experienced judge of the Superior Court. Mediation is an informal, confidential, flexible and non-binding process in which thejudge helps the parties to understand the interests of everyone involved, and their practical and legal choices. A settlement conference is an informal process in which thejudge meets with the parties or their attorneys, hears the facts of the dispute, helps identify issues to be resolved, and normally suggests a resolution that the parties may accept or use as a basis for further negotiations. The request for mediation or settlement conference may be made promptly by stipulation (agreement) upon the filing of the Civil complaint and the answer. There is no charge for this service. Civil Judge ADR may be appropriate when: o The parties have complex facts to review o The case involves multiple parties and problems n The courthouse surroundings would he helpful to the settlement process S r d r r are neutral parties who may be appointed by the court to obtain information or to make specific fact findings that may lead to a resolution of a dispute. Special masters and referees can be particularly effective in complex cases with a number of parties, like construction disputes. S r are informal processes in which the neutral (a judge or an experienced attorney) meets with the parties or their attorneys, hears the facts of the dispute, helps identify issues to be resolved, and normally suggests a resolution that the parties may accept or use as a basis for further negotiations. Settlement conferences can be effective when the authority or expertise of thejudge or experienced attorney may help the parties reach a resolution. What kind of disputes can be resolved by ADR? Although some disputes must go to court, almost any dispute can be resolved through ADR. This includes disputes involving business matters; civil rights; collections; corporations; construction; consumer protection; contracts; copyrights; defamation; disabilities; discrimination; employment; environmental problems; fraud; harassment; health care; housing; insurance; intellectual property; labor; landlord/tenant; media; medical malpractice and other professional negligence; neighborhood problems; partnerships; patents; personal injury; probate; product liability; property damage; real estate; securities; sports; trade secret; and wrongful death, among other matters. Where can you get assistance with selecting an appropriate form ofADR and a neutral for your case, informa tion aboutADR procedures, or answers to other questions aboutADR? Contact: Santa Clara County Superior Court Santa Clara County DRPA Coordinator ADR Administrator 408-792-2784 408-882-2530 cv-soos REV 6/26/13 ALTERNA TIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION INFORMATION S EET CIVIL DIVISION Exhibit A Page 28 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 36 of 62 LANE POWELL PC 601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3 1 58 503.778.2100 FAX 503.778.2200 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 32 of 57 Rishi Puri, Bar No. 252718 E'ec"°“'°a"y F"ed - by Superior Court of CA,urlr lane 0we11.com g(risgn LEM“, Bar No. 299698 County 0f Santa Clara, pricek@lanepowe11.com 0n 7/5/2020 11:18 AM LANE POWELL PC Reviewed By: P. Lai 601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 2100 case #2ocv366792 Portland, Oregon 97204-3 158 Envelope: 45521 69 Telephone: 503 .7782 1 00 Facsimile: 503.778.2200 Attorneys for Defendant KinderCare Education LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION ISABEL PEREZ, an individual, Case N0. 20CV366792 Plaintiff, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT V. Assigned to Judge Laurie Mikkelsen Dept; 6 KINDERCARE EDUCATION LLC, and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Complaint Filed: May 26, 2020 Trial Date: None Defendant. Attorneys for defendant KinderCare Education LLC (“Defendant”) for itself and no other defendant, hereby responds to the unverified Complaint for Damages filed by Plaintiff, Isabel Perez (“Plaintiff’) and admits, denies and alleges as follows:W Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every material allegation contained in the Complaint, and each and every alleged cause 0f action and purported cause 0f action contained therein, and further specifically denies that Plaintiff has been injured in any sum therein alleged, or in any sum or sums, or at all. SPECIFIC AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendant sets forth specific affirmative defenses below. By setting forth the affirmative defenses below, Defendant does not assume the burden ofproofthat are otherwise the responsibility of Plaintiff to prove. _1_ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 130589.2178/8092704.2 Exhibit A Page 29 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 37 of 62 LANE POWELL PC 601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3 1 58 503.778.2100 FAX 503.778.2200 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 33 of 57 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Claim) 1. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or a claim upon which relief can be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity) 2. To the extent that Plaintiff s Complaint alleges emotion and/or physical injury, any recovery is barred 0n the ground that the California Workers’ Compensation Act, Cal. Lab. Code § 3200 et seq., provides the exclusive remedy for such alleged injuries. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Same Decision) 3. Any recovery on Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred because Defendant would have made the same decisions or taken the same actions irrespective of Plaintiff s alleged disabilities or alleged protected status. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Good Faith) 4. Any recovery on Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred because any and all actions taken by Defendant with respect to Plaintiff were privileged, and undertaken with good cause, in good faith, or with a good faith belief that good cause existed. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver) 5. Any recovery on Plaintiff’ s Complaint is barred by the doctrine of waiver. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) 6. Plaintiff is estopped by her conduct from any recovery under the Complaint. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Laches) 7. Any recovery 011 Plaintiff” s Complaint is barred by the doctrine of laches. _2_ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 130589.2178/8092704.2 Exhibit A Page 30 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 38 of 62 LANE POWELL PC 601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3 1 58 503.778.2100 FAX 503.778.2200 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-CV-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 34 Of 57 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) 8. Any recovery on Plaintiff s Complaint is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) 9. Defendant is informed and believes the Complaint may be barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of limitations, including but not limited to, California Code of Civil Procedure sections 337, 338, 339, and 343, California Business and Professions Code section 17208, and applicable statutes of limitation contained Within the California Labor Code. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Exhaust - Fair Employment and Housing Act) 10. Plaintiff’s claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act are barred because Plaintiff has failed to exhaust the applicable administrative prerequisites, including but not limited to administrative remedies pursuant t0 California Government Code section 12960 et seq., in a timely fashion or at all. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Adequate Remedy at Law) 11. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law and accordingly, is not entitled to injunctive relief, as alleged in the Complaint. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute 0f Frauds) 12. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff s claim for breach of contract is barred by the statute of frauds as set forth in California Civil Code section 1624. _3_ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 130589.2178/8092704.2 Exhibit A Page 31 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 39 of 62 LANE POWELL PC 601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3 1 58 503.778.2100 FAX 503.778.2200 \DOOQQUIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-CV-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 35 Of 57 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Management Discretion) 13. Any and all conduct ofwhich Plaintiff complains was a just and proper exercise of management discretion, undertaken for a fair and honest reason, without malice 0r unlawful motive, and regulated by good faith under the circumstances that existed. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Undue Hardship) 14. Any reasonable accommodation sought by Plaintiff would have posed an undue hardship to Defendant. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Endangerment of Health and Safety) 15. Plaintiff could not perform her essential duties in a manner that would not endanger her health or safety or the health or safety of others, even with reasonable accommodations. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Legitimate Non-Retaliatory Reasons for Actions) 16. Plaintiffs causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, because Defendant’s actions toward Plaintiff were taken for legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Plaintiff Not a Qualified Individual) 17. Plaintiff could not satisfactorily perform the essential fimctions of her job, with or without reasonable accommodation, and thus was not a qualified individual with a disability. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Plaintiff’s Failure to Request Reasonable Accommodation) 18. Any recovery on Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred because Plaintiff never requested any reasonable accommodation for any alleged disabilities. _4_ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 130589.2178/8092704.2 Exhibit A Page 32 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 40 of 62 LANE POWELL PC 601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3 1 58 503.7782100 FAX 5017782200 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 36 of 57 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Defendant Engaged in Interactive Process) 19. Defendant fulfilled its duties and obligation, if any, to engage in an interactive process with Plaintiff. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Plaintiff’s Failure to Engage in Interactive Process) 20. Plaintiff failed to engage in, and caused any breakdown of, the interactive process. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (After-Acquired Evidence) 21. If Plaintiff suffered any loss, damage, or detriment as a result of the facts alleged in the Complaint, which Defendant denies, such loss, damage, or detriment is limited or barred by the existence of evidence acquired afier Plaintiff’ s termination that bars or limits the remedial relief to which Plaintiff may have been entitled in the absence of such after-acquired evidence. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Contributory Causation) 22. Plaintiff‘s damages, if any, were proximately caused, and contributed to, by Plaintiff’s own negligence and/or intentional acts 0r omissions, and Plaintiffs recovery, if any, must thereby be reduced in proportion to Plaintiff” s conduct. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure t0 Mitigate Damages) 23. If Plaintiff suffered any damages as a result of the facts alleged in the Complaint, which Defendant denies, Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the amount 0f damages alleged, or any damages due to her failure to make reasonable efforts to mitigate or minimize the damages incurred. TWENTY- FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Oppression, Fraud or Malice) 24. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover any punitive damages alleged in the Complaint because any acts, or omissions t0 act, by Defendant were not the result 0f oppression, fraud, or malice as such terms are defined by California Civil Code section 3294. -5- ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 1305 89.2 1 78/8092704.2 Exhibit A Page 33 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 41 of 62 LANE POWELL PC 601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3 1 58 503.778.2100 FAX 503.778.2200 A \OOONQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-CV-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 37 Of 57 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unconstitutionality of Punitive Damages) 25. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover any punitive damages to the extent such an award would Violate Defendant’s rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the State of California, including Defendant’s rights to procedural and substantive due process, and protection from excessive fines. TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Attorneys’ Fees) 26. Defendant is entitled to recover all costs and attorneys’ fees incurred herein pursuant to California Government Code section 12965, California Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 and/or any other applicable law 0r rule, inasmuch as any and all ofthe claims alleged in Plaintiff s Complaint are frivolous, unreasonable or Without foundation. TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Knowledge) 27. T0 the extent that any unlawful conduct occurred, which Defendant denies, Defendant was not aware of Plaintiff’s purported complaints of unlawful conduct. Accordingly, Plaintiffs causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, or alternatively, her relief is limited. TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Offset) 28. If Plaintiff sustained any damage as a result of the conduct alleged in the Complaint, which Defendant denies, then Defendant is entitled to an offset to the extent Plaintiff received income from other sources, including, but not limited to, any workers’ compensation benefits paid to Plaintiff. TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Outside the Scope of Authority) 29. If any manager or supervisor authorized, required, requested, suffered, or permitted any employee t0 d0 anything illegal or unlawful, or retaliated against Plaintiff, such supervisor or manager acted outside the scope 0f his 0r her employment with Defendant. _6_ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 130589.2178/8092704.2 Exhibit A Page 34 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 42 of 62 LANE POWELL PC 601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3 1 58 503.778.2100 FAX 503.778.2200 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 38 of 57 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Additional Affirmative Defenses) 30. Defendant presently has insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a belief as to whether Defendant may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses available. Defendant reserves the right to assert additional defenses in the event discovery indicates that additional affirmative defenses are appropriate. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Defendant prays as follows: 1. That judgment be awarded in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff, and that the Complaint herein be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice; 2. That Plaintiff take nothing by way 0f her Complaint; 3. That Defendant be awarded its costs of suit; 4. That Defendant be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees under California Government Code section 12965; and 5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DATED: July 6, 2020 LANE POWELL pc By/g/L' Rishi Puri, Bar N0. 2527 1 8 Kristen L. Price, Bar N0. 299698 Attorneys for Defendant KinderCare Education LLC _7_ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 130589.2178/8092704.2 Exhibit A Page 35 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 43 of 62 LANE POWELL PC 601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3 1 58 503.778.2100 FAX 503.778.2200 Uxhb-lN \Doofla 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 39 of 57 PROOF 0F SERVICE Isabel Perez v. KinderCare Education LLC, et al. Case No. 20CV366792 I am a citizen ofthe United States and employed in Multnomah County, Oregon. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party t0 the within action. My business address is: Lane Powell PC, 601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 2100, Portland, Oregon 97204. On July 6, 2020, I served the following document(s): ANSWER TO COMPLAINT U (BY E-SERVICE! By uploading the document(s) t0 electronic filing service provider (EFSP) One Legal, LLC’s e-filing system. In accordance With the Court’s rules, EFSP One Legal, LLC will send e-mail notification 0f such filing to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below through the e-service system: (BYREGULAR MAIL) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the designated area for outgoing mail at Portland, Oregon, to the following person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. I am familiar With Lane Powell PC’s practice whereby each document is placed in an envelope, sealed, postage is placed thereon, and the sealed envelope is placed in the office mail receptacle. The mail is collected and deposited in a United States Postal mailbox at or before the close of business each day. Lori J. Costanzo Chelsea Hill Costanzo Law Firm, APC 111 W. St. John Street, Suite 700 San Jose, California 95 1 13 Email: Lori@costanzo-law.com Chelsea.Hill@costanzo-law.com U (BY E-MAIL/ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) Based on a court order or an agreement of the patties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused a true copy to be sent electronically t0 the e-mail address(es) set forth below: D gBY FACSIMILE) By transmitting, pursuant to C.R.C. Rule 2008, a true copy thereof Via facsimile transmission to the facsimile telephone number referenced at the address set forth below. The transmission was reported as complete and without error and a copy of the transmission report, which was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine, is attached hereto. D (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) By having a messenger personally deliver a true copy thereof to the person(s) and/or office of the person(s) at the address set forth below: _1_ PROOF OF SERVICE 1305 89.2 1 78/8092704.2 Exhibit A Page 36 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 44 of 62 LANE POWELL PC 601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3 158 503.778.2100 FAX 503.778.2200 \Dmfla 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:20-CV-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 4O 0f 57 U (BY OVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY): I complied with Code of Civil Procedure § 1013(c), by delivering a true copy thereofto: U U.S. Postal Express Mail; U UPS Overnight Mail; U Federal Express Overnight Service t0 be delivered to the person(s) set forth below: fl (STATE) I declare under penalty ofpetjury under the laws 0fthe State 0fCalifornia that the above is true and correct t0 the best 0fmy knowledge. Executed on this 6th day 0f July, 2020. 5&1W 9% Elizabeth Pinkley -2- PROOF OF SERVICE 1305892 1 78/8092704.2 Exhibit A Page 37 of 37 Exhibit 1 Page 45 of 62 Case 5:20-CV-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 41 0f 57 EXHIBIT B Exhibit 1 Page 46 of 62 Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 42 of 57 Details Page 1 of2 Case Information 20CV366792 | Isabel Perez vs Kindercare Education LLC Case Number Court File Date 20CV366792 Superior Court of 05/26/2020 Santa Clara - Civil Case Type Case Status Wrongful Active Termination Unlimited (36) Party Plai'mfi Active Att-s-r'l'weysv Perez' Isabel Lead Attorney Costanzo, Lori J. Retained 'Work prone 408-993-8493 Defer‘den: Adive F‘xttmrmys V Lead Attorney Puri, Rishi Retained Kindercare Education LLC ‘u-FUO \‘k F3 ho ne 503-778-21 00 https ://cmporta1.scscourt.org/Portal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 7/8/2020 Exhibit B Page 1 of 2 Exhibit 1 Page 47 of 62 Case 5:20-CV-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 43 Of 57 Details Page 2 of 2 Events and Hearings 05/26/2020 C0mp‘aint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) 05/26/2020 Summons: Issueleiled 05/26/2020 Civil Case Cover Sheet 07/02/2020 Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) v Comment POS of Summons - Perez 07/06/2020 Answer (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) v Comment to Complaint: atty Puri 09/29/2020 Conference: Case Management v Judicial Officer Mikkelsen, Laurie Hearing Time 1:30 PM https ://cmporta1.scscourt.org/Portal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 7/8/2020 Exhibit B Page 2 of 2 Exhibit 1 Page 48 of 62 Case 5:20-CV-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 44 0f 57 EXHIBIT C Exhibit 1 Page 49 of 62 Case 5:20-cv-O4562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 45 of 57 Business Registry Business Name Search - - 07-02-2020 New Search Busmess Entlty Data 11.44 Registry Nbr EInTtlgl SEtna-ttiuwé Jurisdiction Registry Date NeXt Renewal Renewal Due? Date 784 1 39-95 FLLC ACT DELAWARE 07-05-2011 07-05-2021 Entity Name KINDERCARE EDUCATION LLC Foreign Name W Associated Names T e PB RINCIPAL PLACE 0F VP USINEss Addr 1 50 NE HOLLADAY STREET STE 1400 Addr 2 CSZ RTLAND R 7232 Cou STATES OF AMERICA Please click here for general information about registered agents and service ofprocess. Type AGT REGISTERED AGENT Start Date 33-1265- Resign Date Of Record 158720-88 CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY Addr 1 1127 BROADWAY ST NE STE 310 Addr 2 csz SALEM |0R |97301 | | Country [UNITED STATES 0F AMERICA T ING ADDRESS 50 NE HOLLADAY STREET STE 1400 RTLAND R 7232 STATES OF AMERICA ER OWLEDGE SCHOOLS LLC 50 NE HOLLADAY STREET STE 1400 Res n Date RTLAND R 7232 STATES OF AMERICA G AGER OHN ATT 50 NE HOLLADAY STREET STE 1400 Res n Date RTLAND R 7232 STATES OF AMERICA Type |MGR|MANAGER | I Resign Date I Name |JOEL | |SCHWARTZ | | Exhibit C Page 1 of 2 Exhibit 1 Page 50 of 62 Case 5:20-cv-O4562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 46 of 57 Addr 1 650 NE HOLLADAY STREET Addr 2 SUITE 1400 csz PORTLAND |0R |97232 | |Country [UNITED STATES 0F AMERICA T Name Addr 1 Addr 2 CSZ G EN AGER USSELL 50 NE HOLLADAY ST STE 1400 RTLAND R 7232 Resi n Date STATES OF AMERICA m Name History Business Entity Name mm Start Date End Date Iyp_e Status KINDERCARE EDUCATION LLC EN CUR 01-14-2016 KNOWLEDGE UNIVERSE EDUCATION LLC EN PRE 07-05-2011 01-14-2016 Please read before ordering @pies. New Search Summary HiStOI'y A‘Ilghaagbele Action TranDsaatcetionl EffDeacttive Status NagfalnAggeent Dissolved By . - AMENDED ANNUAL .15} REPORT 06-24-2020 F1 r» AMENDED ANNUAL REPORT 06-13-2019 F1 Ir» AMENDED ANNUAL REPORT 05-22-201 8 F1 .afi AMENDED ANNUAL .430 REPORT 05-23-2017 F1 r? AMNDMT TO ANNUAL “Eb RPT/INFO STATEMENT 08'25'2016 F1 Agent AMENDED ANNUAL REPORT 05-23-2016 FI AMENDMENT TO AUTHORITY 0 1 - 14-20 1 6 FI Name AMENDED ANNUAL REPORT 05-2 1 -20 1 5 FI AMENDED ANNUAL REPORT 06- 10-2014 FI AMENDED ANNUAL REPORT 06-06-20 1 3 FI AMENDED ANNUAL REPORT 06-06-2012 FI APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY 07-05-201 1 FI Agent © 2020 Oregon Secretary of State. All Rights Reserved. Exhibit c Page 2 of 2 Exhibit 1 Page 51 of 62 Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 47 of 57 EXHIBIT D Exhibit 1 Page 52 of 62 Case 5:20-cv-O4562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 48 of 57 FISCHLER v. T. BAJTOS; S. BAJTOS; M.B.; A.B.; C...., JVR No. 1405190057... JVR N0. 1405190057, 2013 WL 8563632 (Cal.Super.) (Verdict and Settlement Summary) Copyright (c) 2019 Thomson Reuters/West Superior Court, Santa Clara County, California. FISCHLER V. T. BAJTOS; S. BAJTOS; M.B.; A.B.; C. CULINE; C. CULINE; N.C. 1-1 l-CV- 1 96897 DATE OF TRIAL/SETTLEMENT: December 13, 20 1 3 TOPIC: LIABILITY: General: Personal Specific: Slander SUMMARY Outcome: Plaintiff Verdict Total: $362,653 HIGH AMOUNT: $0 LOW AMOUNT: $0 Related Court Documents: Plaintiff‘s third amended complaint: 2012 WL 10476864 Plaintiffs trial brief: 2013 WL 7850405 Verdict form: 2013 WL 7851694 Judgment: 2013 WL 7880286 EXPERT-WITNESSES: ATTORNEY: Plaintiff: Robert M. Vantress, Vantress Law Group, San Jose, CA Defendant: Lee James Danforth, Coddington, Hicks & Danforth PC, Redwood City, CA Defendant: Gina Beltramo, Coddington, Hicks & Danforth PC, Redwood City, CA Defendant: Richard R. Pedersen, Pedersen, Eichenbaum & Lauderdale, San Jose, CA JUDGE: William J. Monahan RANGE AMOUNT: $200,000 - 499,999 STATE: California COUNTY: Santa Clara PRIMARY INJURY: General Emotional Distress: Wrongful Termination WESTLAW © 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Exhibit D Page 1 of 10 Exhibit 1 Page 53 of 62 Case 5:20-cv-O4562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 49 of 57 FISCHLER v. T. BAJTOS; S. BAJTOS; M.B.; A.B.; C...., JVR No. 1405190057... Defamation: Slander SUMMARY PLAINTIFF: Sex: M Age: Adult General Occupation: Teacher DEFENDANT: Sex: F Age: Adult Organization Type: Bajtos Sex: M Age: Adult Organization Type: Bajtos Sex: F Age: Minor Organization Type: B. Sex: F Age: Minor Organization Type: B. Sex: F Age: Adult Organization Type: Culine Sex: F Age: Minor Organization Type: C. Sex: M WESTLAW © 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Exhibit D Page 2 of 10 Exhibit 1 Page 54 of 62 Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 50 of 57 FISCHLER v. T. BAJTOS; S. BAJTOS; M.B.; A.B.; C...., JVR No. 1405190057... Age: Adult Organization Type: Culine DAMAGES: Compensatory Pain & Suffering: $50,000 Compensatory Past Wages: $67,717 Compensatory Future Wages: $1 1 1 ,621 Compensatory Other: $127,000 Total Compensatory Award: $356,338 Punitive Damages: $0 Hedonic Damages: $0 Property Damages: $0 Interest: $6,3 15 Other Damages: $0 Loss 0f Services: $0 Comparative Negligence Percentage: 0 FACTS: John Fischler, an adult male, claimed he suffered emotional distress, humiliation and damage to his reputation resulting in termination from his teaching position after he was falsely accused of abusing students at the Catholic Holy Spirit Elementary School by defendant students M.B., A.B. and NAC. and their parents, defendants Trina Bajtos, Scott Bajtos, Christine Culine and Christophe CulineA The plaintiff alleged defendant M.B. falsely reported to her parents that the plaintiff touched her inappropriately 0n her buttocks when in actuality the plaintiff used MAB. as a model during REA class t0 show students how t0 properly perform a squat movement and had placed his hands on M.B.'s hips; and after the school's investigation ofthe incident determined the accusation was false and the plaintiff was cleared 0f any wrongdoing the defendants began telling people at the school and the police that the plaintiffwas a “pervert, a creeper,” and “a child molester who had gotten away with child abuse.” The plaintiff further claimed that thereafter defendants sought to have the plaintiff fired and defendant N.C., M.B.‘s best friend, falsely accused the plaintiff 0f looking into the girl's bathroom to watch them change clothes, of giving N.C. a neck massage, and coercing other female students into making similar accusations against the plaintiff, resulting in the plaintiff being suspended and then terminated from his position and also being registered as a sex offender due the defendants' false allegations. The defendants denied liability. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff on his claims for defamation, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress and intentional interference with economic relations. 7’ cs Jury Verdict Research WESTLAW © 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Exhibit D Page 3 of 10 Exhibit 1 Page 55 of 62 Case 5:20-cv-O4562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 51 of 57 FISCHLER v. T. BAJTOS; S. BAJTOS; M.B.; A.B.; C...., JVR No. 1405190057... COURT: Superior End 0f Document © 2020 Thomson Reuters. N0 claim t0 original U.S. Government Works. WESTLAW © 2020 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 Exhibit D Page 4 of 10 Exhibit 1 Page 56 of 62 Case 5:20-cv-O4562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 52 of 57 JONES v. CITY OF REDWOOD, ET AL., JVR No. 190468 (1996) JVR No. 190468, 1996 WL 777303 (Cal.Supen'0r) (Verdict and Settlement Summary) Copyright (c) 2019 Thomson Reuters/West Superior Court, San Mateo County, California. JONES V. CITY OF REDWOOD, ET AL. 386010 DATE OF TRIAL: July, 1996 TOPIC: LIABILITY: General: CITY GOVERNMENT Specific: Retaliatory discharge SUMNIARY Outcome: Plaintiff Verdict Non Verdict Award: $477,993 Total Verdict: $477,993 Final Demand: $350,000 Final Offer: $100,000 Claimed Past Wage Expense: $600,000 EXPERT-WITNESSES: ATTORNEY: JUDGE: RANGE AMOUNT: $200,000-499,999 STATE: California COUNTY: San Mateo PRIMARY INJURY: Wrongful Termination SUMMARY PLAINTIFF: Sex: Male Age: 53 General Occupation: MIDDLE MANAGEMENT Occupational Field: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-RECREATIONAL DECEDENT: DEFENDANT: WESTLAW © 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Exhibit D Page 5 of 10 Exhibit 1 Page 57 of 62 Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 53 of 57 JONES v. CITY OF REDWOOD, ET AL., JVR No. 190468 (1996) Type: Single Organization Sex: Organization Organization Type: Public Administration-Executive Legislative and General DAMAGES: Other: $477,993 Total: $477,993 FACTS: A 53-year-old male superintendent for the defendant city's Parks and Recreations Department suffered wrongful termination and emotional distress when he was discharged by the defendant. The plaintiffs discharge was based on dishonesty, incompetence, negligence, failure to perform his work properly, Violation 0f rules, conduct unbecoming an employee, and negligence of duty. The plaintiff contended that he was terminated because he testified against the city in a racial discrimination case, that he had a written contract with the defendant that required cause for termination and that he was terminated without cause. The defendant contended that the plaintifiwas terminated for cause and that its action was not retaliatory in nature. Jury Verdict Research COURT: Superior End of Document © 2020 Thomson Reuters. N0 claim to original U.S. Government Works. WESTLAW © 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Exhibit D Page 6 of 10 Exhibit 1 Page 58 of 62 Case 5:20-cv-O4562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 54 of 57 BURLEY v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, JVR No. 1807190018 (2018) JVR No. 1807190018, 2018 WL 3497095 (N.D.Ca1.) (Verdict and Settlement Summary) Copyright (c) 2019 Thomson Reuters/West United States District Court, N.D. California. BURLEY V. CITYAND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3: 16CV06762 DATE OF INCIDENT: March 23, 2016 DATE OF FILING: October 18, 2016 DATE OF TRIAL/SETTLEMENT: February 09, 2018 SUMMARY Outcome: Settlement Total: $1 00,000 Related Court Documents: Plaintiffs complaint: 2016 WL 6246595 Defendant's answer: 2016 WL 11317697 EXPERT-WITNESSES: ATTORNEY: Plaintiff: J. Gary Gwilliam, Gwilliam Ivary Chiosso Cavalli & Brewer, Oakland, CA Randall E. Strauss, Gwilliam Ivary Chiosso Cavalli & Brewer, Oakland, CA Jayme L. Walker, Gwilliam Ivary Chiosso Cavalli & Brewer, Oakland, CA Defendant: Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney--San Francisco, San Francisco, CA Katharine Hobin Porter, Chief Labor Attorney--San Francisco, San Francisco, CA Trevor J. Koski, Deputy City Attorney--San Francisco, San Francisco, CA JUDGE: Joseph C. Spero RANGE AMOUNT: $100,000 - 199,999 STATE: California COUNTY: Not Applicable SUMMARY PLAINTIFF: Sex: F Age: Adult General Occupation: Police Officer DEFENDANT: Sex: O WESTLAW © 2020 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Exhibit D Page 7 of 10 Exhibit 1 Page 59 of 62 Case 5:20-cv-O4562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 55 of 57 BURLEY v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, JVR No. 1807190018 (2018) Organization Type: City and County 0f San Francisco DAMAGES: Total Compensatory Award: $ 1 00,000 ADVERSE ACTION Closer Supervision: false Constructive Discharge: false Demotion: false Denial Tenure: false Failure Accomodate: false Failure Grant Leave: false Failure Hire: false Failure Promote: false Suspension: false Sexual Harassment: false Harassment: false Hostile Work Env: false Isolation: false Lay Off: false Loss Benefits: true Loss Pay: true Loss Seniority: false Negative Evalz false Negative Reference: false Pay Increase Denial: false Reassignment: false WESTLAW © 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Exhibit D Page 8 of 10 Exhibit 1 Page 60 of 62 Case 5:20-CV-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 56 0f 57 BURLEY v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, JVR No. 18071 90018 (2018) Reduction Pay: false Reprimands: false Restrictions: false Termination: true Entity Type: Government Entity STATUTES Primary Specific Statute Primary Name: General Primary General Statute Primary Name: Retaliation Primary General Statute Discrimination: false Specific Statute: General General Statute: Wrongful Termination General Statute Discrimination: false Specific Statute: First and Fourteenth Amendments General Statute: Whistleblower General Statute Discrimination: false Comparative Negligence Percentage: 0 FACTS: Patricia Burley has settled this lawsuit against City and County of San Francisco for whistleblower retaliation and wrongful termination in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 1102.5 and violating her First Amendment free speech rights. The plaintiff asserted she was a police officer for the defendant's police department. The plaintiff claimed that in January 2014, she became the vice president ofthe police department's pride alliance, and she discovered that the previous treasurer had embezzled a total of $15,000 from the pride alliance group. In addition, the plaintiff claimed that she reported her discovery to the pride alliance board, but the police department's lieutenant insisted that pride alliance handle the matter internally. The plaintiffreportedly met with internal affairs in September 2014 wherein she provided one of its personnel with documentary evidence that the treasurer had committed embezzlement and she reported that the lieutenant instructed the pride alliance board not to report the matter to internal affairs. Internal affairs apparently did not contact the plaintiff after the meeting. The plaintiff asselted that in December 2014, she discovered that the treasurer had been allowed to resign with satisfactory service. The plaintiff ostensibly inquired into her report regarding the treasurer's illegal conduct, but she was told the investigation into the matter was closed. According to the plaintiff, she appeared anonymously on a news channel wherein she explained that she reported the treasurer's crime to internal affairs, but that the treasurer had been allowed to resign in good standing. The plaintiff claimed that her anonymous appearance on the news was protected speech because it involved matters of public concern, including the potential abuse of authority and police officers‘ criminal conduct. Charges were allegedly filed against the treasurer following the news report and WESTLAW © 2020 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Exhibit D Page 9 of 10 Exhibit 1 Page 61 of 62 Case 5:20-cv-04562 Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 57 of 57 BURLEY v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, JVR No. 18071 90018 (2018) the lieutenant retired following the allegations that he had tried to cover up the treasurer's crimes. The plaintiff asserted that she subsequently received a letter from internal affairs indicating that she was under investigation for misconduct. The plaintiff was purportedly interviewed by internal affairs in April 2015, and she was asked Whether she was the person who appeared on the news, but, fearing retaliation and termination from her job, she denied that it was her. In addition, the plaintifi asserted that in February 2016, she was informed that the police department‘s chief 0f police wanted t0 terminate her due t0 her news appearance, but was told that she would be allowed to keep her pension and benefits if she agreed t0 retire. The plaintiff was reportedly forced t0 retire in March 2016. The defendant denied liability and asserted affirmative defenses. The parties agreed t0 a $100,000 settlement. Jury Verdict Research COURT: USDC End of Document © 2020 Thomson Reuters. N0 claim t0 original U.S. Government Works. WESTLAW © 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 Exhibit D Page 10 of 10 Exhibit 1 Page 62 of 62 LANE POWELL PC 601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2100 503.778.2100 FAX 503.778.2200 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3 158 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE Isabel Perez v. KinderCare Education LLC, et al. Case N0. 20CV366792 I am a citizen of the United States and employed in Multnomah County, Oregon. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party t0 the Within action. My business address is: Lane Powell PC, 601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 2100, Portland, Oregon 97204. On July 9, 2020, I caused t0 be served the following document(s): DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE TO CLERK OF THE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF FILING OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT U (BY E-SERVICE) By uploading the document(s) t0 an electronic filing service provider’s (EFSP) e-filing system. In accordance With the Court’s rules, th EFSP Will send e-mail notification of such filing t0 the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below through the e- service system: fl (BYREGULAR MAIL) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the designated area for outgoing mail at Portland, Oregon, to the following person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. I am familiar with Lane Powell PC’s practice whereby each document is placed in an envelope, sealed, postage is placed thereon, and the sealed envelope is placed in the office mail receptacle. The mail is collected and deposited in a United States Postal mailbox at 0r before the close ofbusiness each day. Lori J. Costanzo Chelsea Hill Costanzo Law Firm, APC 111 W. St. John Street, Suite 700 San Jose, California 95 1 13 Email: Lori@costanzo-law.com Chelsea.Hill@costanzo-law.com U (BY E-MAIL/ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) Based on a court order or an agreement 0f the parties to accept service by e-mail 0r electronic transmission, I caused a true copy to be sent electronically t0 the e-mail address(es) set forth below: U (BY FACSIMILE) By transmitting, pursuant to C.R.C. Rule 2008, a true copy thereof Via facsimile transmission to the facsimile telephone number referenced at the address set forth below. The transmission was reported as complete and without error and a copy of the transmission report, Which was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine, is attached hereto. D (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) By having a messenger personally deliver a true copy thereof t0 the person(s) and/or office of the person(s) at the address set forth below: -1- PROOF OF SERVICE 130589.2305/8088976.1 LANE POWELL PC 601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2100 503.778.2100 FAX 503.778.2200 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3 158 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 U (BY OVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY): I complied With Code of Civil Procedure § 10 1 3(0), by delivering a true copy thereofto: U U.S. Postal Express Mail; U UPS Overnight Mail; U Federal Express Overnight Service to be delivered t0 the person(s) set forth below: (STATE) I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State ofCalifornia that the above is true and correct to the best ofmy knowledge. Executed 0n this 9th day of July, 2020.W. xiw} Ofiifer Morton -2- PROOF OF SERVICE 130589.2305/8088976.1