Removal to Federal Court

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.June 12, 2020

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES 200V367250 Santa Clara - Civil Allison V. Saunders, Bar No. 220010 asaunders@f0rdharrison.com Angela S. Fontana, Bar N0. 287398 afontana@f0rdharrison.com FORD & HARRISON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300 Y. Cha Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 9/1/2020 9:30 AM Reviewed By: Y. Chavez Case #20CV367250Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 2 1 3-237-2400 Facsimile: 2 1 3-237-2401 Envelope: 4860796 Attorneys for Defendant DENNY'S, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA BENITO GARCIA, an individual, CASE NO. 20CV367250 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT DENNY’S, INC.’S NOTICE V. TO STATE COURT AND PARTIES OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION DENNY'S, INC., a Florida corporation; and DOES 1 - 50, inclusive, Action Filed: Trial date: 6/12/20 Defendants. Not set TO THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Denny’s, Inc., Without waiving any of its rights, removed the above-captioned case from this Court by filing a Notice of Removal with the Clerk 0f the United States District Court for the Northern District 0f California, on August 31, 2020. Pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), "the State Court shall proceed no further unless the case is remanded." A copy of the Notice 0fRemoval is attached. /// /// /// WSACTIVELLP:1 1738803.1 _ 1 _ /CASE No. 20cv367250 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND PARTIES OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION GZ H Dated: September 1, 2020 Respectfully submitted, FORD & HARRISON LLP By: Q Allison V. S Angela S. F tana Attorneys for Defendant DENNY‘S, INC. OOOQQUIhUJN N N N N N N N N r-I n-A u-- I-I .-- H H p-n v-I r-A Q Ox U1 A b) N H O \O 00 Q O\ U1 # DJ N H O p \ 28 FORD & HARRISON WSACUVELLP:11738803.1 - 2 - LLP ICASE N0. 20CV367250 Anomays Ar Law DEFENDANT’S NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND PARTIES OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION L05 ANGELS \DOOQONKII#UJN>-t NNNNNNNNr-AHHr-AHHr-AHHr-A flomngHOOOOflONUl-PWNHO 28 FORD 8: HARRISON LLP ATTTTTTTT AT LAW Los AEEEEEE Case 5:20-cv-06134-VKD Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 1 of 9 Allison V. Saunders, Bar No. 220010 asaunders fordharrison.com Angela S. ontana, Bar No. 287398 afontana fordharrison.com FORD & RRISON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213 237-2400 Facmmile: 213 237-2401 Attorneys for Defendant DENNY'S, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BENITO GARCIA, an individual, Case No. Plaintiff, DEFENDANT DENNY’S, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL V. PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, 1446 DENNY'S, INC.,a Florida oration; and DOES 1-50, inc usive, Action filed: 6/12/20 Defendants. Date 0f Removal: 8/3 1/20 TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: Defendant Denny’ s, Inc. (“Denny’s”) files this notice 0f removal pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 and 1446. I. INTRODUCTION 1. On June 12, 2020, Plaintiff Benito Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in the Superior Court 0f California, County of Santa Clara, titled “Benito Garcia v. Denny’s, Ina; and Does 1-50, inclusive,” Case N0. 20CV367250 (“State Court Action”). (Declaration 0f Angela S. Fontana (“Fontana Decl.”) 1] 2.) 2. Plaintiff served the Complaint in the State Court Action to Denny’s through Denny’s registered agent for service ofprocess on July 30, 2020. WSACTIVELLP:11716832.1 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL \DOOQONKII-PUJNH NNNNNNNNr-AHHr-AHHr-AHHr-A flomngHOOOOflONUl-PWNHO 28 FORD 8: HARRISON LLP ATTTTTTTT AT LAW Los AEEEEEE Case 5:20-cv-06134-VKD Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 2 of 9 3. Pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), a true and correct copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon Denny’s in this action are attached t0 the Declaration of Angela S. Fontana as Exhibit A. (Fontana Decl. 1] 2 Ex. A.) 4. On August 27, 2020, Denny’s e-filed its Answer t0 the State Court Action. (Fontana Decl. 1] 3 EX. B.) 5. Pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), the foregoing exhibits constitute all process, pleadings and orders served 0n Denny’s and/or filed in the State Court Action by Denny’s. (Fontana Decl. 1] 4.) II. NATURE OF THE SUIT 6. The Complaint filed in the State Court Action alleges the following causes 0f action: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) meal and rest break Violations; (3) paystub Violation; (4) waiting time penalties; (5) penalty for failure t0 keep employee time records; and (6) Violation 0f California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. III. BASIS FOR REMOVAL: DIVERSITY 7. A federal court has “original jurisdiction 0f all civil actions Where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive 0f interest and costs, and is between . . . [c]itizens 0f different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). “[A]ny civil action brought in a State Court 0f which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Therefore, a state court action may be removed if: (1) the action is between citizens 0f different states, and (2) the matter in controversy exceeds the sum 0f $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Each 0f these requirements is met in this case. A. Complete Diversity 0f Citizenship 8. Plaintiff is a California resident. (Compl. 1] 1, Fontana Decl., EXh. A.) “The place Where a man lives is properly taken t0 be his domicile until facts adduced establish the contrary.” Dist. 0f Columbia v. Murphy, 314 U.S. 441, 455 WSACTIVELLP:11716832.1 - 2 - DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL \DOOQONKII-PUJNH NNNNNNNNr-AHHr-AHHr-AHHr-A flomngHOOOOflONUl-PWNHO 28 FORD 8: HARRISON LLP ATTTTTTTT AT LAW Los AEEEEEE Case 5:20-cv-06134-VKD Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 3 of 9 (1941). In the instant case, n0 facts have been adduced to rebut the presumption that Plaintiff is domiciled in California. Therefore, Plaintiff is a citizen of the State 0f California for diversity purposes. 9. “[A] corporation shall be deemed t0 be a citizen of any State and foreign state by Which it has been incorporated and 0f the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Denny’s is incorporated under the laws 0f the State of Florida. (Fontana Decl. 1H] 5-6, EX. C- D; Req. for Judicial Notice.) Denny’s principal place 0f business and headquarters are in South Carolina. (Id) Accordingly, Denny’s is a citizen 0f Florida and South Carolina for diversity purposes. 10. Because Plaintiff is a citizen 0f California, and Denny’s is a citizen of Florida and South Carolina, complete diversity exists between the parties. B. Amount in Controversy Exceeds $75,000 11. “[A] defendant’s notice 0f removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating C0., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). “[D]efendants do not need to prove t0 a legal certainty that the amount in controversy requirement has been met. Rather, defendants may simply allege 0r assert that the jurisdictional threshold has been met.” Id. at 88 (internal quotations omitted). Evidence establishing the amount is required “only when the plaintiff contests, 0r the court questions, the defendant’s allegation.” Id. at 89. 12. Plaintiff has not alleged a specific total amount in controversy in his Complaint. However, the Court can reasonably ascertain, based on the allegations in the Complaint and Plaintiff’s prayer for relief, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Denny’s assertions herein are limited t0 its preliminary understanding of Plaintiff’s claims and data currently available to Denny’s, and Denny’s denies any liability t0 Plaintiff whatsoever. /// WSACTIVELLP:11716832.1 - 3 - DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL \DOOQONKII-PUJNH NNNNNNNNHHHr-AHHr-AHHp-a flomngHOOOOflONUl-PWNHO 28 FORD 8: HARRISON LLP ATTTTTTTT AT LAW Los AEEEEEE Case 5:20-cv-06134-VKD Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 4 of 9 13. Here, Plaintiff alleges that he worked for Denny’s as a full-time General Manager at a Denny’s restaurant from on or about October 18, 2018 until February 18, 2019. (Compl. 1W 6, 9, Fontana Decl., EX. A.) The Complaint states he earned $80,000 annual salary plus bonuses based 0n the restaurant’s performance. (Compl. 1H] 6-7, Fontana Decl., EX. A.) Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that he was misclassified as an exempt employee and deprived 0f overtime pay, meal and rest breaks, and that Denny’s failed t0 keep accurate wage statements and time records. (Compl. 1H] 11-19, Fontana Decl., EX. A.) By this lawsuit, he seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime and double time, statutory penalties, compensatory damages, punitive damages, disgorgement 0f profits, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and such other relief as the Court finds proper, if any. (Compl., p. 10, Prayer for Relief, Fontana Decl., EX. A.) 14. Plaintiff specifically requests “$27,691.20” in alleged waiting time penalties pursuant to California Labor Code section 203 because he claims he was not timely paid wages at the time he quit his employment at Denny’s and that his wages are more than 30 days late. (Compl. 1] 38, Fontana Decl., EX. A) (emphasis added). He claims he had a daily rate of pay of “$923.04.” (Compl. 1] 48, Fontana Decl., EX. A.); see Cal. Lab. Code § 203 (“If an employer Willfillly fails to pay, without abatement or reduction . . . any wages of an employee Who is discharged or Who quits, the wages of the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefor is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than 30 days”). 15. Plaintiff also seeks “overtime pay for all hours worked by him in excess 0f eight hours in a day, 40 hours in a week, and all hours worked on the seventh consecutive day in a work week”; and “double pay for all hours worked by him in excess of 12 hours in a day and all hours worked in excess of eight hours on the seventh consecutive day of work in a work week.” (Compl. W 29-30, Fontana Decl., EX. A); See Cal. Lab. Code § 510(a) (indicating that overtime is WSACTIVELLP:11716832.1 - 4 - DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL \DOOQONKII-PUJNH NNNNNNNNr-AHHr-AHHr-AHHr-A flomngHOOOOflONUl-PWNHO 28 FORD 8: HARRISON LLP ATTTTTTTT AT LAW Los AEEEEEE Case 5:20-cv-06134-VKD Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 5 of 9 compensated at one-and-one-half times the regular rate of pay and double time is compensated at twice the regular rate of pay). Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that throughout his employment at Denny’s, he “typically worked from approximately 6:00 am. - 11:00 p.m., 5-6 days per week” (i.e. 17 hours per workday) and that he worked 6 workdays per week except for one week per month when he work 5 workdays. (Compl. 1H] 10, Fontana Decl., EX. A.) He further alleges that even “on his days off he worked approximately 2-3 hours per day”; and that he “worked another 1-1.5 hours from home each week” on his days off. (Compl. 1H] 10, 17, 19- 20, 22, Fontana Decl., Ex. A.) Although Denny’s denies that such relief would be appropriate, it is evident by Plaintiffs overtime allegations in the Complaint that Plaintiff has placed in controversy more than $67,305 in alleged unpaid overtime wages and double time wages alone. By way 0f example, assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiff had a regular rate of pay 0f $38.46 ($80,000 salary/ 52 weeks / 40 hours) - Which is a conservative assumption in light of Plaintiff’s allegation that he had a daily rate 0fpay of $923.04 - Plaintiff seeks approximately 4 hours overtime 0n the first five workdays per week ($38.46 X 1.5 X 4 hours x 5 days x 17.5 weeks = $20,191.50); 5 hours double time on the first five workdays per week ($38.46 X 2 x 5 hours X 5 days x 17.5 weeks = $33,652.50); 12 hours overtime 0n the sixth workday most weeks ($38.46 X 1.5 X 12 hours X 12.5 weeks = $8,653.50); and 5 hours double time 0n the sixth workday most weeks ($38.46 x 2 X 5 hours X 12.5 weeks = $4,807.5.) These assumptions do n_0t include additional overtime that Plaintiff contends he worked 0n his days off, or additional time that Plaintiff contends he worked from home each week as referenced above. Moreover, these assumptions are based 0n a regular rate 0f pay that is far leg than what Plaintiff contends he earned. (See Compl. 1] 48, Fontana Decl., EX. A) (alleging a daily rate ofpay of $923.04). 16. Further, Plaintiff asserts that “he was Lver allowed t0 take his uninterrupted 30-minute meal break and his paid 10-minute uninterrupted rest WSACTIVELLP:11716832.1 - 5 - DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL \DOOQONKII-PUJNH NNNNNNNNr-AHHr-AHHr-AHHr-A flomngHOOOOflONUl-PWNHO 28 FORD 8: HARRISON LLP ATTTTTTTT AT LAW Los AEEEEEE Case 5:20-cv-06134-VKD Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 6 of 9 break.” (Compl. 1] 23, Fontana Decl., EX. A) (emphasis added). As a result, he seeks “as a penalty, one hour 0f wages for each day that a proper rest period was not provided and one hour 0f wages for each day that a proper meal period was not provided” (Compl. 1] 40, Fontana Decl., EX. A.) 17. Additionally, Plaintiff requests penalties due t0 Denny’s alleged failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements for each pay period as required. (Compl. 1] 45, Fontana Decl., EX. A); see also Cal. Lab. Code § 226(6) (“An employee . . . is entitled to recover the greater of all actual damages 0r fifty dollars ($50) for the initial pay period in Which a Violation occurs and one hundred dollars ($100) per employee for each Violation in a subsequent pay period, not to exceed an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000), and is entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.”) 18. Plaintiff also seeks to recover his attorneys’ fees and costs under the California Labor Code. (Compl. fl 35, 49, 53, Fontana Decl., EX. A); see, e.g., Cal. Lab. Code § 226(6). It is well-settled that When authorized by statute, attorneys’ fees are t0 be included in the calculation of the amount in controversy for purposes of determining whether the requisite jurisdictional minimum is met. See Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[W]here an underlying statute authorizes an award of attorneys’ fees, either With mandatory or discretionary language, such fees may be included in the amount in controversy”); see also Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Ina, 243 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 1010-11 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (in deciding the amount in controversy, a court may estimate the amount 0f reasonable attorneys’ fees likely to be recovered by plaintiff if he were to prevail). While Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees cannot be precisely calculated from the face of the Complaint, the Court can reasonably conclude that the amount of attorneys’ fees Plaintiff could incur in the course 0f this matter, together with the other damages sought, place more than $75,000 in controversy. /// WSACTIVELLP:11716832.1 - 6 - DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL \DOOQONKII-PUJNH NNNNNNNNr-AHHr-AHHr-AHHr-A flomngHOOOOQONUl-PWNHO 28 FORD 8: HARRISON LLP ATTTTTTTT AT LAW Los AEEEEEE Case 5:20-cv-06134-VKD Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 7 of 9 19. Lastly, Plaintiff seeks open-ended relief as “such other and further relief that the court may deem just and proper.” (Compl. at Prayer for Relief.) Although uncertain in amount, this additional damages claim only serves t0 increase the amount in controversy. See Lewis v. Exxon Mobil Corp, 348 F. Supp. 2d 932, 934 (W.D. Tenn. 2004) (finding that the “open ended” relief sought by plaintiff established that his case met the amount in controversy requirement even though he pled in the complaint that he did not assert a claim in excess 0f $75,000.) 20. Denny’s denies that Plaintiff’s claims have any merit and denies that Plaintiff suffered any damages. However, When the relief sought (i.e., alleged unpaid overtime and double time, statutory penalties, compensatory damages, punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, attomeys’ fees, and such other relief as the Court may find proper) is taken as a whole, the amount in controversy for Plaintiff s claims exceeds the $75,000 jurisdiction requirement, exclusive of interest and costs. See Singer v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. C0., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997) (“The district court may consider Whether it is ‘facially apparent’ from the complaint that the jurisdictional amount is in controversy”); Kenneth Rothschild Trust v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 199 F. Supp. 2d 993, 1001 (CD. Cal. 2002) (“In measuring the amount in controversy, a court must assume that the allegations of the complaint are true and that a jury Will return a verdict for the plaintiff on all claims made in the complaint”). 21. Thus, this Court has original jurisdiction over the claims asserted by Plaintiff in this action based 0n diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)(1) and 1441(a). IV. THE NOTICE OF REMOVAL IS PROCEDURALLY CORRECT 22. Pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), Denny’s has attached to this notice and the Declaration of Angela S. Fontana, all pleadings, process and orders served 0n or filed by Denny’s in the State Court Action. (Fontana Decl. 1H] 2-4, Exs. A-B.) /// WSACTIVELLP:11716832.1 - 7 - DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL \DOOQONKII-PUJNH NNNNNNNNr-AHHr-AHHr-AHHr-A flomngHOOOOflONUl-PWNHO 28 FORD 8: HARRISON LLP ATTTTTTTT AT LAW Los AEEEEEE Case 5:20-cv-06134-VKD Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 8 of 9 23. Plaintiff served a copy 0f the Summons and the Complaint 0n Denny’s through its registered agent for service 0f process in the State Court Action on July 30, 2020. Therefore, this Notice of Removal is timely filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). See also Fed. R. CiV. P. 6(a)(1)(C). 24. Denny’s will promptly file and serve a notice 0f removal to the Clerk 0f Superior Court of California, County 0f Santa Clara. (See Fontana Decl. 1] 7, EX. E.) 25. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), Denny’s will give notice 0f this removal t0 Plaintiff. (Fontana Decl. 1] 7, EX. E.) V. VENUE 26. This action was brought and is pending before the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County. 27. Santa Clara County, California is located Within the Northern District 0f California. 28. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(2) because this is the “district and division embracing the place Where [Plaintiffs] action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), 1446(a). VI. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, Denny’s removes this civil action from the Superior Court 0f the State 0f California, Santa Clara County, t0 the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. By removing the action to this Court, Denny’s does not waive any defenses, objections, 0r motions available t0 it under state 0r federal law. Dated: August 31, 2020 Respectfully submitted, FORD & HARRISON LLP By: /s/Angela S. Fontana Allison V. Saunders Angela S. Fontana Attorneys for Defendant DENNY'S, INC. WSACTIVELLP:11716832.1 - 8 - DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL \DOOQONKII-PUJNH NNNNNNNNr-AHHr-AHHr-AHHr-A flomngHOOOOflONUl-PWNHO 28 FORD 8: HARRISON LLP ATTTTTTTT AT LAW Los AEEEEEE Case 5:20-cv-06134-VKD Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 9 of 9 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Mary Garner, declare: . I a_m a citizen 0f the UnitedStates and employed in Los An eles Cquntyt Cahfornla. I am over the age'of el hteen years and not a party to t e w1th1n-ent1tled actipn. My business address ls 35 South Grand Avenue, Sulte 2.30.0, Los Angeles, Cahforma 9007 1. On August 31, 2020, I served a copy of the w1th1n document(s): DEFENDANT DENNY’S, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, 1446 D ELECTRONICALLY; I caused a true and cqrrect cop jhereof t0 be electrompally filed usmg the Court's E1_ectron1c Court 11mg "ECF" System and servyce was com leted by electrongc'means by transmltta of a otlce of Electromq Flllng ont e reglsfieredfartlc'lpants 0f the ECF Sgstem. I served those part1es Who are not reglstere part1c1pants of the ECF ystem as indicated below. D by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with ostage thereon fully pre aid, in the United States mail. qt Log An eles, Ca ifomla addressed as set orth below. I am readlly famlhguj W1tht e firm's pract1_ce 9f collectlon and processmg corres 0ndence for mallln . Under that practlce 1t would be depOSIted Wlth th¢ U. . Postal Service ont at same day Wlth postage theyeon fully prepald 111 the ordynaljy course 0f busm_ess.. I am aware that 0n m_otlon of the party served, serVICe ls presumed mvalld 1f postal cancellatlon date orposta e meter date is more than one day after date 0f dep0s1t for ma111ng 1n affi av1t. by e-mail or electronic_transmission_. Based 9n an a§reement 0f the parties to accept serv1ce by e-mall or electromc transmlssmn, caused the documents t0 be sent 0n the date shown below t0 the e-mall addresses 0f the ersons 11sted below. My e-mail address is mgarner@fprdharrison.com. I_ di not receive w1th1n a reasonable tlme after the transmlss1on any electromc message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. Matthew C. Bradford Attorne s for Plaintiff Nathan M. Robinson Benito arcia Robinson Bradford LLP 3439 Brookside Road, Suite 212 Stockton, CA 95219 Telethne: 209-954-9001 Facsumle: 209-954-9091 E-ma11: matthew@r0b1ns0nbradford.net nathan robinsonbradfordnet nancy r0b1nsonbradf0rd.net _I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of Amerlca thapthe above ls true and correct. Executed 0n August 31, 2020, at Los Angeles, Cahfornla. Mary Garner WSACTIVELLP:11716832.1 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD 8: HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES PROOF OF SERVICE I, Mary Garner, declare: I am a citizen 0f the United States and employed in Los Angeles County, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business address is 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300, Los Angeles, California 90071. On September 1, 2020, I served a copy 0f the Within document(s): DEFENDANT DENNY’S, INC.’S NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND PARTIES OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION D by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope With postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California addressed as set forth below. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice 0f collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day With postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course 0f business. I am aware that 0n motion 0f the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date 0r postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. D by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed FedEx Overnight envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a FedEx agent for delivery. by causing the document(s) listed above to be personally delivered to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. D E by e-mail or electronic transmission. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail 0r electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent on the date shown below t0 the e-mail addresses 0f the persons listed below. My e-mail address is mgarner@f0rdharrison.com. I did not receive Within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. Matthew C. Bradford Attorneys for Plaintiff Nathan M. Robinson Benito Garcia Robinson Bradford LLP 3439 Brookside Road, Suite 212 Stockton, CA 952 1 9 Telephone: 209-954-9001 Facsimile: 209-954-9091 E-mail: matthew@robinsonbradford.net nathan@robinsonbradford.net nancy@robinsonbradf0rd.net I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on September 1, 2020, at Los Angeles, California. Mary Garner WSACTIVELLP:1 173 8803 .1 /CASE NO. 20CV367250 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE T0 STATE COURT AND PARTIES OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION