Notice

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.September 30, 2020

KOOONQUI-PUJNv-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-Kr-tr-tr-Kr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQUI-PUJNt-‘OKOOOQQKII#UJNHO 200V371039 Santa Clara - Civil SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations GREG S. LABATE, Cal. Bar No. 149918 KRISTI L. THOMAS, Cal. Bar No. 276511 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, California 92626-1993 Telephone: 714.513.5100 Facsimile: 714.513.5130 E mail glabate@sheppardmullin.com kthomas@sheppardmullin.com Attorneys for Defendant HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 11/23/2020 5:16 PM Reviewed By: R. Walker Case #20CV371 039 Envelope: 5351918 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA EDWARD SCOTT GAU, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a private attorney general, and BRANDY FOSTER-GAU, as a private attorney general, Plaintiffs, VS. HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 20CV371039 Assigned for A11 Purposes t0: Hon. Brian C. Walsh Dept. 1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT Complaint Filed: September 30, 2020 Trial Date: None Set TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 23, 2020, Defendant Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed its Notice 0f Removal of Civil Action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The federal court case number is 5:20-cv-08250. A conformed copy of the Notice of Removal is attached t0 this Notice as Exhibit 1. -1- SMRH:4826-2009-1089.1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT \OOOflQUl-PUJNv-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-‘r-t OONQU‘I-PUJNi-‘OKDOONQLII-PUJNF-‘O PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that under 28 U.S.C. Section 1446, the filing of the Notice 0f Removal 0f Civil Action in the United States District Court, together With the filing 0f the attached copy 0f said Notice of Removal of Civil Action with this court, effects the removal 0f this action, and this Court may proceed n0 further unless and until the case is remanded. Dated: November 23, 2020 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP By ""‘ dRE' s. LA‘BATE KRISTI L. THOMAS Attorneys for Defendant HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. -2- SMRH34826'2009'1089-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT Exhibit 1 KOOOQQUI-PUJNH NNNNNNNNNh-Av-Ab-tr-Av-Ar-Ah-Ar-Ab-tr-t OONQM-RWNHOKOOOQQM-RWNF-‘O Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 1 of 81 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A lelted L1ab111ty Partnershlp o Includin Professional Corporatlons GREG S. ABATE, Cal. Bar N0. 149918 KRISTI L. THOMAS, Cal. Bar N0. 276511 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, California 92626-1993 Telephone: 714.513.5100 Facsunile: 714.513.5130 _ E ma11 Elabate@sheppardmullln.com thomas@sheppardmulhn.com Attorne s for Defendant HILLS ONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EDWARD SCOTT GAU, as an Case N0. individual and 0n behalf 0f all others Slmflarly s1tuated, and as a rlvate gRemqved from Santa Clara Count?! attorne general, and BRA DY uperlor Court, Case N0. 20CV37 039] FOST R-GAU, as a prlvate attorney general, DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S Plaintiffs, NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT VS. PURSUANT TO THE CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC, a Delaware corporation; [I‘Eiled (gonculjrently with Declaration of and DOES 1 through 50, incluswe, 1110 Clambrlellp' quporate D1sclosure Statement; Certl 1cat10n O_f Interested Defendants. Entities or Persons; and C1V11 Case Cover Sheet] Complaint filed: September 30, 2020 Trial date: None Set TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, AND TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: _ 1 _ Case No. SMRHI4337-5123-4001-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT \OOOflQUl-bUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNh-Av-b-tr-Av-Ab-tr-Ar-b-tr-t OOQQM-RWNHOKOOONQM-RUJNF-‘O Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 2 of 81 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc. (“Defendant”) hereby removes the matter 0f Edward Scott Gau, et a1. V. Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc., et al., pending in the Superior Court 0f the State 0f California in and for the County 0f Santa Clara, Case N0. 20CV371039, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1441(b), and 1446.1/ Removal is based 0n the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1441(b) and 1446, 0n the following grounds: I. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION UNDER THE CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT 1. As the Court knows, CAFA grants federal district courts original jurisdiction over civil class action lawsuits filed under federal 0r state law in Which any member 0f a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a state different from any defendant, and where the matter in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive 0f interest and costs. 2. This Court has jurisdiction over this case under CAFA, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), and this case may be removed pursuant t0 the provisions 0f 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(3), in that it is a civil class action wherein: (1) the proposed class contains at least 100 members; (2) the primary defendants are not states, state officials 0r other governmental entities; (3) the total amount in controversy for all class members exceeds $5,000,000; and (4) there is diversity between at least one class member and one defendant. 1/ There is n0 requirement at the removal stage t0 attach evidence t0 support the allegations in the removal. Rather, removal is governed by Rule 8 requiring only a “short and plain statement 0f the grounds for removal.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC V. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 553 (2014). -2- Case N0. SMRHI4837-5123-4001-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT KOOOQQUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNh-Av-Ab-tr-Av-Ab-tr-Ar-Ab-tr-t OOQO‘xLJl-bWNHOKOOONQM-RUJNHO Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 3 of 81 3. Further, while there are a number 0f exceptions t0 this rule 0f original jurisdiction contained in 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(3)-(5), none 0f the exceptions are applicable here, as demonstrated hereafter. 4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. Sections 84(c), and 1391. 5. As set forth below, this case meets all of CAFA’s requirements for removal and is timely and properly removed by the filing 0f this Notice. II. STATUS OF PLEADINGS 6. On 0r about September 30, 2020, Plaintiffs Edward Scott-Gau and Brandy-Foster Gau (collectively “‘Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court 0f the State 0f California in and for the County 0f Santa Clara, entitled Edward Scott Gau, et a1. V. Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc., et a1., Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 20CV371039 (the “Complaint”). 7. A copy of the Complaint and related documents were served 0n Defendant 0n October 29, 2020 by way 0f a signed Notice and Acknowledgment 0f Receipt. A true and correct copy of the signed Notice and Acknowledgment 0f Receipt is attached hereto as Exhibit A. True and correct copies 0f the Complaint, Summons, Civil Case Cover Sheet, Civil Lawsuit Notice, Order Deeming Case Complex, COVID-19 Emergency Order Re: Complex Civil Actions, and ADR Info Sheet are attached hereto, as Exhibits B-H. 8. Plaintiffs assert in their Complaint that Defendant employed them and other persons in the capacity of non-exempt restaurant positions throughout the state 0f California. E Complaint, 1W 9, 11, 17. -3- Case No. SMRHI4337-5123-4001-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT \OOOQQUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-Av-b-tr-Av-Ab-tr-Ar-Ab-tr-t OONQLh-bWNHOKOOONQM-RUJNF-‘O Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 4 of 81 9. Plaintiffs’ Complaint contains five (5) causes 0f action.2/ These causes of action are for: (1) failure t0 provide lawful rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof under Labor Code Section 226.7 and applicable Wage Orders, along with failure t0 timely pay wages under Labor Code Sections 201-204; (2) failure to provide lawful meal periods 0r compensation in lieu thereof under Labor Code Sections 226.7, 5 12 and applicable Wage Orders, along With failure to timely pay wages under Labor Code Sections 201-204; (3) failure t0 comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions under Labor Code Section 226; (4) Violations 0f the Unfair Competition Law under Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.; and (5) Violations 0f the Private Attorneys General Act under Labor Code Section 2698 et seq. (“PAGA”).3/ fl Complaint. 10. On October 29, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Proof of Service, and Defendant filed its complex fees. On November 18, 2020, Defendant filed its Answer to Plaintiffs’ unverified Complaint. A true and correct copy 0f Plaintiffs’ Proof 0f Service is attached hereto as Exhibit I. A true and correct copy 0f Defendant’s Notice 0f Posting Complex Fees is attached hereto as Exhibit J. A true and correct copy 0f Defendant’s Answer is attached hereto as Exhibit K. 2/ It is unclear in Plaintiffs’ Complaint Whether only Plaintiff Edward Scott Gau is bringing the class claims in addition t0 the PAGA claim, 0r Whether Plaintiff Brandy Foster-Gau is also bringing the class claims, in addition t0 the PAGA claim. E Complaint, Prayer (Plaintiff Brandy Foster-Gau appears t0 be claiming damages under all causes 0f action); Complaint 1] 36 (“Defendants fail to provide Plaintiffs”). As noted herein, even if only Plaintiff Brandy-Foster Gau is bringing a PAGA claim, supplemental jurisdiction would still exist over her PAGA claim. 3/ The alleged damages calculations herein only include calculations 0f Plaintiffs’ claims for failure t0 provide lawful meal and rest periods. A calculation of the alleged damages 0f each 0f Plaintiffs’ claims would be much higher, but it is unnecessary for CAFA removal. -4- Case No. SMRHI4837-5123-4001-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT KOOOQQUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNh-Av-Ab-tr-Av-Ab-tr-Ar-Ab-tr-t OONQLh-bWNHOKOOONQM-RUJNF-‘O Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 5 of 81 III. JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO CAFA IS SATISFIED A. Minimum Diversitv Of Citizenship Exists Here 11. Pursuant t0 Section 4 0f CAFA, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2): The district courts shall have original jurisdiction 0f any civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum 0r Zlaalélseafiiiflgggigggfi Exclusive 0f interest and costs, and is a (A) any member 0f a class 0f plaintiffs is a citizen 0f a State different from any defendant. 12. CAFA’s minimal diversity requirement is satisfied When: (1) at least one plaintiff is a citizen 0f a state in Which none of the defendants are citizens; (2) at least one plaintiff is a citizen of a foreign state and one defendant is a U.S. citizen; 0r (3) at least one plaintiff is a U.S. citizen and one defendant is a citizen of a foreign state. E 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). 13. Plaintiffs are residents and citizens 0f California. Plaintiffs’ last known addresses 0n file With Defendant are in San Mateo, California. E Declaration 0f Tino Ciambriello (“Ciambriello Decl.”), 1] 8. Further, as set forth in the Complaint, Plaintiffs worked for Defendant in California. m Complaint, 11 9. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are citizens 0f California for purposes 0f determining diversity. E 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (an individual is a citizen 0f the state in Which he 0r she is domiciled); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. C0. V. Dyer, 19 F.3d 514, 520 (10th Cir. 1994) (residence is prima facie evidence 0f domicile for purposes 0f determining citizenship). 14. For diversity purposes, a corporation is deemed t0 be a citizen of the state in which it has been incorporated and the state where it has its principal place ofbusiness. E 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). A corporation’s principal place 0f business is the state containing “‘a substantial predominance 0f corporate operations.” Tosco Corp. V. Communities for a Better Environment, 236 F.3d 495, -5- Case No. SMRHI4337-5123-4001-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT \OOOQQUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNh-Av-Ab-tr-Av-Ab-tr-Ar-Ab-tr-t OONQM-bWNHOKOOONQM-RWNHO Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 6 of 81 500 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Indus. Tectonics, Inc. V. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990)). 15. The U.S. Supreme Court has issued clarification 0n the definition of a corporation’s “principal place 0f business.” In Hertz Corp. V. Friend, 130 S.Ct. 118 1, 1192 (2010), the Supreme Court concluded that that “principal place of business’ is best read as referring t0 the place Where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities.” The Supreme Court further clarified that, “in practice” the principal place 0f business “should normally be the place Where the corporation maintains its headquarters - provided that the headquarters is the actual center of direction, control, and coordination.”m mg, 130 S.Ct. at 1192. 16. Under the foregoing standard, the facts here clearly establish that Defendant is a citizen 0f Delaware and Arizona for purposes of removal. Defendant was incorporated in the State 0f Delaware and maintains its corporate headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona. E Complaint, 1] 12; Ciambriello Decl., 1H] 2-4. Arizona is where Defendant’s high-level officers, including its Chief Executive Officer, direct, control, and coordinate Defendant’s activities. Defendant’s executive operations are managed from its corporate headquarters in Arizona, including but not limited t0, those operations relating t0 administering company-Wide policies and procedures, legal affairs, and general business operations. Accordingly, Defendant’s principal place of business is in Arizona. E Ciambriello Decl. 1H] 2-4; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); Tosco Cogp., 236 F.3d at 500. 17. In accordance With the foregoing, Plaintiffs are citizens of the State 0f California, While Defendant is a citizen of the States 0f Delaware and Arizona, which are the state 0f incorporation and the principal place 0f business, respectively, for Defendant. Thus, the minimum diversity requirement under CAFA is satisfied. 18. Pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a), the residence 0f fictitious and unknown defendants should be disregarded for purposes 0f establishing removal -6- Case N0. SMRHI4837-5123-4001-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT KOOOQQUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNh-Av-Ab-tr-Av-Ab-tr-Ar-b-tr-t OONQM-bWNHOKOOONQM-RWNHO Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 7 of 81 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. Fristoe V. Reynolds Metals C0., 615 F.2d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir. 1980) (unnamed defendants are not required t0 join in a removal petition). Soliman V. Philip Morris, Inc., 311 F.3d 966, 971 (9th Cir. 2002) (citizenship 0f fictitious defendants disregarded for removal). Thus, the existence of Doe defendants 1 through 50, does not deprive this Court ofjurisdiction. B. The Amount In Controversv Exceeds The $5,000,000 Requirement Under-CAFA 19. Without making an admission 0f liability or damages With respect to any aspects of this case or the proper legal test(s) applicable to Plaintiffs’ allegations 0n behalf 0f themselves and the putative class, the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum 0f this Court as detailed below. 20. “[A] defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdiction threshold.” % Cherokee, 135 S.Ct. at 554. Moreover, a defendant need not set forth evidence establishing the amount in its notice 0f removal. I_d. A defendant is not obliged t0 “research, state, and prove the plaintiff s claims for damages.” McCraw V. Lyons, 863 F. Supp. 430, 434 (W.D. Ky. 1994). A defendant can establish the amount in controversy by setting forth a plausible allegation in the notice of removal that the amount placed in controversy by Plaintiff exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. E Dart Cherokee, 135 S. Ct. at 547 (holding that “a defendant’s notice 0f removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold” and evidentiary submissions are required only if “the plaintiff contests, 0r the court questions, the defendant’s allegations”). 21. CAFA authorizes the removal 0f class actions in Which, among the other factors mentioned above, the aggregate amount in controversy for all class members exceeds five million dollars ($5,000,000.00). fl 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). By demonstrating that the actual amount in controversy exceeds the threshold, _7_ Case No. SMRHI4837-5123-4001-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT \OOOQQUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-Av-Ab-tr-Av-Ab-tr-Ar-Ab-tr-t OONONm-meHOKOOONONm-bwmwo Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 8 of 81 Defendant does not concede the validity 0f Plaintiffs’ claims 0r the likelihood that Plaintiffs will certify any class 0r recover anything. 22. “In determining the amount in controversy, the Court accepts the allegations contained in the complaint as true and assumes the jury Will return a verdict in the plaintiff s favor 0n every claim.” Henry V. Cent. Freight Lines, Inc. , 692 F. App'X 806, 807 (9th Cir. 2017). “The amount in controversy is simply an estimate of the total amount in dispute, not a prospective assessment of defendant's liability.” Lewis V. Verizon C0mmuns., Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 400 (9th Cir. 2010); Coleman V. Estes Express Lines, Inc., 730 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1148 (CD. Cal. 2010) (“In deciding the amount in controversy, the Court looks to what the plaintiff has alleged, not what the defendants Will owe. . .”) (aff‘d by 631 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 201 1)). 23. Defendant provides the following calculations only to demonstrate that the amount in controversy in this case easily exceeds the jurisdictional amount in controversy under CAFA jurisdiction. Defendant makes n0 admission 0f any liability 0r damages With respect t0 any aspect 0f this case, 0r t0 the proper legal test t0 be applied t0 Plaintiffs’ claims. Nor does Defendant waive its right t0 ultimately contest the proper amount of damages due, if any, should Plaintiffs prevail With respect t0 any 0f their claims. 24. Plaintiffs’ Complaint suggests that the putative class is: “[A]11 current and former non-exempt restaurant employees of Defendants in the State of California Who worked at least 3.5 hours in any work shift since April 6, 2016” (the “Proposed Putative Rest Period Class”), and “[A]11 current and former non-exempt restaurant employees 0f Defendants in the State 0f California Who worked more than 5.0 hours in any work shift since April 6, 2016” (the “Proposed Putative Meal Period Class”). E Complaint, 1] 17. Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that the Proposed Putative Rest Period Class and the Proposed Putative Meal Period Class -8- Case No. SMRHI4337-5123-4001-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT KOOOQQUI-bWNH NNNNNNNNNr-tr-ih-tr-tr-ih-tr-tr-ir-tr-t OONQMAWNP-‘OQOONQU‘I-PWNHO Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 9 of 81 are together known as the “Class” (the “Proposed Putative Class”). E Complaint, 11 17. 25. Defendant independently determined based 0n its own business records that Plaintiffs’ Proposed Putative Rest Period Class, as suggested in their Complaint, is comprised of approximately 3,369 non-exempt hourly employees between September 30, 2016 and present.4/ E Ciambriello Decl., W 5-6(a). 26. Defendant independently determined based on its own business records that Plaintiffs’ Proposed Putative Meal Period Class, as suggested in their Complaint, is comprised 0f approximately 3,282 non-exempt hourly employees between September 30, 2016 and present. E Ciambriello Decl., 1H] 5-6(b). 27. Defendant independently determined based on its own business records that Plaintiffs’ Proposed Putative Class, as suggested in their Complaint, is comprised 0f approximately 3,369 non-exempt hourly employees between September 30, 2016 and present.5/ E Ciambriello Decl., 1H] 5-6(c). 28. Defendant independently determined based 0n its own business records that during the period of September 30, 2016 t0 present, Defendant paid Proposed Putative Class members an average hourly rate of approximately $ 1 6.67. E Ciambriello Decl., 1] 7. 29. Defendant independently determined based on its own business records that between September 30, 2016 and present, the Proposed Putative Rest Period Class worked approximately 215,964 workweeks. E Ciambriello Decl., 1H] 5-6(d). 4/ Plaintiffs allege that the Class Period is April 6, 2016 to present, as opposed t0 September 30, 2016 (four years prior to the filing of the Complaint) t0 present, which would presumably encompass even more non-exempt hourly employees and workweeks. E Complaint, 1] 17. 5/ Those employees in the Proposed Putative Meal Period Class (approximately 3,282 employees) would fall Within the Proposed Putative Rest Period Class (approximately 3,369 employees), given that employees who work a shift of greater than 5 hours would also work a shift of at least 3.5 hours, making the total approximately 3,369 members in the Proposed Putative Class. -9- Case No. SMRH14837-5123-4001~1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, TNC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT \OOOQQUIAUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNr-Av-Ab-tr-Av-Ab-tr-Ar-Ab-tr-t OONQM-bWNHOKOOOflQM-RWNHO Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 10 of 81 30. Defendant independently determined based 0n its own business records that between September 30, 2016 and present, the Proposed Putative Meal Period Class worked approximately 215,732 workweeks. fl Ciambriello Decl., 1H 5-6(e). a. Rest Periods 3 1. Labor Code Section 226.7 requires employers t0 pay an extra hour’s pay t0 employees Who are not provided a meal period 0r a rest period. E Lyon V. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 2010 WL 1753194, *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2010) (noting that Labor Code section 226.7 provides recovery for one meal break Violation per work day and one rest break Violation per work day). The statute of limitations for recovery for meal or rest period premium pay under California Labor Code Section 226.7 pay is three years. Murphy V. Kenneth Cole Prods., Inc., 40 Cal. 4th 1094, 1099 (2007) (“[T]he remedy provided in Labor Code in the Complaint, Defendant Will conservatively assume that putative class members were not provided just one meal period and one rest period each workweek”). Plaintiffs’ UCL claim extends the liability period of the meal and rest period Violations claims to four years. E Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17208. As such, the UCL’s four-year statute of limitations applies When determining the amount in controversy for this claim. 32. For their first cause of action, Plaintiffs claim that “Defendants routinely failed t0 authorize and permit Plaintiffs and other non-exempt restaurant employees t0 take duty-free lO-minute rest periods for every four hours worked, or major fraction thereof. Specifically, Plaintiffs and other non-exempt restaurant employees were required t0 remain on duty and t0 respond t0 any work-related issues during rest periods. Defendants also routinely failed to pay Plaintiffs and other non-exempt restaurant employees the requisite rest period premium pay of an additional hour 0f wages. Defendants thus Violate Section 226.7 and the applicable IWC Wage Order.” E Complaint, 1] 3. -10- Case No. SMRHI4337-5123-4001-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT KOOOQQUIAUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNh-Av-Ab-tr-Av-Ab-tr-Ar-Ab-tr-t OONQLh-bWNHOKOOONQM-RUJNF-‘O Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 11 of 81 33. Plaintiffs go 0n t0 claim that “throughout their employments, Defendants did not authorize and permit Plaintiffs t0 take duty-free 10-minute rest periods for every four hours worked, 0r maj0r fraction thereof, and did not provide duty-free 30-minute meal periods within the first five hours of work.” E Complaint, 1] 11. 34. Further, Plaintiffs claim that “Defendants uniformly administer a corporate policy and practice 0f routinely failing to (i) authorize and permit rest periods t0 employees Who worked at least 3.5 hours, (ii) provide meal periods Who worked more than 5.0 hours . . . .” E Complaint, 1] 20. 35. Notably, the Complaint is silent as t0 the amount of the alleged rest periods Plaintiffs claim t0 have been denied. Nonetheless, as noted above, the Complaint contemplates at least a 50 percent Violation rate, if not a 100 percent Violation rate, and such rate can be properly assumed for purposes 0f calculating the amount in controversy of Plaintiffs’ rest period claim. Stafford V. Dollar Tree Stores, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42564, *23 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (it is “reasonable t0 estimate thatfifly percent 0f meal periods were missed because the plaintiff alleged that “members of the class were 'routinely‘ denied meal periods’ as part 0f a ‘policy and practice”’); Coleman, 730 F. Supp. 2d at 1149 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (“courts have assumed a 100% Violation rate in calculating the amount in controversy when the complaint does not allege a more precise calculation”); Sanchez V. Russell Sigler, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55667, *16 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2015) (“Defendant's use 0f a 100% Violation rate is proper in this case because Plaintiffs complaint alleges universal deprivation of meal and rest periods.”); Mortlev V. Express Pipe & Supply Q, 2018 WL 7081 15, at *4 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (100% Violation rate proper When allegations are “routine and systematic Violations” 0f California’s meal and rest period laws). 36. While Defendant is entitled to assume a 100 percent Violation rate (126., five missed rest periods per workweek), and at the very least a 50 percent Violation -1 1- Case N0. SMRHI4837-5123-4001-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT KOOOQQUIAUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNh-Av-Ab-tr-Av-Ab-tr-Ar-Ab-tr-t OONONm-meHOKOOOQONm-bwmwo Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 12 of 81 rate based 0n the sparse allegations in the Complaint, Defendant will assume a conservative 20 percent Violation rate (1 missed rest period per workweek) here.6/ 37. Assuming a 20 percent Violation rate, the amount in controversy for Plaintiffs” rest period claim for the Proposed Putative Rest Period Class is $3,600,1 19.88 [($16.67/h0ur * 1 rest period premium payment) * 215,964 workweeks] . b. Meal Periods 38. Again, Labor Code Section 226.7 requires employers to pay an extra hour’s pay to employees who are not provided a meal period or a rest period. E Lyon V. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 2010 WL 1753194, *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2010) (noting that Labor Code section 226.7 provides recovery for one meal break Violation per work day and one rest break Violation per work day). The statute of limitations for recovery for meal or rest period premium pay under California Labor Code Section 226.7 pay is three years. Murphy V. Kenneth Cole Prods., 1110., 40 Cal. 4th 1094, 1099 (2007) (“[T]he remedy provided in Labor Code in the Complaint, Defendant will conservatively assume that putative class members were not provided just one meal period and one rest period each workweek”). Plaintiffs’ UCL claim extends the liability period 0f the meal and rest period Violations claims t0 four years. fl Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17208. As such, the UCL’s four- year statute 0f limitations applies When determining the amount in controversy for this claim. 6/ As noted above, Defendant is entitled t0 assume a 100 percent Violation rate, 0r at the very least a 50 percent Violation rate, based 0n the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint that Defendant’s conduct was “routine” and “uniform.” E Complaint, W 3, 11, 20. If Defendant were t0 assume a 100 percent Violation rate, the amount in controversy for Plaintiffs’ rest period claim as to the Proposed Putative Rest Period Class would be $ 1 8,000,599.40 [($ 1 6.67/hour * 5 rest period premium payments) * 215,964 workweeks]. _ 1 2_ Case No. SMRHI4837-5123-4001-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT \OOOQQUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNh-Av-Ab-tr-Av-Ab-tr-Ar-Ab-tr-t OOQQM-bWNHOKOOOflQM-RWNHO Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 13 of 81 39. For their second cause 0f action, Plaintiffs claim that “On shifts exceeding five hours of work, Defendants also routinely failed t0 provide Plaintiffs and other non-exempt restaurant employees With a duty-free 30-minute meal period within the first five hours 0f work. As for [meal] periods, Plaintiffs and other non- exempt restaurant employees were required to remain 0n work premises, 0n duty, and available t0 respond t0 work-related issues during meal periods. Although Plaintiffs and other non-exempt restaurant employees were required t0 take on-duty meal periods, Defendants also routinely failed t0 pay Plaintiffs and other non- exempt restaurant employees the requisite meal period premium pay 0f an additional hour 0f wages. Defendants thus Violate Sections 226.7 and 5 12 and the applicable IWC Wage Order.” E Complaint, 1] 4. 40. Plaintiffs go 0n t0 claim that “throughout their employments, Defendants did not authorize and permit Plaintiffs t0 take duty-free 10-minute rest periods for every four hours worked, 0r maj0r fraction thereof, and did not provide duty-free 30-minute meal periods within the first five hours 0f work.” E Complaint, 11 11. 41. Further, Plaintiffs claim that “Defendants uniformly administer a corporate policy and practice 0f routinely failing t0 (i) authorize and permit rest periods t0 employees Who worked at least 3.5 hours, (ii) provide meal periods Who worked more than 5.0 hours . . . .” fl Complaint, 1] 20. 42. Again, the Complaint is silent as t0 the amount of the alleged meal periods Plaintiffs claim to have been denied. Nonetheless, as noted above, the Complaint contemplates at least a 50 percent Violation rate, if not a 100 percent Violation rate, and such rate can be properly assumed for purposes 0f calculating the amount in controversy 0f Plaintiffs’ meal period claim. Stafford V. Dollar Tree Stores, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42564, *23 (ED. Cal. 2014) (it is “reasonable t0 estimate thatfifiy percent 0f meal periods were missed because the plaintiff alleged that ‘members 0f the class were 'routinely' denied meal periods’ as part of a ‘policy -13- Case No. SMRHI4837-5123-4001-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT KOOOQQUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-Av-b-tr-Av-Ab-tr-Ar-Ab-tr-t OONQLh-bWNHOKOOONQM-RUJNF-‘O Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 14 of 81 and practice’”); Coleman, 730 F. Supp. 2d at 1149 (CD. Cal. 2010) (“courts have assumed a 100% Violation rate in calculating the amount in controversy When the complaint does not allege a more precise calculation”); Sanchez V. Russell Sigler, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55667, *16 (CD. Cal. Apr. 28, 2015) (“Defendant's use 0f a 100% Violation rate is proper in this case because Plaintiffs complaint alleges universal deprivation 0f meal and rest periods.”); MortleV V. Express Pipe & Supply Q, 2018 WL 7081 15, at *4 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (100% Violation rate proper When allegations are “routine and systematic Violations” of California’s meal and rest period laws). 43. While Defendant is entitled t0 assume a 100 percent Violation rate (i.e., five missed meal periods per workweek), and at the very least a 50 percent Violation rate based 0n the sparse allegations in the Complaint, Defendant Will assume a conservative 2O percent Violation rate (1 missed meal period per workweek) here.7/ 44. Assuming a 20 percent Violation rate, the amount in controversy for Plaintiffs’ meal period claim for the Proposed Putative Meal Period Class is $3,596,252.44 [($16.67/h0ur * 1 meal period premium payment) * 215,732 workweeks]. 45. Therefore, the amount in controversy for Plaintiffs’ meal and rest period claims alone, $7,196,372.32, exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of $5,000,000. 46. For all 0f the forgoing reasons, Defendant alleges that the amount placed in controversy by Plaintiffs is greater than the jurisdictional minimum 0f $5,000,000 required by CAFA, both at the time removal and at the institution of this 7/ As noted above, Defendant is entitled t0 assume a 100 percent Violation rate, 0r at the very least a 50 percent Violation rate based 0n the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint that Defendant’s conduct was “routine” and “uniform.” E Complaint, W 4, 11, 20. If Defendant were t0 assume a 100 percent Violation rate, the amount in controversy for Plaintiffs’ meal period claim as t0 the Proposed Putative Meal Period Class would be $17,981,262.20 [($16.67/h0ur * 5 meal period premium payments) * 215,732 workweeks]. _ 1 4_ Case No. SMRHI4837-5123-4001-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT \OOOQQUIAUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNh-Av-Ab-tr-Av-Ab-tr-Ar-Ab-tr-t OONQM-bWNHOKOOONQM-RWNHO Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 15 of 81 civil action. The amount in controversy requirement for CAFA is therefore satisfied. c. N0 CAFA Exceptions Applv 47. CAFA contains a number 0f exceptions to its grant of original jurisdiction, contained in 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d)(3)-(5). However, none of these exceptions are applicable here. 48. The first is a discretionary exception based on the number 0f putative class members found in the state Where the action was filed. E 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(3). However, the exception only applies where the “primary defendants are citizens 0f the State in which the action was originally filed.” Here, the action was originally filed in California and, as noted above, Defendant, which is the only defendant in this action, is not a citizen 0f California. Thus, this exception does not apply. 49. Similarly, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(4) contains two further exceptions to CAFA’S grant ofjurisdiction, based 0n the number of putative class members in the state in Which the action was filed. However, this exception, too, only applies Where all primary defendants, 0r at least one defendant Whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by the proposed plaintiff class, is a “citizen of the State in which the action was originally filed.” g 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(II) and 1332(d)(4)(B). Given that this action was originally filed in California, and that Defendant, Which is the only defendant in this lawsuit, Whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by the putative class, is not a California citizen, these exceptions also d0 not apply. 50. Finally, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(5) presents two additional exceptions for defendants Who are government entities, or putative classes Which number less than 100 in the aggregate.E 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(5)(A)-(B). Given -15- Case No. SMRHI4337-5123-4001-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT KOOOQQUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNh-Av-Ab-tr-Ar-Ab-tr-Ar-b-tr-t OONQM-bWNHOKOOONQM-RUJNF-‘O Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 16 of 81 that the only Defendant here is not a governmental entity, and that the proposed class numbers are in the thousands, these exceptions also d0 not apply. IV. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION 51. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a): “Exqe tas rovided in subsections (b) and (c) 9r.as expressly pr0V1 ed 0t erw1se by Federal statute, 1n an c1V11 actlon 0f Which the district courts have original juris iction the distriqt courts shall have supplemental 'urisdiction over afl other clalms that are $0 related t0 claims int e action within such original Jurlsdlctlon that they form part 0f the same page or controversy under Article HI pf thq Umted States Consjututlon. Such supplemental Jurlsdlctlon shall .mclude clalms that mvolve the Jelnder or Interventlon 0f addltlonal partles.” 52. T0 the extent the Court concludes it lacks original jurisdiction over any 0f Plaintiffs’ claims, it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a), since each 0f Plaintiffs’ causes 0f action emanate from and form part of the same “case or controversy” as Plaintiffs’ other claims, such that they should all be tried in one action. See Nishimoto V. Federman- Backrach & Assoc., 903 F.2d 709, 714 (9th Cir. 1990). Considerations 0f convenience, judicial economy, and fairness t0 the litigants strongly favor this Court exercising jurisdiction over all claims pleaded in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint. E Executive Software V. U.S. Dist. Court, 24 F.3d 1545, 1557 (9th Cir. 1994);fl alfi Pinnock V. Solana Beach D0 It YourselfD02 Wash, Inc., 2007 WL 1989635, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 2007). 53. Here, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ non-class PAGA claim, because that claim emanates from and forms part 0f the same “case or controversy” as Plaintiffs’ class claims, such that they should all be tried in one action.8/ Nishimoto V. Federman-Backrach & Assoc., 903 F.2d 709, 714 (9th Cir. 8/ Even if only Plaintiff Brandy-Foster Gau is bringing a PAGA claim, supplemental jurisdiction would still exist over her PAGA claim. E 28 U.S.C. § -16- Case No. SMRHI4837-5123-4001-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT KOOOQQUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-Av-b-tr-Av-Ab-tr-Ar-Ab-tr-t OONQLh-bWNHOKOOONQM-RUJNF-‘O Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 17 of 81 1990). Plaintiffs’ PAGA claim seeks t0 recover civil penalties arising from the same exact alleged wage and hour Violations alleged in Plaintiffs’ class claims. E Complaint, 1H] 49-50; Thompson V. Target Com, 2016 WL 41 19937, at *12 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (“Plaintiffs PAGA and class claims concern the same misconduct by Defendant and the PAGA claims are therefore properly Within the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction”). Considerations 0f convenience, judicial economy, and fairness to the litigants strongly favor this Court exercising jurisdiction over all claims pleaded in the Complaint. See Executive Software V. U.S. Dist. Court, 24 F.3d 1545, 1557 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Pinnock, 2007 WL 1989635, at *3. 54. None 0f the exceptions t0 supplemental jurisdiction found in 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(0) are applicable t0 this case. Plaintiffs’ PAGA claim does not raise novel or complex issues 0f State law different from the class claims, it does not substantially predominate over the named Plaintiffs’ individual claims, the class claims have not been dismissed, and there are n0 exceptional circumstances 0r compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction. The exceptions enumerated in 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(0) are the exclusive grounds under Which the Court may decline t0 exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Exec. Software N. Am, 24 F.3d at 1 5 5 6. 55. For these reasons the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over any claims pleaded by Plaintiffs falling outside 0f the Court’s original jurisdiction, including but not limited t0 Plaintiffs’ claim for civil penalties under PAGA, Labor Code Sections 2699, et seq. E Complaint, 1] 49. 1367(a)-(b); see also Exxon Mobile Corp. V. Allapattah Servs., 545 U.S. 546, 558- 61 (2005) (superseded by the Class Action Fairness Act 0f 2005, but noted in Frisby V. Keith D. Weiner & Assocs. C0., LPA, 669 F. Supp. 2d 863, 871, fn. 3 (ND. Ohio 2009) that the Supreme Court’s broad reading 0f Section 1367 in Exxon is instructive); Hartman V. Vail Com, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75630, *4-8 (D. C010., August 23, 2010); Arnold V. Kimberly Quality Care Nursing Service, 762 F. Supp. 1182, 1185 (MD. Pa. 1991). -17- Case No. SMRHI4837-5123-4001-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT \OOOflQUl-bUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNr-Av-b-tr-Av-Ab-tr-Ar-Ab-tr-t OONQM-RWNHOKOOONQM-RWNHO Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 18 of 81 V. TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL 56. As required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b), this Notice 0f Removal is timely filed Within thirty (3 0) days after service 0f the Complaint 0n October 29, 2020.9/ See Murphy Bros. V. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999) (thirty-day Window t0 remove does not run until formal service is complete under state law). VI. NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF 57. Contemporaneous with the filing 0f this Notice of Removal in the United States District Court for the Northern District 0f California, written notice of such filing Will be served 0n Plaintiffs’ counsel 0f record, at Diversity Law Group, P.C., 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250, Los Angeles, CA 90071, and at Polaris Law Group LLP, 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200, Hollister, CA 95023. In addition, a copy 0f this Notice 0f Removal Will be filed With the Clerk of the Court for the Superior Court 0f the County of Santa Clara, California. 58. In compliance With 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(a), true and correct copies 0f all “process, pleadings, and orders” from the state court action served 0n Defendant 0r filed by Defendant are attached hereto as Exhibits A-K. WHEREFORE, having provided notice as is required by law, the above- entitled action should be removed from the Superior Court for the County 0f Santa Clara t0 this Court. 9/ The 30th day from service falls 0n November 28, 2020, a Saturday. Pursuant t0 Fed. R. CiV. P. 6(a)(1)(C), the time t0 remove is extended t0 the next non-holiday Monday, Which is November 30, 2020. See Yanik V. Countrywide Home Loans, Q, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115717, at *9 11.6 (C.D. 2010) (“Because 3O days from July 22, 2010 falls 0n a weekend, defendants had until August 23, 2010 t0 remove.” . _ 1 8- Case No. SMRHI4837-5123-4001-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT KOOOQQUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-Av-tr-tr-tv-tr-tr-tr-b-tr-t OOQO‘xLJl-RWNHOKOOOQQM-RUJNF-‘O Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 19 of 81 Dated: November 23. 2020 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP BY /S/ Kristi L. Thomas GREG S. LABATE KRISTI L. THOMAS Attorneys for Defendant HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP. INC. -19- Case No. SMRHI4337-5123-4001-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 20 of 81 Exhibit A October 29, 2020 GREG S, LABATE Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 21 of 81 POS-015 ATTORNEY 0R PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY _Larly W. Lee (SBN 228175) / Simon L. Yang (SBN 260286) Diversity Law Group, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 TELEPHONE NO-I 2 [3-488-6555 FAX NO- (°p"°"a”5 2 l 3-488-6554 E'MA'L ADDRESS (opm’na’): lwlee@diversitylaw.com ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiffs Edward Scott Gau and Brandy Foster-Gau SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 0F SANTA CLARA STREET ADDRESS: 191 N. First Street MAILING ADDRESS: CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Jose, CA 951 13 BRANCH NAME: Downtown Superior Court PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Edward Scott Gau and Brandy Foster-Gau DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc. CASE NUMBER: NOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT-CIVIL 20CV37|039 TO (insert name ofpan‘y being served): Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation NOTICE The summons and other documents identified below are being served pursuant to section 415.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Your failure to complete this form and return it within 20 days from the date of mailing shown below may subject you (or the party on whose behalf you are being served) to liability for the payment of any expenses incurred in serving a summons on you in any other manner permitted by law. If you are being served on behalf ofa corporation, an unincorporated association (including a partnership), or other entity, this form must be signed by you in the name of such entity or by a person authorized to receive service of process on behalf of such entity. In all other cases, this form must be signed by you personally or by a person authorized by you to acknowledge receipt of summons. If you return this form to the sender, service of a summons is deemed complete on the day you sign the acknowledgment of receipt below. Date of mailing: October 9, 2020 Erika Meiia ’ QWz/K ‘D (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE 0F éENgR-MUST NOT BE A PARTY IN THIS CASE) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT This acknowledges receipt of (to be completed by sender before mailing): 1. A copy of the summons and ofthe complaint. 2. Other (specify): Civil Case Cover Sheet; Civil Lawsuit Notice; Order Deeming Case Complex; COVID-l9 Emergency Order Re: Complex Civil Actions; ADR Info Sheet (To be completed by recipient): Date this form is signed: D (TYPE OR PRINT YOUR NAME AND NAME OF ENTITY. IF ANY. (SIGNATURE OF P ON WHOSE BEHALF THIS FORM IS SIGNED) ACKNOWLEDGMENT O ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT. WITH TITLE IF ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PERSON OR ENTITY) Page 1 of 1 F°5'3dfg?:.pg:du’n‘g.“flfimgse NOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT 0F RECEIPT- CIVIL 0°“ “0”“ P'°Ced”'6v §§ 415.30, 41 7.10 POS-015 [Rev. January 1. 2005] www‘coum'nfo.ca‘gov KOOOQQUl-PUJNt-t NNNNNNNNNr-Ar-tv-tr-th-tr-tr-th-tr-tr-A OONQUl-PUJNi-‘OKOOOQQU‘I-PUJNF-‘O Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 22 of 81 PROOF OF SERVICE Edward Scott Gau V. Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc., et al. Santa Clara Superior Court Case N0.: 20CV371039 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE At the time of service, I was over 18 years 0f age and not a party t0 this action. I am employed in the County of Orange, State 0f California. My business address is 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor, Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993. On October 29, 2020, I served true copies 0f the following document(s) described as NOTICE 0F ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT on the interested parties in this action as follows: SERVICE LIST Attorneysfor PlaintiflEdward Scott Gau Larry W. Lee Telephone: 213.488.6555 Simon Y. Lang Facsimile: 213.488.6554 Diversity Law Group, P.C. E-Mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 sly@diversity1aw.com Los Angeles, CA 90071 William L. Marder Telephone: 83 1 .53 1 .4214 Polaris Law Group LLP Facsimile: 831.634.0333 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Email: bill@polarislawgr0up.com Hollister. CA 95023 BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope 0r package addressed t0 the persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar With the firm's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope With postage fully prepaid. I am a resident 0r employed in the county Where the mailing occurred. BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy 0f the document(s) t0 be sent from e-mail address pcolbert@sheppardmullin.com t0 the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message 0r other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State 0f California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 29, 2020, at Costa Mesa, California. ant'rice L. Colbjf SMRH:4850-7561-1342.1 _ 1 _ Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 23 of 81 Exhibit B KOOOQQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. Larry W. Lee (State Bar N0. 228175) lwlee@diversitylaw.com Simon L. Yang (State Bar No. 260286) sl diversit 1aW.com 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile (213) 488-6554 POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP William L. Marder (State Bar No. 17013 1) 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, California 95023 Telephone: (83 1) 53 1 -4214 Facsimile (831) 634-0333 E-FILED 9/30/2020 3:32 PM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara ZOCV371 O39 Reviewed By: R. Walker Attorneys for Plaintiff, the Class, and Aggrieved Employees SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA EDWARD SCOTT GAU, as an individual and 0n behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a private attorney general, and BRANDY FOSTER- GAU, as a private attorney general, Plaintiffs, vs. HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.2 20CV371 O39 CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: (1) VIOLATION 0F LAB. CODE § 226.7; (2) VIOLATION 0F LAB. CODE §§ 226.7, 512; (3) VIOLATION 0F LAB. CODE § 226(a); (4) VIOLATION 0F BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200 ETSEQ; AND (5) VIOLATION 0F LAB. CODE §§ 2693 ET SEQ. DEMAND OVER $25,000.00 CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 24 of 81 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Edward Scott Gau, as an individual and 0n behalf 0f other similarly situated current and former employees (“Plaintiff”), and together with Brandy Foster-Gau as proxies for the State 0f California (collectively with Plaintiff, “Plaintiffs”), submit this Class and Representative Action Complaint against Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc. and Does 1 through 50 (collectively, “Defendants”). INTRODUCTION 1. This class and representative action challenges systemic illegal employment practices resulting in Violations 0f the California Labor Code against individuals who worked for Defendants. The Complaint seeks penalties, damages, and other relief for Defendants’ Violations 0f Labor Code sections 201-204, 226(a), 226.7, and 5 12.1 2. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants have jointly and severally acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard t0 the rights 0f employees by failing t0 authorize and permit duty-free rest periods, provide duty-free meal periods, pay all premium wages for such missed rest periods and meal periods, and provide accurate itemized wage statements. 3. Defendants routinely failed t0 authorize and permit Plaintiffs and other non-exempt restaurant employees to take duty-free 10-minute rest periods for every four hours worked, or major fraction thereof. Specifically, Plaintiffs and other non-exempt restaurant employees were required to remain on duty and to respond to any work-related issues during rest periods. Defendants also routinely failed t0 pay Plaintiffs and other non-exempt restaurant employees the requisite rest period premium pay of an additional hour of wages. Defendants thus Violate Section 226.7 and the applicable IWC Wage Order. 4. On shifts exceeding five hours of work, Defendants also routinely failed t0 provide Plaintiffs and other non-exempt restaurant employees With a duty-free 30-minute meal period Within the first five hours of work. As for rest periods, Plaintiffs and other non-exempt restaurant employees were required to remain on work premises, on duty, and available to respond to work-related issues during meal periods. Although Plaintiffs and other non-exempt restaurant employees were required to take on-duty meal periods, Defendants also routinely failed t0 pay Plaintiffs and other non-exempt restaurant employees the requisite meal period premium pay of an additional hour of wages. Defendants thus Violate Sections 226.7 and 5 12 and the applicable IWC Wage Order. 1 Except as otherwise noted, all “Section” references are t0 the Labor Code. 1 CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 25 of 81 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. As a result 0f the above practices, Defendants also routinely failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements to Plaintiffs and other non-exempt restaurant employees. Specifically, Defendants failed to furnish Plaintiffs and other non-exempt restaurant employees With wage statements that accurately showed the hours worked, premium pay earned for missed rest periods and meal periods, gross wages earned, and net wages earned. Defendants thus Violate Sections 226(a). 6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants have engaged in, among other things, a system 0f willful Violations 0f the Labor Code by creating and maintaining policies, practices, and customs that knowingly deny its employees the above stated rights and benefits. 7. The policies, practices, and customs 0f Defendants resulted in unjust enrichment 0f Defendants and an unfair business advantage over businesses that routinely adhere t0 the strictures 0f the Labor Code. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. The Complaint seeks more than $25,000.00 in relief. The Court has jurisdiction 0f Defendants’ Violations 0f Sections 201-204, 226(a), 226.7, and 5 12 and the Unfair Competition Law, codified at Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. (the “UCL”). 9. Venue is proper. Plaintiffs worked for Defendants at the Los Altos Grill located at 233 3rd St., Los Altos, California 94022, which is within the County 0f Santa Clara. PARTIES 10. Plaintiff worked for Defendants for more than 15 years. In 0r about June 0f 2020, Defendants terminated his employment as a lead server. For nearly 10 years, Brandy Foster-Gau, Plaintiff” s wife, also worked for Defendants as a trainer, headwaiter, and bartender. In 0r about June 0f 2020, Defendants also terminated her employment. 11. Throughout their employments, Defendants did not authorize and permit Plaintiffs to take duty-free 10-minute rest periods for every four hours worked, or major fraction thereof, and did not provide duty-free 30-minute meal periods Within the first five hours of work. Instead, Plaintiffs were required to remain on duty and to respond to any work-related issues during their rest periods, and 0n shifts exceeding five hours of work, they were required to remain on work premises, on duty, and available to respond to work-related issues during their meal periods. Although Plaintiffs were required to take on-duty rest periods 2 CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 26 of 81 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and meal periods, they often were not paid an additional hour 0f wages for rest period and meal period premium pay and also not provided itemized wage statements that accurately showed the hours worked, premium pay earned for missed rest periods and meal periods, gross wages earned, and net wages earned. Plaintiffs thus are Victims 0f the policies, practices, and customs 0f Defendants complained 0f in this action in ways that have deprived them 0f the rights guaranteed by the Labor Code and the UCL. 12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc. was and is a Delaware corporation with headquarters at 147 South Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90212. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that at all times herein mentioned Defendant and Does 1 through 50, are and were corporations, business entities, individuals, 0r partnerships that are and were licensed t0 d0 business and actually doing business in the State 0f California. Based upon all the facts and circumstances incident t0 Defendants’ business, Defendants are subject t0 Sections 201-204, 226(a), 226.7, and 512 and the UCL. 13. Plaintiffs d0 not know the true names 0r capacities 0f the defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 50, whether individual, partner, 0r corporate, and for that reason, said defendants are sued under such fictitious names. Plaintiffs pray for leave t0 amend this Complaint when the true names and capacities are known. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that each 0f said fictitious defendants was responsible in some way for the matters alleged herein and proximately caused the illegal employment practices, wrongs, and injuries complained 0f herein. 14. At all times herein mentioned, each 0f said Defendants participated in the doing 0f the acts alleged herein. Defendants, and each 0f them, were the agents, servants, 0r employees 0f each 0f the other Defendants, as well as the agents 0f all Defendants, and were acting within the course and scope 0f said agency and employment. 15. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that at all times material hereto, each 0f said Defendants was the agent, employee, alter ego, 0r joint venturer 0f, 0r was working in concert with, each 0f the other Defendants and was acting within the course and scope 0f such agency, employment, joint venture, 0r concerted activity. T0 the extent said acts, conduct, 0r omissions were perpetrated by certain Defendants, each 0f the remaining Defendants confirmed and ratified said acts, conduct, 0r omissions 0f the acting Defendants. 3 CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 27 of 81 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that at all times material hereto each 0f the Defendants (i) aided and abetted the acts and omissions 0f each 0f the other Defendants in proximately causing the alleged harms, 0r (ii) were members 0f, engaged in, and acting within the course and scope 0f, and in pursuance 0f, a joint venture, partnership, 0r common enterprise. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 17. Definition: Pursuant t0 Code 0f Civil Procedure section 382. Plaintiff seeks class certification 0f the following classes: (i) all current and former non-exempt restaurant employees 0f Defendants in the State 0f California who worked at least 3.5 hours in any work shift since April 6, 2016 (the “Rest Period Class”), and (ii) all current and former non-exempt restaurant employees 0f Defendants in the State 0f California who worked more than 5.0 hours in any work shift since April 6, 2016 (the “Meal Period Class”). The Rest Period Class and the Meal Period Class are collectively referred t0 as the “Class.” 18. Numerosity and Ascertainability: The members 0f the Class are so numerous that joinder 0f all members would be impractical, if not impossible. The identities 0f the members 0f the Class are readily ascertainable by review 0f Defendants’ records, including payroll records. Plaintiff is informed and believe that Defendants violated Section 201-204, 226(a), 226.7, and 512 by failing t0 authorize and permit rest periods, failing t0 provide meal periods, failing to pay all premium pay for missed rest periods and meal periods, failing t0 timely pay all due wages both during employment and upon the separation 0f employment, and failing t0 provide accurate itemized wage statements. 19. Adequacy 0f Representation: Plaintiff is fully prepared t0 take all necessary steps t0 represent fairly and adequately the interests 0f the Class defined above. Plaintiffs attorneys are ready, willing, and able t0 fully and adequately represent Plaintiff and the Class. Plaintiff” s attorneys have prosecuted and settled wage-and-hour class actions in the past and continue t0 litigate numerous wage- and-hour class actions currently pending in California state and federal courts. 20. Common Question 0f Law and Fact: There are predominant common questions 0f law and fact and a community 0f interest amongst the claims 0f Plaintiff and of the Class. Plaintiff is informed and believe that Defendants uniformly administer a corporate policy and practice 0f routinely failing t0 (i) authorize and permit rest periods t0 employees who worked at least 3.5 hours, (ii) provide 4 CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 28 of 81 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 meal periods who worked more than 5.0 hours, (iii) pay all premium pay for missed rest periods and meal periods, (iv) timely pay all due wages both during employment and upon the separation 0f employment, and (V) provide accurate itemized wage statements. 21. Typicality: The claims of Plaintiff are typical 0f the claims 0f all members 0f the Class in that Plaintiff suffered the alleged harms in a similar and typical manner as other members 0f the Class suffered. As with other members 0f the Class, when Plaintiffworked at least 3.5 hours, Plaintiff was not authorized and permitted to take duty-free 10-minute rest periods, and When he worked more than 5.0 hours, he was not provided duty-free 30-minute meal periods. Instead, Plaintiffwas required to remain on duty and to respond to any work-related issues during his rest periods and meal periods. Plaintiff often was not paid an additional hour 0f wages for rest period and meal period premium pay and also not provided itemized wage statements that accurately showed the hours worked, premium pay earned for missed rest periods and meal periods, gross wages earned, and net wages earned. Plaintiff thus is a member 0f the Class and has suffered the alleged Violations 0f the Labor Code. 22. The Labor Code is broadly remedial in nature. Its laws serve an important public interest in establishing minimum working conditions and requirements in California. These labor standards protect employees from onerous terms and conditions 0f employment 0r exploitation by employers who have superior economic and bargaining power. 23. The nature 0f this action and the format 0f laws available t0 Plaintiff and members 0f the Class make the class action format a particularly efficient and appropriate procedure t0 redress the wrongs alleged herein. If each employee were required t0 file an individual lawsuit, the corporate Defendants would necessarily gain an unconscionable advantage since they would be able t0 exploit and overwhelm the limited resources 0f each individual plaintiff with their vastly superior financial and legal resources. Requiring each member 0f the Class t0 pursue an individual remedy would also discourage the assertion 0f lawful claims by employees who would be disinclined t0 file an action against their former 0r current employer for real and justifiable fear 0f retaliation and permanent damage t0 their careers at their current 0r subsequent employment. 24. The prosecution 0f separate actions by individual members 0f the Class, even if possible, would create a substantial risk 0f (a) inconsistent 0r varying adjudications with respect t0 5 CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 29 of 81 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 individual members 0f the Class that would establish potentially incompatible standards 0f conduct for Defendants, 0r (b) adjudications with respect t0 individual members 0f the Class that would, as a practical matter, be dispositive 0f, 0r substantially impair 0r impede the ability t0 protect, the interests 0f other members 0f the Class not parties t0 the adjudications. Further, the claims 0f the individual members 0f the Class are not sufficiently large t0 warrant Vigorous individual prosecution considering the concomitant costs and expenses. 25. Defendants’ pattern, practice, and uniform administration 0f corporate policy in Violation 0f the Labor Code is unlawful. Proof 0f a common business practice 0r factual pattern will establish the rights 0f Plaintiff and the Class under Sections 201-204, 226(a), 226.7, and 5 12 and applicable IWC Wage Orders, the UCL, and Code 0f Civil Procedure section 1021 .5 t0 recover unpaid wages and unpaid premium pay, including interest thereon, applicable penalties, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs 0f suit. 26. This action is brought for the benefit 0f the Class, which is commonly entitled t0 a specific fund with respect t0 the compensation illegally and unfairly retained by Defendants. The Class is commonly entitled t0 restitution 0f those funds being improperly withheld by Defendant. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violation 0f Labor Code § 226.7 (By Plaintiff and the Class Against All Defendants) 27. The preceding paragraphs are re-alleged and incorporated by this reference. 28. Because Plaintiff and the Class were non-exempt employees, Defendants were required t0 comply with Section 226.7 and the applicable IWC Wage Order. The applicable laws generally require an employer t0 provide a duty-free, lO-minute rest period for every four hours worked, 0r maj0r fraction thereof. Section 226.7(b) provides that an employer shall not require an employee t0 work during a rest period. Section 226.7(0) states that “the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour 0fpay at the employee’s regular rate 0f compensation for each workday that the meal 0r rest 0r recovery period is not provided.” 29. As a matter 0f policy and practice, Defendants fail t0 permit off-duty rest periods t0 Plaintiff and the Class. As a matter 0f policy and practice, Defendants also fail t0 pay an additional 6 CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 30 of 81 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 hour 0fpay at the regular rate 0f compensation for each rest period missed by Plaintiff and the Class. Specifically, Plaintiff and the Class were required to remain on duty and to respond to any work-related issues during rest periods. Plaintiff and the Class, however, were not paid the requisite rest period premium pay. Defendants thus Violate Section 226.7 and the applicable IWC Wage Order. As such, Plaintiff and the Class are owed rest period premium pay. 30. Such a pattern, practice, and uniform administration 0f corporate policy is unlawful and entitles Plaintiff and the Class t0 recover unpaid rest period premium pay, including interest thereon, attorneys’ fees, and costs 0f suit. 3 1. Moreover, Section 204 provides that wages are generally due and payable n0 later than seven days after the end 0f a pay period 0r at least twice during each calendar month, 0n days designated in advance as the regular paydays. Section 201 provides if an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time 0f discharge are due and payable immediately. Section 202 provides that an employee is entitled t0 receive all unpaid wages n0 later than 72 hours after an employee quits his 0r her employment, unless the employee has given seventy-two (72) hours previous notice 0f his 0r her intention t0 quit, in which case the employee is entitled t0 his 0r her wages at the time 0f quitting. Section 203 provides that if an employer willfully fails t0 pay wages owed in accordance with Sections 201 and 202, then the wages 0f the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date, and at the same rate until paid, but the wages shall not continue for more than thirty (3 0) days. 32. Based 0n Defendants’ failure t0 pay rest period premium pay t0 Plaintiff and the Class and as a matter 0f policy and practice, Defendants failed t0 timely pay Plaintiff and the Class all due wages 0r timely pay all due wages upon separation 0f employment. On information and belief, Defendants were advised by skilled lawyers and knew, 0r should have known, 0f the mandates 0f the Labor Code as it relates t0 Plaintiffs allegations. Defendants thus violated Sections 201-204 by not timely paying all due wages and not timely paying all due wages upon the separation 0f employment. 33. Such a pattern, practice, and uniform administration 0f corporate policy is unlawful under Sections 201-204 and the applicable IWC Wage Order, and entitles Plaintiff and the Class t0 recover applicable penalties, including waiting time penalties, attorneys’ fees, and costs 0f suit. 7 CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 31 of 81 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violation 0f Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512 (By Plaintiff and the Meal Period Class Against All Defendants) 34. The preceding paragraphs are re-alleged and incorporated by this reference. 35. Because Plaintiff and the Class were non-exempt employees, Defendants were required t0 comply with Sections 226.7 and 5 12 and the applicable IWC Wage Order. Section 5 12(a) generally prohibits employment of an individual for a work period 0fmore than five hours per day without providing the employee with an uninterrupted, duty-free meal period 0f at least 30 minutes. Section 226.7(b) provides that an employer shall not require an employee t0 work during a rest period. Section 226.7(0) states that “the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour 0f pay at the employee’s regular rate 0f compensation for each workday that the meal 0r rest 0r recovery period is not provided.” 36. As a matter 0f policy and practice on shifts exceeding five hours of work, Defendants fail t0 provide Plaintiffs and the Meal Period Class With a duty-free 30-minute meal period Within the first five hours of work. As a matter 0f policy and practice, Defendants also d0 not pay an additional hour 0f pay at the regular rate 0f compensation for each meal period missed by Plaintiff and the Meal Period Class. As for rest periods, Plaintiff and the Meal Period Class were required to remain on work premises, on duty, and available to respond to work-related issues during meal periods. Plaintiff and the Meal Period Class, however, were not paid all requisite meal period premium pay. Defendants thus Violate Section 226.7 and the applicable IWC Wage Order. As such, Plaintiff and the Meal Period Class are owed meal period premium pay for meal periods Defendants failed t0 provide and are owed unpaid wages for unpaid meal periods during which Plaintiff and the Meal Period Class remained 0n duty. 37. Such a pattern, practice, and uniform administration 0f corporate policy is unlawful and entitles Plaintiff and the Meal Period Class t0 recover unpaid meal period premium pay and unpaid wages for on-duty hours worked, including interest thereon, attorneys’ fees, and costs 0f suit. 38. Based 0n Defendants’ failures t0 pay meal period premium pay and t0 pay wages for all on-duty hours worked, and as a matter 0f policy and practice, Defendants failed to timely pay Plaintiff and the Meal Period Class all due wages 0r timely pay all due wages upon separation 0f employment. On information and belief, Defendants were advised by skilled lawyers and knew, 0r should have 8 CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 32 of 81 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 known, 0f the mandates 0f the Labor Code as it relates t0 Plaintiffs allegations. Defendants thus violated Sections 201-204 by not timely paying all due wages and not timely paying all due wages upon the separation 0f employment. 39. Such a pattern, practice, and uniform administration 0f corporate policy is unlawful under Sections 201-204 and the applicable IWC Wage Order, and entitles Plaintiff and the Meal Period Class t0 recover applicable penalties, including waiting time penalties, attorneys’ fees, and costs 0f suit. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Violation 0f Labor Code § 226(a) (By Plaintiff and the Class Against All Defendants) 40. The preceding paragraphs are re-alleged and incorporated by this reference. 41. Section 226(a) requires employers t0 provide itemized wage statements t0 employees that show accurate information, including without limitation, gross wages earned, net wages earned, and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number 0f hours worked at each hourly rate. Defendants fail t0 provide accurate itemized wage statements t0 Plaintiff and the Class in Violation 0f Section 226(a). 42. As a result 0f the practices alleged herein and as a matter 0f policy and practice, Defendants fail t0 provide accurate itemized wage statements t0 Plaintiff and the Class. Specifically, Defendants failed to furnish Plaintiff and the Class With wage statements that accurately showed the hours worked, premium pay earned for missed rest periods and meal periods, gross wages earned, and net wages earned. Defendants thus Violate Sections 226(a). 43. Such a pattern, practice, and uniform administration 0f corporate policy is unlawful under Section 226 and entitles Plaintiff and the Class t0 recover applicable penalties, attorneys’ fees, and costs 0f suit. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation 0f Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 Et Seq. (By Plaintiff and the Class Against All Defendants) 44. The preceding paragraphs are re-alleged and incorporated by this reference. 9 CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 33 of 81 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 45. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that at Defendants have engaged and continue t0 engage in unfair and unlawful business practices in California by utilizing the employment policies and practices alleged herein in Violation 0f Sections 226.7 and 5 12 and the applicable IWC Wage Order. 46. As alleged herein, Defendants uniformly administer a corporate policy and practice 0f failing to authorize and permit off-duty rest periods, failing t0 pay premium pay for missed rest periods, failing t0 provide off-duty meal periods, and failing t0 pay all premium pay for missed meal periods and all wages for on-duty hours worked t0 Plaintiff and the Class. Defendants’ utilization 0f such unfair and unlawful business practices constitutes unfair and unlawful competition and provides an unfair advantage over Defendants’ competitors, as proscribed by the UCL. Defendants have deprived Plaintiff and the Class the minimum working condition standards and conditions due t0 them under the Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Orders. 47. Such a pattern, practice, and uniform administration 0f corporate policy regarding illegal employee compensation as described herein is unlawful and creates an entitlement t0 recovery by Plaintiff and the Class t0 full restitution 0f all monies withheld, acquired, 0r converted by Defendants by means 0f the unfair practices complained 0f herein, including interest thereon, attorneys’ fees, and costs 0f suit. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation 0f Labor Code §§ 2698 Et Seq. (By Plaintiffs and Aggrieved Employees Against All Defendants) 48. The preceding paragraphs are re-alleged and incorporated by this reference. 49. Pursuant t0 the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act 0f 2004, Labor Code §§ 2698 et seq. (“PAGA”), Plaintiffs bring this cause 0f action as proxies for the State 0f California. In this capacity, Plaintiffs seek penalties for Defendants’ Violations 0f Sections 201-204, 226(a), 226.7, and 512 committed since April 6, 2019, against all aggrieved employees. Under Section 2699(0), Plaintiffs are “aggrieved employees,” as one 0r more 0f the alleged Violations was committed against Plaintiffs as employees 0f Defendants. 50. As stated herein, Defendants Violate Sections 201-204, 226(a), 226.7, and 5 12 by routinely failing to (i) authorize and permit off-duty rest periods and pay premium pay for missed rest 10 CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 34 of 81 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 periods, (ii) provide off-duty meal periods and pay all premium pay for missed meal periods and all wages for on-duty hours worked, (iii) timely pay all due wages 0r timely pay all due wages upon separation 0f employment; and (iv) provide accurate itemized wage statements. 5 1. On 0r about August 19, 2020, Plaintiffs sent written notices t0 the Labor & Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) 0f specific facts and theories for Defendants’ Violations 0f Sections 201-204, 226(a), 226.7, and 5 12. Plaintiffs simultaneously sent written notices t0 Defendants Via certified mail. As 0f the date 0f the filing 0f this Complaint, the LWDA has neither responded nor indicated that it intends t0 investigate the allegations in the written notices. 52. As such, pursuant t0 Section 2699(a) and (f), Plaintiff seeks recovery 0f all applicable civil penalties for Defendants’ Violations 0f Sections 201-204, 226(a), 226.7, and 5 12against all aggrieved employees for the time period described above. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays for judgment for themselves and all others 0n whose behalf this suit is brought against Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows: 1. For an order certifying the proposed Class; 2. For an order appointing Plaintiff as the representative 0f the Class; 3. For an order appointing Counsel for Plaintiff as Class Counsel; 4. Upon the First Cause 0f Action for unpaid rest period premium pay, including interest thereon, and applicable penalties pursuant t0 Sections 201-204, 210, 218.5, and 226.7, and for costs and attorneys’ fees; 5. Upon the Second Cause 0f Action for unpaid meal period premium pay and unpaid wages, including interest thereon, and applicable penalties pursuant t0 Sections 201-204, 210, 218.5, 226.7, and 5 12, and for costs and attorneys’ fees; 6. Upon the Third Cause 0f Action for penalties pursuant t0 Section 226, and for costs and attorneys’ fees; 7. Upon the Fourth Cause 0f Action for restitution 0f all funds unlawfully acquired by Defendants by any acts 0r practices declared t0 be in Violation 0f the UCL, including interest thereon, and for costs and attorneys’ fees; 11 CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 35 of 81 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8. Upon the Fifth Cause 0f Action for penalties according t0 proof pursuant t0 Sections 210, 226.3, 558, and 2699, and for costs and attorneys’ fees; 9. Upon each cause 0f action for attorneys’ fees and costs as provided by Sections 218.5, 226, 1194, 1197.1, and 2699, and Code 0f Civil Procedure section 1021 .5; and 10. For such other and further relief that the Court may deem just and proper. DATED: September 30, 2020 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. Larry W. Lee Simon L. Yang Attornevs for Plaintiffs 12 CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 36 of 81 Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 37 of 81 Exhibit C Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 38 of 81 SUM-100 SUMMONS (SOLFOOPRACRaULTSTOUgg LOANEERTE) (CITACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: E_F“_ED HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC, a Delaware corporation; Clerk of Court and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Superior Court of CA YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: County of Santa Clara (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): 20CV371 039 EDWARD SCOTT GAU, as an individual and on behalfofall others similarly Reviewed By; R_ Walker situated, and as a private attorney general, and BRANDY FOSTER-GAU, Envelope: 502521 6 as a private attorney general, 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 served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call wi|| 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 SeIf-Help Center (WWW.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. lf you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. lf 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 do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. lf 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.lawhe/pcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (WWW.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or 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 0f $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the coun will dismiss the case. [A VISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dlas, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versio'n. Lea la informacio’n a continuacio’n. Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDAR/O después de que le entreguen esta citacidn 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 I/amada telefénica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar en formats legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en Ia corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuestaA Puede encontrar estos formularios de Ia cone y ma’s informacio'n en el Centro de Ayuda de Ias Con‘es de California (ww.sucorte.ca.gov), en Ia biblioteca de Ieyes de su condado o en Ia corte que le quede ma’s cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentacidn, pida a/ secretario de la corte que le de' un formulario de exencién de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la con‘e Ie podra’ quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin ma’s advertencia. Hay otros requisites legales. Es recomendab/e que I/ame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de remisio’n a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con Ios requisites para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un programa de sen/icios legales sin fines de Iucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de Iucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.Iawhelpcalifornia.org), en e/ Centro de Ayuda de Ias Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o poniéndose en contacto con Ia con‘e o e/ colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, Ia corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y Ios costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre cualquier recuperacio’n de $10,000 6 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 la code pueda desechar el caso. The name and address of the court is: ‘I‘ r e@¥)37 I U39 (El nombre y direccio'n de la corte es): Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara 191 N. First Street, San Jose, CA 951 13 The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff‘s attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direccién y el nL'Imero de teléfono de/ abogado de/ demandante, o de/ demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Larry W. Lee (SBN 228175)/Diversity Law Group, 51 5 S. Figueroa St. #1250, LA, CA 9007 l , 2|3-488-6555 DATE: 9/30/2020 3:32 PM Clerk Of Court Clerk' by. R. Walker ' DePUty (FeCha) (Secretano) (Adjunto) (Forproofof service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).) (Para prueba de entrega de esta citatién use e/ formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)). NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served [SEAL] - 1. E as an individual defendant. 2. E as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): 3_ on behalf of (specify): Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation under: 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.couninfo.ca.gov SUM-100 [Rev. July 1, 2009] Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 39 of 81 Exhibit D Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 40 of 81 . __ CM-O1 0 ATTERNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY A_Iame, Slate Bar number, and addres-Lany w. Lee (SBN 228 1 75) / lmon L. Yang (SBN 260386) FOR COURTUSE ONLY DIVERSITY LAW GROUP £15 i. Figlueroca IStfreet, 851686711250 OS ngc CS, a l Ofnla ' ' TELEPHONENO.; £3213) 488-6555 mm: (213) 488-6554 E'eCtmn'Fa'W F'led ATTORNEY FoRmame); lalntlffs Edward Scott Gau and Brandy Foster-Gau by SUPerlor court 0f CA, SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 0F SANTA CLARA ounty of Santa Clara, STREET ADDRESS: 191 N- Fil‘St Street 0n 9/30/2020 4:07 PM MAILING ADDRESS: I F. V : R. W CITY ANDZIP CODE: San Jose, CA 95 1.13 c e Iegzeodcgysrl 039alker BRANCH NAME; Downtown Superlor Court ase CASE NAME: nvelope: 5025775 Edward Scott GaugBrandy Foster-Gau v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc. CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation CASE NUMBER: Unlimited D Limited D E _ 20CV371 039(Amount (Amount Counter Jomder JUDGEdemanded 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 one box below for the case type that best describes this case: Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation Auto (22) ~ Breach of contraCt/warramy (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403) Uninsured motorist (46) Rule 3.740 collections (09) Antitrust/Trade regulation (03) Other PI/PDIWD (Personal lnjurylProperty Other COIIECtionS (09) conStrUCtion defeCt (10) DamageNVrongful Death) Tort Insurance coverage (13) Mass tort (40) ASbeStOS (04) Other contract (37) Securities litigation (28) PFOdUCt liability (24) Real Property Environmental/Toxic tort (30) DDDDD DDDDDD Medical malpradice (45) E Eminent domain/anerse Insurance coverage claims arising from theD Other PI/PD/WD (23) condemnatiOn (14) above listed provisionally complex case Non-PI/PD/wo (Other) Tort E Wrongfu' eVic‘iO“ (33) types (41)D Business tort/unfair business practice (07) E Other real pmpeny (26) Enforcement Of JUdgmentD Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer E Enforcementofjudgment (20)E Defamation (13) CommerCial (31) Miscellaneous Civil ComplaintD Fraud (16) E Residential (32) E RICO (27)E Intellectual property (19) DFUQS (33) E Other complaint (not specified above) (42)E Professional negligence (25) Judicial ReVieW Miscellaneous Civil PetitionE Other non'Pl/PD/WD t0“ (35) D Asset forfeiture (O5) Partnership and corporate governance (21) Employment D Petition re: arbitration award (11) E Other petition (not Specified above) (43)E Wrongful termination (36) E Writof mandate (02) Other employment (15) D Otherjudicial review (39) 2. This case m is E is not cdmplex under rule 3.400 ofthe California Rules of Court. lfthe case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a.E Large number of separately represented parties d. Large number of witnesses b. Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e.E Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court c. Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. E Substantial postjudgmentjudicial supervision Remedies sought (check all that apply): a.- monetary hm nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief C. Epunitive Number of causes of action (specify): Five (5) This case is E is not a class action suit. 6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM-015.) Date: September 30, 2020 Larry W. Lee > (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY 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 Ifthis case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. ofthe California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding. - Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes onlyég“m Form Adopted for Mandatory Use CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.30, 3220. 3.400-3403. 3.740; Judicial Council of California Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, std‘ 3.10 CM-O10 [Rev. July 1, 2007] www.courrinfo.ca.gov WP?) Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 41 of 81 INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET CM 01o To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. lf you are filing a first paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must 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 one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item 1, check the more specific one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action. To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be filed only with your 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 Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. 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 will 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 a judgment in rule 3.740. To Parties in Complex Cases. 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. Auto Tort Auto (22)-Persona| Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the case involves an uninsured motorist claim subject to arbitration, check this item instead ofAuto) Other PIIPD/WD (Personal Injury/ Property DamageIWrongful Death) Tort Asbestos (04) Asbestos Property Damage Asbestos Personal Injury/ Wrongful Death Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental) (24) Medical Malpractice (45) Medical Malpractice- Physicians & Surgeons Other Professional Health Care Malpractice Other PIIPD/WD (23) Premises Liability (e.g., slip and fall) Intentional Bodily Injury/PD/WD (e.g., assault, vandalism) Intentional lnfliction of Emotional Distress Negligent lnfliction of Emotional Distress Other PI/PDNVD Non-PIIPDNVD (Other) Tort 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 Propeny (19) Professional Negligence (25) Legal Malpractice Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal) Other Non-PI/PDNVD Tort (35) Employment Wrongful Termination (36) Other Employment (15) CM_o1o [Rev‘ July 1, 2007] CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Contract 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 complex) (18) Auto Subrogation Other Coverage Other Contract (37) Contractual Fraud Other Contract Dispute Real Property Eminent Domain/lnverse Condemnation (14) Wrongful Eviction (33) Other Real Properly (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) Unlawful Detainer Commercial (31) Residential (32) Drugs (38) (if the case involves illegal drugs, check this item; otherwise, report as Commercial or Residential) Judicial Review 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 Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court Rules 3.400-3.403) Antitrust/Trade Regulation (O3) Construction Defect (10) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) Securities Litigation (28) Environmental/Toxic Tort (30) Insurance Coverage Claims (arising from provisionally complex case type listed above) (41) Enforcement of Judgment Enforcement of Judgment (20) Abstract of Judgment (Out of County) Confession of Judgment (non- domestic relations) Sister State Judgment Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) Petition/Certification of Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Other Enforcement of Judgment Case Miscellaneous Civil Complaint RICO (27) Other Complaim (not specified above) (42) Declaratory Relief Only Injunctive Relief Only (non- harassment) Mechanics Lien Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tort/non-comp/ex) Other Civil Complaint (non-tort/non-comp/ex) Miscellaneous Civil Petition Partnership and Corporate Governance (21) Other Petition (not specified above) (43) Civil Harassment Workplace Violence Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Election Contest Petition for Name Change Petition for Relief From Late Claim Other Civil Petition Page 2 of 2 Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 42 of 81 Exhibit E Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 43 of 81 CIVIL LAWSUIT NOTICE zocvgfl'fig V-5012 Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara CASE NUMBER: 191 North First St., San José, CA 95113 PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE FORM PLAINTIFF (the person suing): Within 60 days after filing the lawsuit, you must serve each Defendant with the Complaint, Summons, an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Information Sheet, and a copy of this Civil Lawsuit Notice, and you must file written proof of such service. DEFENDANT(The person sued): You must do each of the following to protect your rights: You must file a written response to the Complaint, using the proper legal form or format, in the Clerk’s Office of the Court, within 30 days of the date you were served with the Summons and Complaint; You must serve by mail a copy of your written response on the Plaintiff’s attorney or on the Plaintiff if Plaintiff has no attorney (to “serve by mail” means to have an adult other than yourself mail a copy); and You must attend the first Case Management Conference. Warning: If you, as the Defendant, do not followthese instructions, you may automatically lose this case. RULES AND FORMS: You must follow the California Rules of Court and the Superior Court of California, County of <_CountyName_> Local Civil Rules and use properforms. You can obtain legal information, view the rules and receive forms, free of charge, from the Self-Help Center at 201 North First Street, San José (408-882-2900 x-2926). I State Rules and Judicial Council Forms: www.courtinfo.ca.qov/forms and www.courtinfo.ca.qov/rules - Local Rules and Forms: http://www.sccsuperiorcourt.orq/civil/rule1toc.htm CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE (CMC): You must meet with the other parties and discuss the case, in person or by telephone at least 30 calendar days before the CMC. You must also fill out, file and serve a Case Management Statement (Judicial Council form CM-110) at least 15 calendar days before the CMC. You or your attorney must appear at the CMC. You may ask to appear by telephone - see Local Civil Rule 8. Hon. Brian C. WalshYour Case Management Judge is: Department: The 1st CMC is scheduled for: (Completed by Clerk of Court) Date: “28/21 Time: 2:30 pm in Department: The next CMC is scheduled for: (Completed by party if the 15‘ CMC was continued or has passed) Date: Time: in Department: ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (Afl If all parties have appeared and filed a completed ADR Stipulation Form (local form CV-5008) at least 15 days before the CMC, the Court will cancel the CMC and mail notice of an ADR Status Conference. Visit the Court's website at www.sccsuperiorcounorq/civiI/ADR/ or call the ADR Administrator (408-882-2100 x-2530) for a list of ADR providers and their qualifications, services, and fees. WARNING: Sanctions may be imposed if you do not follow the California Rules of Court or the Local Rules of Court. cv-5012 REV 08/01/16 CIVIL LAWSUIT NOTICE Page1 of1 Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 44 of 81 Exhibit F Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 45 of 81 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 191 N. FIRST STREET SAN JOSE, CA 95113-1090 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 10/2/2020 11:41 AM Reviewed By: R. Walker Case #20CV371 039 T03 FILE COPY Envelope: 5037948 RE: Gau, et al. v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc. CASE NUMBER: 206V371039 ORDER DEEMING CASE COMPLEX AND STAYING DISCOVERY AND RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE WHEREAS, the Complaint was filed by Plaintiffs EDWARD SCOTT GAU (“Plaintiff”), et al. in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, on September 30, 2020 and assigned to Department 1 (Complex Civil Litigation), the Honorable Brian C. Walsh presiding, pending a ruling on the complexity issue; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: The Court determines that the above-referenced case is COMPLEX within the meaning of California Rules of Court 3.400. The matter remains assigned, for all purposes, including discovery and trial, to Department 1 (Complex Civil Litigation), the Honorable Brian C. Walsh presiding. The parties are directed to the Court’s local rules and guidelines regarding electronic filing and to the Complex Civil Guidelines, which are available on the Court’s website. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.254, the creation and maintenance of the Master Service List shall be under the auspices of (1) Plaintiff EDWARD SCOTT GAU, as the first-named party in the Complaint, and (2) the first-named party in each Cross-Complaint, if any. Pursuant to Government Code section 70616(c), each party’s complex case fee is due within ten (10) calendar days of this date. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order on all parties forthwith and file a proof of service within seven (7) days of service. Any party objecting to the complex designation must file an objection and proof of service within ten (10) days of service of this Order. Any response to the objection must be filed within seven (7) days of service of the objection. The Court will make its ruling on the submitted pleadings. The Case Management Conference remains set for Januarv 28. 2021 at 2:30 p.m. in Degartment 1 and all counsel are ordered to attend by CourtCall. Counsel for all parties are ordered to meet and confer in person at least 15 days prior to the First Case Management Conference and discuss the following issues: 1. Issues related to recusal or disqualification; 2. Issues of law that, if considered by the Court, may simplify or further resolution of the case, including issues regarding choice of law; Updated on 7/30/20. Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 46 of 81 3. Appropriate alternative dispute resolution (ADR), for example, mediation, mandatory settlement conference, arbitration, mini-trial; 4. A plan for preservation of evidence and a uniform system for identification of documents throughout the course of this litigation; 5. A plan for document disclosure/production and additional discovery; which will generally be conducted under court supervision and by court order; 6. Whether it is advisable to address discovery in phases so that information needed to conduct meaningful ADR is obtained early in the case (counsel should consider whether they will stipulated to limited merits discovery in advance of certification proceedings), allowing the option to complete discovery if ADR efforts are unsuccessful; 7. Any issues involving the protection of evidence and confidentiality; 8. The handling of any potential publicity issues; Counsel for Plaintiff is to take the lead in preparing a Joint Case Management Conference Statement to be filed 5 calendar days prior to the First Case Management Conference, and include the following: ' . 1. A Statement as to whether additional parties are likely to be added and a proposed date by which all parties must be served; 2. Service lists identifying all primary and secondary counsel, firm names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses and fax numbers for all counsel; 3. A description of all discovery completed to date and any outstanding discovery as of the date of the conference; Applicability and enforceability of arbitration clauses, if any; A list of all related litigation pending in other courts, including Federal Court, and a brief description of any such litigation, and a statement as to whether any additional related litigation is anticipated (CRC 3.300); 6. A description of factual and legal issues -the parties should address any specific contract provisions the interpretation of which may assist in resolution of significant issues in the case; 7. The parties’ tentative views on an ADR mechanism and how such mechanism might be integrated into the course of the litigation; ‘ 8. Whether discovery should be conducted in phases or limited; and if so, the order of phasing or types of limitations of discovery. If this is a class action lawsuit, the parties should address the issue of limited merits discovery in advance of class certification motions. .0"? To the extent the parties are unable to agree on the matters to be addressed in the Joint Case Management Conference Statement, the positions of each party or of various parties should be set forth separately and attached to this report as addenda. The parties are encouraged to propose, either jointly or separately, any approaches to case management they believe will promote the fair and efficient handling of this case. The Court is particularly interested in identifying potentially dispositive or significant threshold issues the early resolution of which may assist in moving the case toward effective ADR and/or a final disposition. STAY 0N DISCOVERY AND RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE Pending further order of this Court, the service of discovery and the obligation to respond to any outstanding discovery is stayed. However, Defendant(s) shall file a Notice of-Appearance for purposes of identification of counsel and preparation of a service list. The filing of such a Notice of Appearance shall be without prejudice to the later filing of a motion to quash to contestjurisdiction. Parties shall not file or serve responsive pleadings, including answers to the complaint, motions to strike, demurrers, motions for Updated on 7/30/20. Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 47 of 81 change of venue and cross-complaints until a date is set at the First Case Management Conference for such filings and hearings. This Order is issued to assist the Court and the parties in the management of this “Complex” case through the development of an orderly schedule for briefing and hearings. This Order shall not preclude the parties from continuing to informally exchange documents that may assist in their initial evaluation of the issues presented in this Case. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order on all the parties in this matterforthwith. SO ORDERED. Date: October1,2020 fifl C (9M Hon. Brian C. Walsh Judge of the Superior Court If you, a party represented by you, or a witness to be called on behalf of that party need an accommodation under the American with Disabilities Act, please contact the Court Administrator’s office at (408) 882-2700, or use the Court's TDD line, (408) 882-2690 or the Voice/TDD California Relay Service, (800) 735-2922. Updated on 7/30/20. Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 48 of 81 Exhibit G Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 49 of 81 1O 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA GENERAL ORDER RE: COVID-19 EMERGENCY ORDER REGARDING COMPLEX CIVIL ACTIONS On March 30, 2020 the ChiefJustice 0f California issued an order, which states in pertinent part: “I find good cause to...support courts in making use of available technology, when possible, to conductjudicial proceedings and court operations remotely, suspend any rule in the California Rules of Court to the extent such rule would prevent a court from using technology to conductjudicial proceedings and court operations remotely, in order to protect the health and safety ofthe public, court personnel, judicial officers, litigants, and witnesses. This is consistent with the Governor’s order, which also provides for the suspension 0f related statutes that impose limitations on the subject 0f these emergency orders.” Emergency rule 3, adopted by the Judicial Council of California effective April 6, 2020, states in pertinent part: “Notwithstanding any other law, in order to protect the health and safety of the public, including court users, both in custody and out 0f custody defendants, witnesses, court personnel, judicial officers, and others, courts must conductjudicial proceedings and court operations as follows: COVID-19 EMERGENCY ORDER REGARDING COMPLEX CIVIL ACTIONS -1 _ Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 50 of 81 1O 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (1) Courts may require that judicial proceedings and court operations be conducted remotely. (2) * >1: >1: (3) Conducting proceedings remotely includes, but is not limited to, the use ofvideo, audio, and telephonic means for remote appearances; the electronic exchange and authentication of documentary evidence; e-filing and e-service; the use of remote interpreting; and the use 0f remote reporting and electronic recording to make the official record of an action 0r proceeding.” Given that County health officials have deemed professional legal services “essential businesses” and the operation of the court an “essential service” to be conducted consistent with “social distancing protocols”; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following applies to all complex civil actions: 1. Sunset of Order and Procedures. This Order and the procedures set forth herein shall apply and be followed until ten (I 0) calendar days after the Governor declares that the state of emergency related t0 the COVID-19 pandemic is lifted, or until amended or lifted by further order of this Court. 2. Electronic Service. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 101 0.6(c), California Rules of Court, rule 2.253(c) and rule 2.251(0), and Emergency rule 12, all parties represented by counsel and all self-represented parties who have consented in writing t0 electronic service shall serve all documents electronically and shall accept service 0f documents electronically, in conformity with Code ofCivil Procedure Section 1010.6 and the California Rules 0f Court, except when personal service is required by statute. Counsel for the parties shall meet and confer, agree upon, and keep updated, an e-service list for each civil action. The parties are reminded that electronic service of documents may extend time periods for response by two (2) court days, pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure Section 101 0.6(a)(4)(B). 3. Electronic Filing. As previously established by Local Rules, pursuant t0 California Rules of Court, rule 2.253(b), all parties shall file all documents electronically. 4. Judicial Holiday Extensions Only For Filings. Pursuant t0 authority granted by the ChiefJustice, the Presiding Judge of this Court has issued orders providing that the dates COVID-19 EMERGENCY ORDER REGARDING COMPLEX CIVIL ACTIONS Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 51 of 81 1O 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 from March 17, 2020 to May 29, 2020, are “holidays” for “purposes of computing time for filing papers with the Court under Code ofCivil Procedure Sections 12 and 12a . . . .” As specifically stated in the Order, such emergency “holidays” only pertain t0 the deadlines forfiling papers with the Court, and do not pertain t0 dates and deadlines regarding service 0f papers between the parties, such as discovery requests and discovery responses. 5. Discovery. All discovery requests and responses (C.C.P. § 201 9.01 0), including but not limited to notice of deposition, special interrogatories, form interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admissions, shall be served electronically by all represented by counsel and all self-represented parties who have consented in writing to electronic service. Production 0f documents shall be provided in electronic form unless the parties agree otherwise in writing. If not previously established, counsel for the parties shall meet and confer regarding possible establishment ofajoint electronic document depository for the uploading and downloading Ofelectronic document productions. 6. Depositions. Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.3 10 provides that all persons, except the deponent and the court reporter, may attend a deposition remotely. Emergency rule 1 1 (a) states: “Notwithstanding any other law, including Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.310(a) and (b), and rule 3.1010(0) and (d), a party or non-party deponent, at their election or the election 0fthe deposing party, is not required to be present with the deposition officer at the time of the deposition.” a. All notices of deposition, including by subpoena duces tecum, of any party 0r non-party, shall be served upon all parties electronically. b. Unless otherwise stipulated in writing by the parties, 0r unless technologically infeasible, any or all of an oral deposition may be conducted remotely, in that the deponent, the court reporter, any interpreter, the video operator, the attorney for any party, or any party, may “attend” the deposition remotely by appropriate audio-video conference method - which method shall be selected and identified by the noticing party. The deponent and his/her attorney may choose to be in the same location for the deposition, ifthey conduct themselves consistent with “social distancing protocols”, but the deponent is not required to wear any face covering while COVID-19 EMERGENCY ORDER REGARDING COMPLEX CIVIL ACTIONS Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 52 of 81 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 giving deposition testimony. As professional legal services have been deemed “essential businesses” and the operation 0fthe court an “essential service”, it is the Court’s expectation that the deponent and his/her attorney can prepare for the deposition consistent with “social distancing protocols”. c. All communications with the deponent during the deposition shall be on the record, other than communications between the/deponent and his/her attorney of record during breaks. During the deposition there shall not be direct 0r indirect electronic communications with the deponent, including but not limited to text, email, chat, instant message, etc. d. If the notice of deposition or subpoena includes a request for production of documents at any oral deposition, such documents shall be produced electronically by the deponent to counsel for all parties at least three (3) business days before the deposition date, unless otherwise agreed by counsel for the parties and for the deponent in writing. 7. Remote Appearances. All appearances for informal discovery conferences, case management conferences, law and motion and other hearings shall be conducted remotely on a media platform the Court will designate when it schedules a hearing. 8. Informal Discovery Conferences. a. Pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure Section 201 6.080 and the Court’s Complex Guidelines, no party may move to compel discovery, or file any other discovery motion, including any motion for non-remote deposition, until the parties have had an informal discovery conference with the Court. Counsel must have exhausted all meet and confer obligations before the informal discovery conference. To request an informal discovery conference, counsel should contact the Complex Coordinator by email, which must be contemporaneously copied to counsel for all parties to the action. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2016.080(c)(2), the time for bringing any motion to compel is tolled starting on the date a party makes the email request for an informal discovery conference t0 the Court. b. If the discovery dispute is not resolved following the discovery conference, any party may proceed t0 file a motion. Any such motion must be filed within ten (1 0) court days 0f the conference, 0r within the 45-day statutory time, whichever date is later, unless otherwise COVID-l9 EMERGENCY ORDER REGARDING COMPLEX CIVIL ACTIONS -4- Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 53 of 81 1O 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 specifically ordered by the Court. c. The procedures outlined above apply to parties. With regard to discovery disputes with non-parties, the non-parties may elect to participate in this procedure, but are not required to do so. 9. Case Management Conferences. Any party who believes their case warrants a case management conference earlier than currently set is encouraged to contact the Complex Coordinator by email t0 secure an earlier case management conference, including any disputes regarding briefing schedules or deadlines due to emergency court “holidays.” 10. Law and Motion in Complex Civil Cases. No supplemental briefing will be allowed, except as specifically ordered by the Court, on motions originally set for hearing between March 17, 2020 and May 29, 2020, which have been fully briefed and continued to a new date. In all other matters previously filed but not fully briefed, counsel shall meet and confer and agree 0n a stipulation and proposed order for a new briefing schedule that provides that all papers on the motion are filed at least 14 calendar days in advance ofthe continued hearing date. 11. Trials. All trials, and related Mandatory Settlement Conferences and Pre-trial Conferences, originally scheduled between March 17, 2020 and July 30, 2020 are hereby vacated and will be re-scheduled to a Tr‘ial Setting Conference. 12. Pre-trial Deadlines. In any case in which the trial originally scheduled between March 17, 2020 and July 30, 2020 was continued or vacated, all pre-trial deadlines will track the new trial date, absent a showing of good cause. 13. Five-Year Dismissal (C.C.P. § 583.310). In any case in which the initial complaint was filed on 0r before May 1, 2016, the parties are ordered to meet and confer 0n the subject 0f the date on which the five-year period in Code ofCivil Procedure Section 583.3 l O ends, including consideration of any stays, whether directly ordered or automatic. If the parties agree 0n that date, they shall submit a stipulation and proposed order setting forth the agreed- upon date. If the parties cannot agree on that date, they shall file within thirty (30) days of the date ofthis order ajoint statement of no greater than five (5) pages-setting forth each party’s position as to the relevant date and the reasons therefor. COVID-19 EMERGENCY ORDER REGARDING COMPLEX CIVIL ACTIONS -5- Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 54 of 81 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14. Three-Year Limitation for New Trial (C.C.P. § 583.320). In any case where a mistrial was granted or new trial granted prior to May 1, 2018, and n0 new trial date is presently set, the parties are ordered to meet and confer 0n the subject of the date on which the three-year period in Code ofCivil Procedure Section 583.320 ends, including consideration of any stays, whether directly ordered or automatic. If the parties agree on that date, they shall submit a stipulation and proposed order setting forth the agreed-upon date. If the parties cannot agree on that date, they shall file within thirty (30) days of the date ofthis order ajoint statement of n0 greater than five (5) pages setting forth each party’s position as to the relevant date and the reasons therefor. THIS ORDER IS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. Dated: May 6, 2020 kQWW[W-wmw..... Presiding Judge Deborah A]Ryan Santa Clara County Superfdi‘ Court COVID-19 EMERGENCY ORDER REGARDING COMPLEX CIVIL ACTIONS Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 55 of 81 Exhibit H Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 56 of 81 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION INFORMATION SHEET 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 ofthe 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 ofAlternative 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 can save time. A dispute can be resolved in a matter of months, or even weeks, while litigation can take years. o ADR can save money. Attorney‘s fees, court costs, and expert fees can be reduced or avoided altogether. o ADR provides more participation. Parties have more opportunities with ADR to express their interests and concerns, instead of focusing exclusively on legal rights. o ADR provides more control and flexibility. Parties can choose the ADR process that is most likely to bring a satisfactory resolution to their dispute. o ADR can reduce stress. 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? Mediation 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: - 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 Neutral evaluation, 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 ofthe 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 a The parties are interested in an injunction, consent decree, or other form of equitable relief -OV6I‘- cv-5003 REV 6/26/13 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION INFORMATION SHEET CIVIL DIVISION Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 57 of 81 Arbitration is a less formal process than a trial, with no jury. The arbitrator hears the evidence and arguments of the parties and then makes a written decision. The parties can agree to binding or non-binding arbitration. In binding arbitration, the arbitrator’s 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) Civil Judge 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 - The courthouse surroundings would he helpful to the settlement process Special masters ancl referees 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. Settlement conferences 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 ofthejudge 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; Iandlord/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 foryour case, information about ADR procedures, or answers to other questions about ADR? 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 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION INFORMATION SHEET CIVIL DIVISION Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 58 of 81 Exhibit I Santa Clara - Civil ZOCV371 039 POS-01 0 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): Larry W. Lee (SBN 228175) / Simon L. Yang (SBN 260286)- Diversity Law Group, P.C. 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, California 90071 TELEPHONE No.: 2 1 3-488-6555 E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): lwlee@diversitylaW.Com ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiffs Edward Scott Gau and Brandy Foster-Gau FAX No. (Optional): 213-488-6554 FOR COURT USE ONLY Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 10/29/2020 4:25 PM SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 0F SANTA CLARA STREET ADDRESS: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY AND ZIP CODE: BRANCH NAME: 191 N. First Street San Jose, CA 951 13 Downtown Superior Court Reviewed By: System System Case #20CV371 039 Envelope: 5206173 System Sy PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Edward Scott Gau;Brandy Foster-Gau DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc. CASE NUMBER: 20CV371039 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS Ref. No. or File No.: 1. At the time of service | was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this action. 2. | served copies of: (Separate proof of service is required for each party served.) a- summons complaint Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) package E cross-complaint b c d. Civil Case Cover Sheet (served in complex cases only) e f other (specify documents): Civil Lawsuit Notice, Order Deeming Case Complex; COVID-19 9° m . Party served (specify name ofparty as shown on documents served): Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation Emergency Order Re: Complex Civil Actions b. Person (other than the party in item 3a) served on behalf of an entity or as an authorized agent (and not a person under item 5b on whom substituted service was made) (specify name and relationship to the party named in item 3a): Greg S. Labate, Attorney for Defendant Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation 4. Address where the party was served: 650 Town Center Drive, Tenth Floor, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 5. | served the party (check proper box) a_ E by personal service. | personally delivered the documents listed in item 2 to the party or person authorized to receive service of process for the party (1) on (date): b. E by substituted service. On (date): in the presence of (name and title or relationship to person indicated in item 3): at (time): (2) at (time): | left the documents listed in item 2 with or (1) E (business) a person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the office or usual place of business of the person to be served. | informed him or her of the general nature of the papers. (2) E (3) E (4) E (5) E (home) a competent member of the household (at least 18 years of age) at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the party. | informed him or her of the general nature of the papers. (physical address unknown) a person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the usual mailing address of the person to be served, other than a United States Postal Service post office box. | informed him or her of the general nature of the papers. | thereafter mailed (by first-class, postage prepaid) copies of the documents to the person to be served at the place where the copies were left (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20 . | mailed the documents on (date): from (city): a declaration of mailing is attached. | attach a declaration of diligence stating actions taken first to attempt personal service. Page 1 of 2 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Judicial Council of California POS-010 [Rev. January 1, 2007] PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS Code of Civil Procedure, § 417.10 stem Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 59 of 81 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc. PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Edward Scott Gau;Brandy Foster-Gau CASE NUMBER: 20CV371039 5. c.- by mail and acknowledgment of receipt of service. | mailed the documents listed in item 2 to the party, to the address shown in item 4, by first-class mail, postage prepaid, (1) on (date): 10/9/20 (2) from (city): Los Angeles (3) with two copies of the Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt and a postage-paid return envelope addressed to me. (Attach completed Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt.) (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.30.) (4) E to an address outside California with return receipt requested. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.40.) d_ E by other means (specify means of service and authorizing code section): E Additional page describing service is attached. 6. The "Notice to the Person Served" (on the summons) was completed as follows: a. E as an individual defendant. b- E as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): C- E as occupant. d- On behalf of (specify): Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc. under the following Code of Civil Procedure section: 416.10 (corporation) E 415.95 (business organization, form unknown)E 416.20(defunctcorporation) E 416.60(minor)E 416.30 (joint stock company/association) E 416.70 (ward or conservatee)E 416.40 (association or partnership) E 416.90 (authorized person)E 416.50 (public entity) E 415.46 (occupant)E other: Person who served papers a. Name: Erika Mejia $099.6 | am: (1) (2) (3) l Address: 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250, Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone number: 213-488-6555 The fee for service was: $ not a registered California process server. exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b). a registered California process server: (i) E owner E employee E independent contractor. (ii) Registration No.: (iii) County: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. or 9. E l am a California sheriff or marshal and | certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: October 29, 2020 Erika Mejia (NAME OF PERSON WHO SERVED PAPERS/SHERIFF OR MARSHAL) SIGNATURE ) P030” [Rev' “my 1' 2°07] PROOF 0F SERVICE 0F SUMMONS Page 2 of 2 Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 60 of 81 200V371039 Santa Clara - Civil POS-01 5 ATTORNEY 0R PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name. State Bar number, land address): F _Lany w. Lee (SBN 228175) / Simon L. Yang (SEN 260286) by uperior Court of CA, Diversity Law Group, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 cal: 37¥golgoszaonfzcslaprnalf Los Angeles, CA 90071 on ' TELEPHONE No 2 13-488-6555 FAX N°~ (Optiona’fl 213-488-6554 Rev ewed By: R- Walker E'MA'L ADDRESS (09"°"a” lwlee@diversitylaw.com ' case #ZOCV371 039 ATTORNEY FOR (Name).- Plaintiffs Edward Scott Gau and Brandy Fostcr-Gau Enve|ope: 52061 73 SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 0F SANTA CLARA STREET ADDRESS: l9l N. First Street MAILING ADDRESS: CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Jose, CA 951 13 BRANCH NAME: Downtown Superior Court PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Edward Scott Gau and Brandy Foster-Gau DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc. CASE NUMBER: NOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT-CIVIL 20CV37I039 TO (insert name ofparty being served): Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation NOTICE The summons and other documents identified below are being served pursuant to section 415.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Your failure to complete this form and return it within 20 days from the date of mailing shown below may subject you (or the party on whose behalf you are being served) to liability for the payment of any expenses incurred in serving a summons on you in any other manner permitted by law. If you are being served on behalf of a corporation, an unincorporated association (including a partnership), or other entity, this form must be signed by you in the name of such entity or by a person authorized to receive service of process on behalf of such entity. In all other cases, this form must be signed by you personally or by a person authorized by you to acknowledge receipt of summons. If you return this form to the sender, service of a summons is deemed complete on the day you sign the acknowledgment of receipt below. Date of mailing: October 9, 2020 Erika Meiia ' D QWA ‘7 (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF END R-MUST NOT BE A PARTY IN THIS CASE) ACKNOWLEDGMENT 0F RECEIPT This acknowledges receipt of (to be completed by sender before mailing): 1. A copy of the summons and of the complaint. 2. Other (specify): Civil Case Cover Sheet; Civil Lawsuit Notice; Order Deeming Case Complex; COVID-l9 Emergency Order Re: Complex Civil Actions; ADR Info Sheet (To be completed by recipient): Date this form is signed: October 29, 2020 GREG S, LABATE ’ (TYPE 0R PRINT YOUR NAME AND NAME OF ENTITY. IF ANY. (SIGNATURE 0F P o ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT. WITH TITLE IF 0N WHOSE BEHALF THIS FORM Is SIGNED) ACKNOWLEDGMENT A 0N BEHALF 0F ANOTHER PERSON 0R ENTITY) Page 1 of 1 Ad t df M d t Cod fC'vil Procedure, FOSTdI-claolpceounogfl ofagaifggflgse NOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT_ CIVIL e o§§ 4'15'30' 417.10 POS-015 [Rev. January 1. 2005] www.couninfo.ca.gov Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 61 of 81 Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 62 of 81 Exhibit J \DOOQQUl-PUJNt-t NNNNNNNNNr-Ar-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-Ar-tr-tr-A OONQUl-PUJNi-‘OKOOONQU‘I-PUJNF-‘O Case 5:20-cv-08250 Docgfifiifinfid 11/23/20 Page 63 0f 81 A Electronically Filed SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & H MPTON LLP by Superior Court of CA,A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations county Of santa Clara’ GREG STEPHEN LABATE, Cal. Bar No. 149918 0n 10/29/2020 7:15 PM KRISTI L. THOMAS, Cal. Bar No. 276511 Reviewed By: R. Walker 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Case #20CV371 039 Costa Mesa, California 92626-1993 Envelope: 5207399 Telephone: 714.513.5100 Facsimile: 714.513.5130 E mail glabate@sheppardmullin.com kthomas@sheppardmullin.com Attorneys for Defendant HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA EDWARD SCOTT GAU, as an individual and Case N0. 20CV371039 0n behalf 0f all others similarly situated, and as a private attorney general, and BRANDY Assigned for A11 Purposes to: FOSTER-GAU, as a private attorney general, Hon. Brian C. Walsh Dept. 1 Plaintiffs, NOTICE OF PAYMENT OF COMPLEX vs. FILING FEE HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through Complaint Filed: September 30, 2020 50, inclusive, Trial Date: None Set Defendants. TO THE HONORABLE BRIAN C. WALSH: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 29, 2020, Defendant HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. submitted its complex fees in the amount of $1,000 in this action. _ 1 _ SMRHz4846-5152-9936.1 NOTICE 0F PAYMENT 0F COMPLEX FILING FEE \DOOflQUl-PUJNt-t NNNNNNNNNr-tb-tr-tr-tb-tr-tr-tb-tr-tr-t OONQUl-PUJNi-‘OKOOONQU‘I-PUJNF-‘O Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 64 of 81 Dated: October 29, 2020 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP GREG s. LABATE KRISTI L. THOMAS Attorneys for Defendant HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. -2- SMRHz4846-5 152-9936.1 NOTICE OF PAYMENT OF COMPLEX FILING FEE \DOOQQUI-bWNt-t NNNNNNNNNr-Ar-tr-Ar-th-tr-tr-th-tr-Ar-A OONQUl-PUJNF-‘OKOOONQU‘I-PUJNV-‘O Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 65 0f 81 PROOF OF SERVICE Edward Scott Gau V. Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc., et al. Santa Clara Superior Court Case N0.: 20CV371039 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE At the time of service, I was over 18 years 0f age and not a party t0 this action. I am employed in the County of Orange, State 0f California. My business address is 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor, Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993. On October 29, 2020, I served true copies 0f the following document(s) described as NOTICE OF PAYMENT OF COMPLEX FILING FEE on the interested parties in this action as follows: SERVICE LIST Attorneysfor PlaintiflEdward Scott Gau Larry W. Lee Telephone: 213.488.6555 Simon Y. Lang Facmmile: 213.488.6554 Diversity Law Group, P.C. E-Mail: lwlee@diversity1aw.com 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 sly@diversitylaw.com Los Angeles, CA 90071 William L. Marder Telephone: 831.53 1 .4214 Polaris Law Group LLP Fa031mile: 831.634.0333 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Email: bill@polarislawgroup.com Hollister, CA 95023 BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope 0r package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar With the firm's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business With the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. I am a resident 0r employed in the county where the mailing occurred. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws 0f the State 0f California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 29, 2020, at Costa Mesa, California. SMRHz4846-5152-9936.1 NOTICE OF PAYMENT OF COMPLEX FILING FEE Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 66 of 81 Exhibit K \OOOflQUl-PUJNv-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQLJl-RUJNt-‘O\OOOQO\UIAUJNHO Case 5:20-cv-08250 Docgfifiifinfid 11/23/20 Page 67 0f 81 Electronically Filed SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP by Superior Court of CA,A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations county Of santa Clara’ GREG s. LABATE, Cal. Bar No. 149918 0n 11/13/2020 10:41 AM KRISTI L. THOMAS, Cal. Bar No. 276511 Reviewed By: R. Walker 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Case #20CV371 039 Costa Mesa, California 92626-1993 Envelope: 531 7343 Telephone: 714.513.5100 Facsimile: 714.513.5130 E mail glabate@sheppardmullin.com kthomas@sheppardmullin.com Attorneys for Defendant HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA EDWARD SCOTT GAU, as an individual and Case N0. 20CV371039 on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a private attorney general, and BRANDY Assigned for A11 Purposes t0: FOSTER-GAU, as a private attorney general, Hon. Brian C. Walsh Dept. 1 Plaintiffs, VS. DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S ANSWER HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., TO COMPLAINT a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Complaint Filed: September 30, 2020 Defendants. Trial Date: None Set -1- SMRH34832'3940'6033-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC.’S ANSWER \OOOflQUl-bUJNv-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQM-RUJNt-‘OKOOOQQU‘IAUJNF-‘O Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 68 0f 81 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: Defendant Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc. (“Defendant”), for itself alone and for n0 others, hereby answers the unverified Complaint (“Complaint”) of Plaintiffs Edward Scott Gau and Brandy-Foster Gau (collectively “Plaintiffs”) as follows: GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant t0 the provisions 0f Section 43 1 .30(d) of the California Code 0f Civil Procedure, Defendant denies generally and specifically each and evary cause 0f action and purported allegation and cause 0f action set forth in the Complaint, and further denies that Plaintiffs were damaged in the sum alleged or sums alleged 0r in any sum or at all. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute 0f Limitations) 1. The Complaint, and each and every purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, including but not limited t0, California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 338(a), 339, 340(a), 340(b), and 343, California Business & Professions Code Section 17208 and California Labor Code Section 2698 et seq. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure t0 State a Cause of Action) 2. The Complaint, and each and every purported cause of action alleged therein, fails to state facts sufficient t0 constitute a cause of action against Defendant under the California Labor Code, IWC Wage Orders 0r the Unfair Competition Law or otherwise. -2- SMRH24832-3940-6033-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INCRS ANSWER \OOOQONUl-bUJNv-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQM-RUJNt-‘OKOOOQQU‘IAUJNF-‘O Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 69 0f 81 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Exhaust) 3. The Complaint, and each and every purported cause 0f action alleged therein, is barred, in Whole or in part, because Plaintiffs failed t0 timely and completely exhaust their requisite administrative and/or contractual remedies available to them under the California Labor Code or other provisions of law 0r contract prior t0 commencing this action. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine) 4. The Complaint, and each and every purported cause 0f action alleged therein, should be abated in the Court’s discretion and Plaintiffs should be ordered to pursue their administrative remedies with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and/or Workforce Development Agency, Which have primary jurisdiction over these Claims. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Inadequacy 0f Class Representative) 5. Defendant is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief alleges, that Plaintiff Edward Scott Gau, and to the extent she is attempting to serve as a class representative, Plaintiff Brandy-Foster Gau, is not a proper or adequate representative 0f the Class he/she purports t0 represent and, accordingly, this action is not properly brought as a class action. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack 0f Superiority) 6. Defendant is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief alleges, that the class action procedure is not the superior method for adjudicating Plaintiffs’ claims or the claims 0f the alleged class and, accordingly, this action is not properly brought as a class action. -3- SMRH24832-3940-6033-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INCRS ANSWER \OOONONUl-bUJNv-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQM-hWNt-‘OKOOOQQU‘IAUJNF-‘O Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 7O of 81 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unmanageable Representative Action) 7. The Complaint, and each and every purported cause of action alleged therein, cannot be maintained 0n a representative basis due t0 a multitude 0f unmanageable individualized issues. Proceeding 0n a representative basis would deprive Defendant of due process. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Standing) 8. Defendant is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief alleges, that Plaintiffs lack standing to assert each or any purported cause of action alleged in the Complaint and lack standing t0 represent the putative class. Plaintiffs additionally lack standing to bring claims for any civil penalties 0n behalf of others because neither Plaintiffs nor any 0f the individuals they seek t0 represent are “aggrieved employees,” pursuant t0 the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code sections 2698, et seq. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Laches) 9. The Complaint, and each and every purported cause 0f action alleged therein, is barred by the doctrine 0f laches, in that Plaintiffs unreasonably delayed in bringing the action because they did not act Within a reasonable time in seeking the wages at issue, 0r otherwise reporting any alleged Violation ofwage and hour laws, and have unreasonably delayed in the filing of this lawsuit, causing Defendant t0 suffer prejudice. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) 10. The Complaint and each cause of action set forth therein are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. -4- SMRH34832-3940-6033-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S ANSWER \OOONONUl-RUJNv-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQLJl-RUJNt-‘O\OOOQO\UIAUJNHO Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 71 of 81 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver) 11. Defendant is informed and believes that Plaintiffs and/or the putative class has waived some 0r all 0f the purported causes of action alleged in the Complaint by Virtue of their prior representations, actions and/or inaction. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) 12. The Complaint and each cause of action set forth therein are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Consent) 13. Defendant alleges that a reasonable opportunity for investigation and discovery Will reveal, that the Complaint and each cause of action set forth therein are barred by the doctrine of consent. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Justification) 14. Any acts alleged t0 have been committed by Defendant were committed in the exercise 0f good faith, with probable cause, were not arbitrary or capricious, were based upon legitimate factors, and were reasonable and justified under the circumstances. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Adequate Remedy at Law) 15. Defendant alleges Plaintiffs and/or the putative class members/allegedly aggrieved employees are not entitled t0 equitable relief insofar as they have adequate remedies at law. -5- SMRH24832-3940-6033-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S ANSWER \OOOQONUl-bUJNv-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQLJl-RUJNt-‘O\OOOQO\UIAUJNHO Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 72 of 81 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unknown Conduct / Outside Course and Scope 0f Employment) 16. Defendant alleges that the Complaint and/or each purported cause 0f action therein cannot be maintained against Defendant because if Plaintiffs and the putative class members/allegedly aggrieved employees took the actions alleged, such actions were committed outside the course and scope of such employment, were not authorized, adopted 0r ratified by Defendant, and/or Defendant did not know of nor should it have known 0f such conduct. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Set-Off/Offset/Recoupment) 17. The Complaint, and each and every purported cause of action alleged therein, is subj ect t0 setoff, offset and/or recoupment t0 the extent Plaintiffs and/or the putative class members/allegedly aggrieved employees have already been compensated for the hours worked for Which they seek compensation here. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Uncertainty) 18. Defendant alleges the Complaint, and the claims asserted therein, are uncertain. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Specificity) 19. Defendant alleges Plaintiffs have failed t0 allege special damages or any other damages With requisite specificity. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Bona Fide Dispute) 20. Defendant alleges there exists a bonafide dispute as to Whether any further compensation is actually due t0 Plaintiffs and/or the putative class members/allegedly aggrieved -6- SMRH24832-3940-6033-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INCRS ANSWER \OOOQONUl-RUJNv-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQLJl-RUJNt-‘O\OOOQO\UI-5UJNHO Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 73 of 81 employees and, if so, the amount thereof. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Labor Code § 203 - N0 Willful 0r Intentional Violation) 21. Defendant alleges that, it has not willfully 0r intentionally failed t0 pay any such additional compensation t0 Plaintiffs and/or the putative class members/allegedly aggrieved employees, within the meaning and scope of California Labor Code section 203. Defendant is informed and believes that further investigation and discovery will reveal, and on that basis alleges, that any Violation 0f the Labor Code or an Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission was an act 0r omission made in good faith and Defendant had reasonable grounds for believing that its wage payment and meal and rest period practices complied With applicable laws and that any such act 0r omission was not a Violation of the Labor Code 0r any Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission such that Plaintiffs and/or the putative class members/allegedly aggrieved employees are not entitled to any penalties or damages in excess 0f any wages Which might be found to be due. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Labor Code § 226 - No Intentional Failure) 22. Defendant alleges that, even assuming arguendo Plaintiffs and/or the putative class members/allegedly aggrieved employees were not provided With a proper itemized statement of wages and deductions, Plaintiffs and the putative class members/allegedly aggrieved employees are not entitled t0 recover damages 0r penalties because Defendant’s alleged failure t0 comply With California Labor Code section 226(a) was not a “knowing and intentional failure” under California Labor Code section 226(6). TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Labor Code § 226 - Clerical Error/Inadvertent Mistake) 23. Defendant alleges that, even assuming arguendo Plaintiffs and/or the putative class -7- SMRH24832-3940-6033-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S ANSWER \OOOflQUl-bUJNv-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQLJl-RUJNt-‘O\OOOQO\UIAUJNHO Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 74 of 81 members/allegedly aggrieved employees were not provided with a proper itemized statement of wages and deductions, Plaintiffs and the putative class members/allegedly aggrieved employees are not entitled to recover damages 0r penalties because Defendant’s alleged failure t0 comply with California Labor Code section 226(a) was the result 0f a clerical error or inadvertent mistake. TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Labor Code § 226 - No Injury) 24. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs and members 0f the putative class/allegedly aggrieved employees have not suffered any injury 0r damage whatsoever because the information contained on wage statements as required by Labor Code section 226 may be promptly and easily ascertained without reference to other documents 0r information. TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Res Judicata, Bar and Merger, Settlement/Release) 25. Defendant alleges the causes of action set forth in the Complaint and in each 0f the purported causes 0f action alleged therein are 0r Will become subj ect t0 settlement/release agreements, and/or judgments or settlements 0f other class actions, Which constitute a complete or partial bar to the present action, and/or are subj ect to the doctrine of res judicata. TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Collateral Estoppel) 26. The Complaint, and each and every purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred, in Whole or in part by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (After-Acquired Evidence) 27. Defendant is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief alleges, that Plaintiffs are barred, in whole or in part, from recovery 0f any damages based upon -8- SMRH24832-3940-6033-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INCRS ANSWER \OOOQONUl-RUJNv-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQM-RWNHO\OOOQO\m-5UJNHO Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 75 of 81 the doctrine of after-acquired evidence. TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Mitigation 0f Damages) 28. Defendant is informed and believes that Plaintiffs and any putative class members/allegedly aggrieved employees have failed t0 exercise reasonable care t0 mitigate their damages, if any were suffered, and that their right to recover against Defendant should be reduced and/or eliminated by such a failure. TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Violation of Due Process) 29. Defendant alleges that certification of a class as applied t0 the facts and circumstances 0f this case, would constitute a denial of Defendant’s due process rights, both substantive and procedural, in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the California Constitution. Defendant further alleges that the penalties Plaintiffs demand are excessive and Violate Defendant’s due process rights in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the California Constitution. THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unconstitutional Wage Order) 30. Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause 0f action therein, or some 0f them, are barred because the applicable wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission are unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous and Violate Defendant’s rights under the United States Constitution and the California Constitution as t0, among other things, due process 0f law. THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Follow Directions) 3 1. Defendant alleges that it is informed and believes that a reasonable opportunity for -9- SMRH24832-3940-6033-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INCRS ANSWER \OOOflQUl-bUJNv-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQM-RUJNt-‘OKOOOQQU‘IAUJNF-‘O Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 76 of 81 investigation and discovery will reveal, and 0n that basis alleges, that any failure to comply With Defendant’s wage & hour and/or work-time recording polices and requirements, was the result of failure by Plaintiffs and/or the putative class members/allegedly aggrieved employees to follow Defendant’s reasonable instructions. THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Bad Faith) 32. Defendant alleges that a reasonable opportunity for investigation and discovery Will reveal and, 0n that basis alleges, that Plaintiffs’ claims are unreasonable and/or were filed in bad faith and/or are frivolous and, for that reason, justify an award 0f attorneys’ fees and costs against Plaintiffs and their attorneys. THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Breach 0f Duty) 33. Defendant is informed and believes that a reasonable opportunity for investigation and discovery Will reveal and, 0n that basis alleges, that Plaintiffs’ claims, and those of any putative class members/allegedly aggrieved employees, are barred by their own breach of the duties owed to Defendant under California Labor Code section 2854, 2856, 2857, 2858 and/or 2859. THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (N0 Penalties 0r Liquidated Damages- Good Faith Dispute) 34. Defendant is informed and believes that further investigation and discovery will reveal, and 0n that basis alleges, that any Violation 0f the Labor Code or an Order 0f the Industrial Welfare Commission was an act 0r omission made in good faith; that Defendant had reasonable grounds for believing that it complied With applicable laws; and that Plaintiffs and members 0f the purported class cannot recover Labor Code Section 226(6) penalties because any alleged failure to pay wages 0r provide compliant wage statements was based on a good faith dispute regarding the _ 1 0- SMRH24832-3940-6033J DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S ANSWER \OOOQONUl-RUJNv-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQM-RUJNt-‘OKOOOQQU‘IAUJNF-‘O Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 77 of 81 applicable law or facts. THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (N0 Entitlement t0 Prejudgment Interest) 35. Defendant is informed and believes that further investigation and discovery will reveal, and 0n that basis alleges, that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon Which prejudgment interest may be granted because the damages claimed are not sufficiently certain to allow an award ofprejudgment interest. THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Avoidable Consequences) 36. Defendant is informed and believes that further investigation and discovery will reveal, and on that basis alleges, that the Complaint and each cause of action set forth therein, 0r some 0f them, are barred, in Whole or in part, by the doctrine of avoidable consequences. THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Binding Arbitration) 37. Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause 0f action set forth therein, or some 0f them, cannot be maintained against Defendant to the extent the claims 0f Plaintiffs and/or the putative class members/allegedly aggrieved employees are subj ect t0 binding agreements to arbitrate. THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack 0f Knowledge) 38. Defendant alleges it had n0 knowledge, and could not reasonably have known, 0f any off-the clock work by Plaintiffs and/or the putative class members/allegedly aggrieved employees. _ 1 1 _ SMRH34832-3940-6033-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S ANSWER \OOONONUl-bUJNv-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQLh-RWNHO\OOOQO\m-5UJNHO Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 78 of 81 THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Private Right of Action) 39. Defendant alleges that there is n0 private right of action t0 recover the penalties sought by Plaintiffs and/or the putative class members and that Plaintiffs have not complied With the procedural requirements for seeking any such penalties. FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Private Attorneys General Act - Unconstitutional) 40. Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause 0f action are barred because the Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code section 2699 et seq. is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad as applied to the Complaint and circumstances of this case. Defendant further alleges that prosecution 0f a representative action on behalf of similarly situated employees under Labor Code section 2698, et seq., as applied t0 the Complaint and circumstances 0f this case, would constitute a denial of Defendant’s due process rights, both substantive and procedural, in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment 0f the United States Constitution. Further, the penalties sought in Plaintiffs’ Complaint Violate the Due Process and Separation 0f Powers Clauses 0f the United States and California Constitutions. Lockyer v. RJ. Reynolds Tobacco C0. (2005) 37 Cal. 4th 707; Ratner v. Chemical Bank New York Trust C0. (S.D.N.Y. 1972) 54 F.R.D. 412. FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unjust, Arbitrary and Oppressive, 0r Confiscatory Penalties) 41. Defendant alleges assessment of civil penalties would be unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory Within the meaning of Labor Code section 2699(e)(2). FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Provide Notification) 42. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs failed t0 give sufficient written notice by online filing With the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and by certified mail t0 the employer _ 1 2- SMRH34832-3940-6033-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S ANSWER \OOOflQUl-bUJNv-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQLJl-RUJNt-‘O\OOOQO\UIAUJNHO Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 79 of 81 0f the specific provisions of the California Labor Code alleged to have been violated in this action, including the facts and theories to support the alleged Violations, pursuant t0 the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code section 2698 et seq., and Plaintiffs’ claims are thus barred and/or limited by law. FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure t0 Identify) 43. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs have failed to identify any other allegedly aggrieved employees, as provided in the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code section 2698 ez‘ seq., and such claims are thus barred and/or limited by law. FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (De Minimis) 44. Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause 0f action set forth therein, or some 0f them, cannot be maintained against Defendant because Defendant’s acts 0r omissions, if any, and the alleged time involved and/or damages are de minimis. RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO AMEND ANSWER Defendant hereby gives notice that it intends to rely on such other and further defenses as may become available during discovery in this action and reserves the right to amend the Answer t0 assert any such defenses. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows: 1. That the Complaint be dismissed With prejudice in its entirety; 2. That Plaintiffs take nothing by reason 0f the Complaint; 3. That Defendant be awarded its costs 0f suit and reasonable attorneys' fees to the -13- SMRH34832-3940-6033-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S ANSWER KOOONONUI-RUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQLJl-RUJNt-‘OKOOOQQU‘IAUJNF-‘O Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 80 0f 81 extent provided by law; and, 4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: November 18, 2020 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP By 4 "GRE'G s. LABATE KRISTI L. THOMAS Attorneys for Defendant HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. -14- SMRH34832'3940'6033-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S ANSWER KOOONQUI-RUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQLJl-RUJNt-‘OKOOOQQU‘I-PUJNF-‘O Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 81 of 81 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE Edward Scott Gau v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, Ina, et al. Santa Clara Superior Court Case N0.: 20CV371039 At the time of service, Iwas over 18 years of age and not a party t0 this action. I am employed in the County 0f Orange, State of California. My business address is 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor, Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993. On November 18 2020, I served true copies 0f the following document(s) described as DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 0n the interested parties in this action as follows: SERVICE LIST Attorneysfor Plaintififv Edward Scott Gau and Brandy Foster-Gau Telephone: 2 1 3 488.6555 Larry W. Lee Facsimile: 2 1 3.488.6554 Simon Y. Lang E-Mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com Diversity Law Group, P.C. sly@diversitylaw.com 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 William L. Marder Telephone: 83 1 .53 1 .42 14 Polaris Law Group LLP Facsimile: 83 1 634.0333 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Email: bill@polarislawgroup.com Hollister, CA 95023 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I served the document(s) on the person listed in the Service List by submitting an electronic version 0f the document(s) t0 One Legal, LLC, through the user interface at www.onelegal.com. I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws of the State 0f California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed 0n November 18, 2020, at Costa Mesa, Ca ' ia. Mon' a Grisotti -15- SMRH24832-3940-6033-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S ANSWER \OOOflQUl-PUJNv-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQM-RWNHO©OOQO\M#UJNHO Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1-1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 1 of 8 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership o Includin Professmnal Corporatlons GREG S. ABATE, Cal. Bar N0. 149918 KRISTI L. THOMAS, Cal. Bar N0. 276511 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, California 92626-1993 Telephone: 714.513.5100 Facsunile: 714.5 13.5 130 E mail Elabate@sheppardmullin.com thomas@sheppardmullin.com Attorne s for Defendant HILLS ONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EDWARD SCOTT GAU, as an indiyidual and on behalf of a1_1 others simllarly Sltuated, and as a rlvate attorne general, and BRA DY FOST R-GAU, as a prlvate attorney general, Plaintiffs, vs. HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, incluswe, Defendants. Case N0. ERemqved from Santa Clara Count?! uperlor Court, Case N0. 20CV37 039] DECLARATION OF TINO CIAMBRIELLO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL {filed concurrently With Notice of emoval; Corporate Dlsclosure Statement; Certification of Interested Entities 0r Persons; and Civil Case Cover Sheet] Complaint filed: September 30, 2020 Trial date: None Set _ 1 _ Case No. SMRH14842-7343-0225 .1 DECLARATION OF TINO CIAMBRIELLO IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL \OOOQONUl-RUJNv-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQM-RUJNt-‘OKOOOQQKII-bUJNF-‘O Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1-1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 2 of 8 DECLARATION OF TINO CIAMBRIELLO I, Tino Ciambriello, declare and state under penalty of perjury as follows: 1. I am currently employed by Defendant Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc. (“Defendant”) as its Vice President. Imake this declaration in support 0f Defendant’s Notice of Removal in the action of Edward Scott Gau, et a1. V. Hillstone Restaurant Group, 1110., et al., Santa Clara Superior Court Case N0. 20CV371039 (the “Action”). Ihave personal, first-hand knowledge of the matters set forth below, and, if called upon t0 testify, I could and would d0 so competently. 2. In my capacity as Vice President, I am familiar With Defendant’s corporate structure, state of incorporation, and principle place 0f business. Defendant is organized as a corporation under the laws 0f the State 0f Delaware, With its principal place 0f business in Arizona. Arizona is Where Defendant’s high- level officers, including its Chief Executive Officer, direct, control, and coordinate Defendant’s activities. Defendant’s executive operations, including but not limited t0, those operations relating t0 administering company-Wide policies and procedures, legal affairs, and general business operations are managed from Arizona. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Defendant’s Statement of Information No Change filed with the California Secretary 0f State indicating that Defendant is a Delaware corporation. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy 0f Defendant’s Statement of Information filed with the California Secretary 0f State indicating that Defendant’s principal place of business is in Phoenix, Arizona. 5. Further, in my capacity as Vice President, I and certain other employees have regular access to and are familiar with, Defendant’s data records relating to its employees. Such data includes information relating t0 the identities of Defendant’s non-exempt employees, their pay data, and their hire and termination dates. -2- Case No. SMRHI4842-7343-0225-1 DECLARATION OF TINO CIAMBRIELLO IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL \OOOQONUl-bUJNv-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQM-tht-‘OKOOOQQM-bUJNF-‘O Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1-1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 3 of 8 6. I have carefully reviewed a report compiled from Defendant’s employee data records as explained above, for individuals Who held non-exempt positions in California from September 30, 2016 t0 present (the “Class Period”). Based 0n my review 0f this report, I have determined the following information relating t0 Defendant’s non-exempt California employees: a. Defendant employed approximately 3,369 non-exempt hourly employees Who worked at least one shift that was 3.5 hours 0r more during the Class Period (the “Proposed Putative Rest Period Class”). b. Defendant employed approximately 3,282 non-exempt hourly employees Who worked at least one shift greater than 5 hours during the Class Period (the “Proposed Putative Meal Period Class”). c. If the Proposed Putative Rest Period Class and the Proposed Putative Meal Period Class are together considered the “Proposed Putative Class,” then the Proposed Putative Class consists 0f approximately 3,369 members. d. Between September 30, 2016 and present, the Proposed Putative Rest Period Class worked approximately 2 1 5,964 workweeks. e. Between September 30, 2016 and present, the Proposed Putative Meal Period Class worked approximately 2 1 5,732 workweeks. 7. Based on my further review 0f the report, during the Class Period Defendant paid the Proposed Putative Class members an average hourly rate of approximately $ 1 6 . 67. 8. In my capacity as Vice President, I have regular access t0 employment records 0f employees of Defendant. Having reviewed such records for Edward Scott Gau and Brandy-Foster Gau (collectively “P1aintiffs”), I confirmed that Plaintiffs” last known addresses 0n file are in San Mateo, California. -3 _ Case No. SMRHI4842-7343-0225-1 DECLARATION OF TINO CIAMBRIELLO IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1-1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 4 of 8 \OWQQMAWN- NNNNNN NN-nndH-HH-nu-HI-t WNO‘MAU’BHCOWQO‘MAU’NHO I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct and executed this 1'8 W‘day ofNovember, 2020, in San Marin, California.g..- Tino Ciambriello ’ -4- Case No. SMRH:4842-7343~0Q25.1 DECLARATION OF TINO CIAMBRIELLO IN SUPPORT 0F NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1-1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 5 of 8 EXHIBIT A Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1-1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 6 of 8 “a California Secretary of State EIectronicang §::::::ré;;§::2: Corporation - Statement of Information No Change E?mtitifiafne; HILLstNE RESTAIJRANT GROUP, INC. Entity (File) Number: 01673272 File Date: OQIOQIZOZO Entity Type: Corporation Jurisdiction: DELAWARE Document ID: 6.135028 There has been no change in any of the information contained in the previous complete Statement of Infonnafion filed with the California Secretary of State. By signing this document. I certify that the information is true and correct and that I am authorized by Caiifornia law to sign. Electronic Signature: Allison Biel Use bfzfi!e.sos.ca.gov for onh‘ne fifings, searches, business records, and resources. Document ID: GJ35028 Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1-1 Filed 11/23/20 Page 7 of 8 EXHIBIT B ZO-cv-OSZSO Documentl-l Filed 11/23/20 Page80f8 State Of callfornla E_Bg3642 ' Secretary of State ' F|LED STATEMENT 0F INFORMATION In the Office 0f the Secretary Of State (Foreign Corporation) of the State of California FEES (Filing and Disclosure): $25.00. If amendment, see instructions. sep - 1 201 0 IMPORTANT - READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING THIS FORM This Space For Filing Use Only 1. CORPORATE NAME (Please do not alter if name is preprinted.) F01673272 HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. 2710 E CAMELBACK RD STE 200 PHOENIX AZ 85016 DUE DATE: NO CHANGE STATEMENT ( Not applicable if agent address of record is a P.O. Box address. See instructions.) 2- D If there has been no change in any of the information contained in the last Statement of Information filed with the California Secretary of State,check the box and proceed to Item 12. If there have been any changes to the information contained in the last Statement of Information filed with the California Secretary of State, or no statement has been previously filed, this form must be completed in its entirety. COMPLETE ADDRESSES FOR THE FOLLOWING (Do not abbreviate the name of the city. Items 3 and 4 cannot be P.O. Boxes.) 3. STREET ADDRESS 0F PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICE CITY STATE ZIP CODE 2710 E CAMELBACK RD STE 200 PHOENIX AZ 85016 4. STREET ADDRESS 0F PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OFFICE IN CALIFORNIA, IF ANY CITY STATE ZIP CODE 5. MAILING ADDRESS 0F THE CORPORATION, IF DIFFERENT THAN ITEM 3 CITY STATE ZIP CODE NAMES AND COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF THE FOLLOWING OFFICERS (The corporation must have these three officers. A comparable title for the specific officer may be added; however, the preprinted titles on this form must not be altered.) 6. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE GEORGE W BIEL 2710 E CAMELBACK RD STE 200 PHOENIX, AZ 85016 7. SECRETARY/ ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE ROBERT SCOTT ASHBY 2710 E CAMELBACK RD STE 200 PHOENIX, AZ 85016 8. CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER/ ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE ROBERT SCOTT ASHBY 2710 E CAMELBACK RD STE 200 PHOENIX AZ 85016 AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS (Ifthe agent is an individual, the agent must reside in California and Item 10 must be completed with a California street address (a P.O. Box is not acceptable). If the agent is another corporation, the agent must have on file with the California Secretary of State a certificate pursuant to Corporations Code section 1505 and Item 1O must be left blank.) 9. NAME 0F AGENT FOR SERVICE 0F PROCESS C T CORPORATION SYSTEM 10. STREET ADDRESS OF THE AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS IN CALIFORNIA, IF AN INDIVIDUAL CITY STATE ZIP CODI TYPE OF BUSINESS 11. DESCRIBE THE TYPE 0F BUSINESS 0F THE CORPORATION RESTAURANT 12. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS TRUE AND CORRECT. 09/01/2010 ALLISON B BIEL COMPLIANCE ANALYST DATE TYPE 0R PRINT NAME 0F PERSON COMPLETING THE FORM TITLE SIGNATURE APPROVED BY SECRETARY 0F STATESI-350 (REV 01/2008) \OOOflQUl-PUJNv-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQM-hUJNt-‘OKOOOQQKII#UJNHO Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1-2 Filed 11/23/20 Page 1 of 2 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A lelted L1ab111ty Partnershlp o Includin Professional Corporatlons GREG S. ABATE, Cal. Bar N0. 149918 KRISTI L. THOMAS, Cal. Bar N0. 276511 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, California 92626-1993 Telephone: 714.513.5100 Facsunile: 714.513.5130 . E mall Elabate@sheppardmullm.com thomas@sheppardmullm.com Attorne s for Defendant HILLS ONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EDWARD SCOTT GAU, as an Case N0. individual and on behalf of a1_1 others Slmflarly Sltuated, and as a rlvate ERemqved from Santa Clara Count?! attorne general, and BRA DY uperlor Court, Case N0. 20CV37 039] FOST R-GAU, as a prlvate attorney general, DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S Plaintiffs, CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR vs. PERSONS HILLSTONE RESTAURANT {filed concurrently With Nptice of GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; emoval; Declaratlon 0f T1n0 and DOES 1 through 50, incluswe, Ciambriello; Co orate Disclosure Statement; and 1Vi1 Case Cover Sheet] Complaint filed: September 30, 2020 Trial date: None Set Defendants. Pursuant t0 Northern District Civil Local Rule 3-15, the undersigned certifies that the following listed persons, associations 0f persons, firms, partnerships, corporations (including parent corporations) 0r other entities (i) have a financial interest in the subj ect matter in controversy 0r in a party to the proceeding, 0r (ii) have a non-financial interest in that subject matter 0r in a party that could be substantially affected by the outcome of this proceeding: _ 1 _ Case No. SMRH14314-4462-8945-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS \OOOflQUl-RUJNv-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQLJl-RUJNt-‘O\OOOQO\UIAUJNHO Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1-2 Filed 11/23/20 Page 2 of 2 (1) Plaintiff Edward Scott Gau; (2) Plaintiff Brandy-Foster Gau; and (3) Defendant Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation. Dated: November 23, 2020 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP By /S/Kristi L. Thomas GREG S. LABATE KRISTI L. THOMAS Attorneys for Defendant HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. -2- Case No. SMRH14314-4462-8945-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS \OOOflQUl-PUJNv-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQM-RWNHO©OOQO\M#UJNHO Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1-3 Filed 11/23/20 Page 1 of 2 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership o Includin Professmnal Corporatlons GREG S. ABATE, Cal. Bar N0. 149918 KRISTI L. THOMAS, Cal. Bar N0. 276511 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, California 92626-1993 Telephone: 714.513.5100 Facsunile: 714.5 13.5 130 E mail Elabate@sheppardmullin.com thomas@sheppardmullin.com Attorne s for Defendant HILLS ONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EDWARD SCOTT GAU, as an individual and on behalf of a1_1 others Slmflarly Sltuated, and as a rlvate attorne general, and BRA DY FOST R-GAU, as a prlvate attorney general, Plaintiffs, vs. HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, incluswe, Defendants. Case N0. ERemqved from Santa Clara Count?! uperlor Court, Case N0. 20CV37 039] DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Eiled concurrently with Nptice of emoval; Declaration ofTmo Ciambriello; Certification of Interested Entities or Persons; and Civil Case Cover Sheet] Complaint filed: September 30, 2020 Trial date: None Set _ 1 _ Case No. SMRH24829-5562-696 1 .1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT \OOOQONUl-RUJNv-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQLJl-RUJNt-‘O\OOOQO\UIAUJNHO Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1-3 Filed 11/23/20 Page 2 of 2 Pursuant to Rule 7. 1(a) 0f the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and t0 enable judges and magistrate judges 0f this Court t0 evaluate possible disqualification or recusal, the undersigned counsel for Defendant Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc., (“Defendant”) provides this Corporate Disclosure Statement: There is n0 parent corporation or any publicly held corporation owning 10% 0r more of Defendant’s stock. Dated: November 23, 2020 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP By /s/Kristi L. Thomas GREG S. LABATE KRISTI L. THOMAS Attorneys for Defendant HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. -2- Case No.- SMRH24829-5562-6961-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’s CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Js-CAND 44 (Rev‘ 10/2020) Case 5:20-cv-0825%IBEiUEMfi gifigfiifls/ZO Page 1 of 3 The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings 0r other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of couxt This form, approved 1n its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States 1n September 1974, ls required for the Clerk of Court t0 initiate the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS 0NNEXTPAGE 0F THIS FORM) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS Edward Scott Gau and Brandy Foster-Gau DEFENDANTS Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc. County 0f Residence of First Listed Defendant (IN US PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. Attorneys (IfKnown) (b) County 0f Residence 0f First Listed Plaintiff (EXCEPTIN US. PLAINTIFF CASES) San Mateo, CA (C) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Sheppard, Mullin, Richtcr & Hampton, LLP Greg S, Labate (SBN 149918), Kristi L‘ Thomas (SEN 27651 l) 650 Town Center Dnve. IOIh Floor, Costa Mesa, CA 92626; 714-513-5100(see attachment). H. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Bax Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an 'X” in One Buxfbr Plaintlfl (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Boxfor Defendant) 1 U S G P1 I _ff 3 F d 1 Q _ PTF DEF PTF DEF . . ovemment a1nt1 e era uestlon - - - - r (US. Government Not a Party) Cltlzen of Thls State x 1 1 Incorpgrated or P.r1nc1pa1 Place 4 4 of Busmess In Thls State 2 U S G tD f d t x 4 D, ,ty Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 x 5 . . ovemmen e en an Iver31 - ‘ ‘ . . . ‘ f Busmess In Another State 1 P I III °(”diam CltlzenShlp 0f ”mes m tem ) Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 Foreign Country IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an "X' in One Bax Only) CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES 1 10 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 0f 422 Appeal 28 USC § 158 375 False Claims Act 120 Marine 3 10 Airplane 365 Personal Injury 7 Product Prfipefly 21 USC § 831 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 130 Mlller Act 3 15 Airplane Product Liability Llablllty 690 0‘ er § ‘57 § 3729“» _ 14o Negotiable Instrument 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 367 erlalth Care{ l l LABOR PROPERTY RIGHTS 400 Stat? Reappomonment 150 Recovery 0f 330 Federal Employers’ P .armaceunca Patsy“ 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 820 Copyrights 410 AnmruSt Overpayment Of - - - In} "TY Pmduc‘ Llablllty ' 430 Banks and Banking , Llablllty . 720 Labor/Management 830 Patent Veteran s Benefits . 368 Asbestos Personal Injury . _ 450 Commerce 1 51 Medicme Act 340 Mantle product Liability Relatlons 835 Patent-Abbrewated New . 345 Maxine Product Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 740 Railway Labor Act Drug Application 460 Deportatlon 152 Egggfifigggifgifiées 350 Motor Vehicle 0th F d 751 Family and Medical 840 Trademark 470 RaCketCer Inflgen‘fied & M T hi 1 P1" 370 er mu LeaVe ACt 880 Defend Trade Secrets corrupt OfgamlatlonsVeterans) 355 oto Ve c e oduct . . _ 1 53 Recovery 0f Liability 371 Truth 1“ Lendmg X 790 Other Labor Litigation Act of 2016 480 Consumer Credit Overpayment 360 Other Personal Injufy 380 ODther Personal Property 791 Employee Retirement SOCIAL SECURITY 485 Elephgne gonsumer ‘ - amage 1 s ' A t otect1on ct, 352 P 1 1 _Mcd1 1 ncome ecurlty c0f veteran s Benefits fifigzcfigjeury ca 385 Property Damage Product I IGRATION 861 HIA (”95$ 490 Cable/Sat TV 160 Stockholders Suns L1ab1hty MM t t 862 BlaCk Lung (923) 350 secmties/commodifies/ 13(5) Ether Corl:tra:t L. bT CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 462 iztgll'iaclaltziitfn 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange ontract ro uct 1a 1 1 . . , 864 SSID Title XVI ' 1 6 F h‘ ty 440 Other C1v11 R1ghts HABEAS CORPUS 465 Other Immigration 890 Othér Statutory Actlons 9 ranc lse . , . ‘ 865 RSI (405(g» 891 Agricultural Acts 441 Votlng 463 Ahen Detamee Acnons 893 E _ l MREAL PROPERTY 442 Employment 510 Motions t0 Vacate FEDERAL TAX SUITS nvlronmenta atte_rs 2 10 Land Condemnation 443 Housing/ Sentence 870 Taxes (US plaintiff or 895 FAretedom of Informanon 220 Foreclosure Accommodations 530 General Defendant) C I r 23o Rent Lease & Ejectmem 445 Amer. w/Disabiuu'es- 535 Death penalty 871 IRsiThird Pany 26 USC 896 Arblfrétl"? 240 Torts to Land Emphymem OTHER § 7609 899 :mfififiggrof 245 Tort Product Liability 446 Amer‘ “/Dmablhues-Other 540 Mandamus & Other Agency Decision 290 A11 Other Real Property 448 Educatlon 550 Civil Rights 950 Constitutionality 0f State 555 Prison Condition Statutes 560 Civil Detainee- Conditions of Confinement V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only) 1 Original X 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated 0r 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District (specifiz) Litigation-Transfer Litigation-Direct File VI_ CAUSE OF Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which V0u are filing (Do nut cite iurisdictional statutes unless diversity): ACTION 28 U.S‘C. Section 1332(d) Brief description of cause: Plaintiffs bring claims for alleged violations of the California Labor Code against Defendant. VII. REQUESTED IN v CHECK 1F THIS Is A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only ifdemanded in complaint: COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R, Civ. P. JURY DEMAND: Yes x No VIII. RELATED CASE(S), JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER IF ANY (See instructions): IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2) (Place an “X” in One Box Only) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND X SAN JOSE EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE DATE 1 1/23/2020 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD /s/ Kristi L. Thomas JSCANDMWJO/zozo) Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document1-4 Filed 11/23/20 Page20f3 INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS-CAND 44 Authority For Civil Cover Sheet. The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference 0f the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk 0f Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: I. a) b) C) II. III. VI. VII. VIII. Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title. County 0f Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name ofthe county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name 0f the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the “defendant” is the location of the tract of land involved.) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them 0n an attachment, noting in this section “(see attachment)” Jurisdiction. The basis ofjurisdiction is set forth under Federal Rule 0f Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an “X” in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis ofjurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. (1) United States plaintiff. Jurisdiction based on 28 USC §§ 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. (2) United States defendant. When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers 0r agencies, place an “X” in this box. (3) Federal question. This refers to suits under 28 USC § 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act 0f Congress or a treaty 0f the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff 0r defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. (4) Diversig of citizenship. This refers t0 suits under 28 USC § 1332, where parties are citizens ofdifferent states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.) Residence (citizenship) 0f Principal Parties. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party. Nature of Suit. Place an “X” in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient t0 enable the deputy clerk 0r the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature 0f suit, select the most definitive. Origin. Place an “X” in one 0f the six boxes. (1) Original Proceedings. Cases originating in the United States district courts. (2) Removed from State Court. Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed t0 the district courts under Title 28 USC § 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. (3) Remanded from Appellate Court. Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date ofremand as the filing date. (4) Reinstated or Reopened. Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. (5) Transferred fiom Another District. For cases transferred under Title 28 USC § 1404(a). D0 not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers. (6) Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority 0f Title 28 USC § 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above. (8) Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. Check this box when a multidistrict litigation case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. Please note that there is no Origin Code 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statute. Cause 0f Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause 0f action and give a brief description ofthe cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC § 553. Brief Description: Unauthorized reception 0f cable service. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an “X” in this box ifyou are filing a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction. Jug Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded. Related Cases. This section 0f the JS-CAND 44 is used t0 identify related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. Divisional Assignment. If the Nature of Suit is under Property Rights or Prisoner Petitions or the matter is a Securities Class Action, leave this section blank. For all other cases, identify the divisional venue according to Civil Local Rule 3-2: “the county in which a substantial part of the events or omissions which give rise t0 the claim occurred or in which a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated.” Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet. Attachment to Civil Cover Sheet Diversity Law Group, P.C. Larry W. Lee (SBN 228175) Simon L. Yang (SBN 260286) 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 213-488-6555 Polaris Law Group LLP William L. Marder (SBN 170131) 501 San Benito St., Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 831-531-4214 Case 5:20-cv-08250 Document 1-4 Filed 11/23/20 Page 3 of 3 \OOONQUI-bUJNv-t NNNNNNNNNr-Ar-tr-tr-tr-tr-tp-tr-tr-tr-t OOQONMhUJNi-‘OKOOOQONm-RUJNi-‘O PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE Edward Scott Gau v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc., et al. Santa Clara Superior Court Case N0.: 20CV371039 At the time 0f service, Iwas over 18 years 0f age and not a party t0 this action. I am employed in the County of Orange, State 0f California. My business address is 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor, Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993. On November 23, 2020, I served true copies 0f the following document(s) described as DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT on the interested parties in this action as follows: SERVICE LIST Attorneysfor Plaintiff? Edward Scott Gau and Brandy Foster-Gau Telephone: 2 1 3 488.6555 Larry W. Lee Facsimile: 213.488.6554 Simon Y. Lang E-Mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com Diversity Law Group, P.C. sly@diversitylaw.com 5 15 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 William L. Marder Telephone: 83 1 .53 1 .4214 Polaris Law Group LLP Facsimile: 83 1 634.0333 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Email: bill@polarislawgr0up.com Hollister. CA 95023 BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope 0r package addressed t0 the persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar With the firm's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence 1s placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited 1n the ordinary course 0f business With the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. I am a resident 0r employed in the county Where the mailing occurred. E BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I served the document(s) on the person listed in the Service List by submitting an electronic version 0f the document(s) to One Legal, LLC, through the user interface at www.onelegal.com. I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws of the State 0f California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 23, 2020, at Costa Mesa, California. /S/M0nika Grisotti Monika Grisotti -3- SMRH24826-2009-1089-1 DEFENDANT HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION T0 FEDERAL COURT