Removal to Federal CourtCal. Super. - 6th Dist.November 18, 202010 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 200V373699 Santa Clara - Civil MCGUIREWOODS LLP Matthew C. Kane (SBN 171829) Email: mkane@mcguirewoods.com Remy Kessler (SBN 123165) Email: rkessler@mcguirewoods.com Amy E. Beverlin (SBN 284745) Email: abeverlin@mcguierwoods.com Kerri H. Sakaue (SBN 301043) Email: ksakaue@mcguirew00ds.com 1800 Century Park East, 7th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501 Telephone: 3 10.3 1 5.8200 Facsimile: 310.3 15.8210 Attorneys for Defendants PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC. and PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 1l4l2021 4:34 PM Reviewed By: L. Quach-Marcellan Case #20CV373699 Envelope: 5570639 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA JORGE MADRIGAL, an individual; Plaintiff, V. PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC., a corporation; PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1-100, Defendants. 1 CASE NO. 20CV373699 NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTIES OF DEFENDANTS PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC. AND PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC’S REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTIES OF DEFENDANTS’ REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO THE CLERK OF THE SANTA CLARA SUPERIOR COURT AND TO PLAINTIFF JORGE MADRIGAL AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, 0n January 4, 2021, Defendants PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC. and PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a Notice of Removal of Civil Action from State Court (the “Removal Notice”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Federal Court”), a copy 0f which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446, and all other applicable bases for removal, the filing of the Removal Notice in the Federal Court, together with the filing of this Notice t0 State Court and the copy 0f the Removal Notice attached hereto as Exhibit 1, effects the removal of the above-entitled action from this Court to the Federal Court, and this Court may proceed no further With the action unless and until this action is remanded. DATED: January 4, 2021 MCGUIREWOODS LLP Matthew C. Kane, Esq. Remy Kessler, Esq. Amy E. Beverlin, Esq. Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC. and PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC 1391966121 2 NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTIES OF DEFENDANTS’ REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT Exhibit 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 1 of 18 MCGUIREWOODS LLP Matthew C. Kane (SBN 171829) Email: mkane@mcguirewoods.com Remy Kessler (SBN 123165) Email: rkessler@mcguirewoods.com Amy E. Beverlin (SBN 284745) Email: abeverlin@mcguierwoods.com Kerri H. Sakaue (SBN 301043) Email: ksakaue@mcguirewoods.com 1800 Century Park East, 7th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501 Telephone: 3 10.3 1 5 .8200 Facsimile: 3 10.3 15.8210 Attorneys for Defendants PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC. and PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JORGE MADRIGAL, an individual; Plaintiff, V. PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC., a corporation; PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1-100, Defendants. 139 1 97680.2 CASE NO. [Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 20CV373699] DEFENDANTS PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC. AND PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT November 18, 2020 December 3, 2020 Complaint Filed: Complaint Served: DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 2 of 18 TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC. (“PFG”) and PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC (“PTL”) (collectively, “Defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby remove the above-entitled action currently pending in the Superior Court 0f the State 0f California in and for the County of Santa Clara (the “State Court”) t0 the United States District Court for the Northern District 0f California on the grounds that this Court has original jurisdiction over this civil action pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 and 1446. In support 0f this Notice of Removal, Defendants aver as follows: STATE COURT ACTION 1. On 0r about November 18, 2020, Plaintiff JORGE MADRIGAL (“Plaintiff’) filed a Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial against Defendants in the State Court, styled as Jorge Madrigal, an individual v. Performance Food Group, Ina, a corporation; Performance Transportation, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1-100, Case N0. 20CV373699 (tha “State Court Action”), a true and correct copy of Which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “C0mp1aint”). 2. On December 3, 2020, Defendants’ registered agent for service 0f process was personally served With the Complaint and Summons in the State Court Action. A true and correct copy 0f the Summons served on PFG is attached hereto as Exhibit B. A true and correct copy 0f the Summons served on PTL is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Defendants were also served With a Civil Case Cover Sheet in the State Court Action, a true and correct copy of Which is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 3. Defendants are informed and believe that the following additional documents are also on file in the State Court Action, true and correct copies of Which are attached hereto as the Exhibits identified below: 1391976802 1 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 3 of 18 m Document E Proof of Service 0f Summons - PFG F Proof 0f Service of Summons - PTL 4. Defendants are informed and believe that they are the only defendants Which have been properly served with process in the State Court Action. 5. Defendants are informed and believe that there has been no service 0f process upon Defendants Does 1 through 100, Which are fictitious defendants to be disregarded for the purposes of this removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 6. Defendants are informed and believe that the aforementioned documents and exhibits constitute all 0f the process, pleadings and orders 0n file in the State Court Action. TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL 7. This action has not been previously removed t0 federal court. 8. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), a notice 0fremoval “shall be filed Within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service 0r otherwise, ofa copy ofthe initial pleading setting forth the claim upon Which such action or proceeding is based.” As set forth above, Summonses and the Complaint were served 0n Defendants’ agent for service 0f process 0n December 3, 2020. Accordingly, this Notice 0f Removal is timely filed because the 30th day after Defendants were personally served With the Summonses and Complaint fell 0n Saturday, January 2, 2021 and, by operation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C), the time for filing the Notice of Removal was therefore extended to Monday, January 4, 2021.1 9. In accordance With 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), Defendants are providing contemporaneous written notice 0f this Notice 0f Removal t0 all adverse parties and t0 the Clerk 0f the State Court. REMOVAL JURISDICTION - DIVERSITY 10. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), 28 U.S.C. § 1 See, e.g., Anderson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile C0., 917 F.3d 1126, 1128 fn. 1 (9th Cir. 2019) (extending deadline t0 file notice of removal t0 the following Monday When thirtieth day from service fell 0n weekend pursuant t0 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)); McGill v. Home Depot, Inc. , 2015 WL 5441032, at *2 fn. 1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2015) (Westmore, M.J.) (same); Krug v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2011 WL 6182341, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 201 1) (Seeborg, J.) (same). 1391976802 2 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 4 of 18 1441(b), and all other applicable bases for removal. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1441, Defendants seek to remove this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Which is the District Court embracing the place where the State Court Action was filed. 11. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and it is an action that may be removed t0 this Court by Defendants, because: (1) there is complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff, on the one hand, and PFG and PTL, on the other hand; and (2) the amount-in-controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive 0f interest and costs. CITIZENSHIP OF THE PARTIES 12. Plaintiff’s Citizenship. The Complaint alleges that Plaintif “is a resident ofthe State 0f California,” EXh. A (Complaint), 11 1, and Defendants are informed and believe that Plaintiff intends to indefinitely remain living continuously in California. As such, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff is a citizen of California. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (an individual is a citizen 0f the state in Which he 0r she is domiciled); see also Mondragon v. Capital One Auto Fin, 776 F.3d 880, 885-86 (9th Cir. 2013) (person’s continuing domicile in a state establishes citizenship for purposes ofremoval “unless rebutted With sufficient evidence of change”); Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 751-52 (9th Cir. 1986) (party domiciled in state 0f party’s address); 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 of determining citizenship). 13. Defendant PFG’S Citizenship. PFG is a Colorado corporation With its corporate headquarters and principal place ofbusiness in Richmond, Virginia. See California Secretary of State Business Search at https://businesssearch.sos.ca.g0V/ (Corporation Name Searched: “Performance Food Group, Inc.”). At its corporate headquarters in Virginia, PFG’S officers direct, control, and coordinate PFG’S activities, and the majority 0f its executive and administrative functions are performed there. Thus, PFG is not a citizen of California, but rather, was and is a citizen of Colorado and Virginia. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (for diversity purposes, “[a] corporation shall be deemed a citizen of any State by Which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place 0f business”); see also Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010) (the “‘principal place 0f business’ is best read as referring to the place Where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and 1391976802 3 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 5 of 18 9 coordinate the corporation’s activities,’ and in practice, the principal place of 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”). 14. Defendant PTL’s Citizenship. Defendant PTL is a limited liability company and is therefore deemed t0 be a citizen of each state in which its owners/members are citizens. See Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that a limited liability company is a citizen of every state 0f Which its owners/members are citizen); see also Delay v. Rosenthal Collins Grp., LLC, 585 F.3d 1003, 1005 (6th Cir. 2009) (“the federal court needs t0 know the citizenship of each ‘sub-member’ as well”). None of PTL’s members are citizens of California, but, instead are citizens of one 0r more other states. As such, Defendant PTL was not and is not a citizen of the State 0f California for the purpose of determining jurisdiction. See Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899. 15. Doe Defendants. Defendants “Does 1-100” are fictitious Defendants Whose citizenship is disregarded for purposes 0f removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 16. Accordingly, there is complete diversity between Plaintiff, on the one hand, and PFG and PTL, on the other hand. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY 17. An action may be removed to and remain in federal court Where the defendant establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the aggregate amount-in-controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount. See Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chemical C0,, 443 F.3d 676, 683 (9th Cir. 2006); Bank 0f Calif. Nat’l Ass ’n v. Twin Harbors Lumber C0,, 465 F.2d 489, 491 (9th Cir. 1972).2 T0 satisfy the preponderance 0fthe evidence test, a defendant must demonstrate that “it is more likely than not” that the amount-in-controversy is satisfied. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. C0., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). However, evidentiary submissions are n_0t required at the time afremoval. See Arias, 936 F.3d at 925 (holding that defendant need not prove the amount in controversy in notice 0f removal). “Instead, evidence showing the amount in controversy is required ‘only when the 2 See, e.g., Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott, 936 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2019) (“A district court may not remand the case back t0 state court Without first giving the defendant an opportunity to show by a preponderance 0f the evidence that the jurisdictional requirements are satisfied”). 1391976802 4 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 6 of 18 plaintiff contests, 0r the court questions, the defendant’s allegation.’” Id. (emph. added). 18. Indeed, when a defendant seeks t0 remove an action to federal court 0n grounds 0f diversity jurisdiction, “the defendant’s amount-in-controversy allegation should be accepted [as true] when not contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the court.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Ca, LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 135 S.Ct. 547, 553 (2014); Arias, 936 F.3d at 927 (“[A]ssumptions made part of the defendant’s chain 0f reasoning need not be proven; they instead must only have ‘some 3” reasonable ground underlying them. ). At the time 0f removal, the removing defendant’s burden of establishing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 is not daunting and does not require the defendant t0 do extensive research or prove up the plaintiff’ s damages. See Ray v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2011 WL 1790123, at *16 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 201 1). Thus, “a defendant’s notice 0f removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee, 135 S.Ct. at 554. 19. A plaintiff s complaint is a court’s “first source ofreference in determining the amount in controversy.” LaCrosse v. Knight Truck & Trailer Sales, LLC, 775 F.3d 1200, 1203 (9th Cir. 2015). In determining whether the amount-in-controversy exceeds $75,000, the court must presume that the plaintiff will prevail on each and every claim alleged in his complaint. See Kenneth Rothschild Trust v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 199 F.Supp.2d 993, 1001 (C.D. Cal. 2002). The ultimate inquiry asks what amount is put “in controversy” by the operative complaint, not What amount a court 0r jury might later determine t0 be the actual amount of damages, if any. See Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Ina, 775 F.3d 1193, 1198 n.1 (9th Cir. 2015) (defendants “are not stipulating to damages suffered” in a removal petition, “but only estimating the damages that are in controversy,” because “jurisdiction must be analyzed 0n the basis ofpleadings filed at the time of removal”).3 The Court may also 100k beyond the complaint to determine whether the amount-in-controversy is met, if necessary. See Abrego Abrego, 443 F.3d at 690. 3 See also Scherer v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc ’y 0fthe United States, 347 F.3d 394, 399 (2d Cir. 2003) (the “‘amount in controversy” for jurisdictional purposes, [is] the sum put in controversy by the plaintiff” s complaint”); see also, e.g., Wilder v. Bank 0fAm., 2014 WL 68961 16, *4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2014) (determining amount in controversy requires that court assume that the allegations 0f the complaint are true and that a jury Will return a verdict for the plaintiff 0n all claims made in the complaint because the ultimate inquiry is what amount is put “in controversy” by the complaint, not what a defendant Will actually owe). 1391976802 5 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 7 of 18 20. The amount in controversy may include general and special compensatory damages. See Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & C0., 888 F.3d 413, 416 (9th Cir. 2018); Simmons v. PCR Tech, 209 F.Supp.2d 1029, 1031 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (Patel, C.J.). Further, When attorneys’ fees are authorized by statute, they are appropriately part of the calculation of the “amount in controversy” for purposes 0f removal. See Fritsch v. Swift Transp. C0. ofArizona, LLC, 899 F.3d 785, 794 (9th Cir. 2018); Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp, 432 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2005); Gait G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[W]here an underlying statute authorizes an award of attorneys’ fees, either with mandatory 0r discretionary language, such fees may be included in the amount in controversy”). Moreover, “a courtm include future attorneys” fees recoverable by statute or contract When assessing Whether the amount-in-controversy requirement is met.” Fritsch, 899 F.3d at 794 (emph. added); see also Chavez, 888 F.3d at 414-15 (“[T]he amount in controversy is determined by the complaint operative at the time 0f removal and encompasses all relief a court may grant on that complaint if the plaintiff is Victorious.” (emph. added)). The amount-in-controversy may also include punitive damages and emotional distress. See Gibson v. Chrysler Corp, 261 F.3d 927, 945 (9th Cir. 2001); Kroske, 432 F.3d at 980. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 21. Plaintiff’s Complaint in this action asserts five (5) claims for: (1) disability discrimination in Violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. GOV’t Code § 12900, et seq. (“FEHA”); (2) failure t0 provide reasonable accommodations in Violation ofthe FEHA; (3) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in Violation 0f the FEHA; (4) retaliation in Violation ofFEHA; and (5) wrongful termination in Violation of public policy. See generally EXh. A (Complaint). 22. Although Plaintiff does not allege a specific dollar amount he seeks to recover in connection with his alleged claims, he expressly alleges the “damages [in his Complaint] exceed $25,000.00.” Id., 1] 66 (Emph. added). In that regard, the Complaint seeks, among other things: (a) “special damages in an amount according to proof for Plaintiff” s loss ofpast and future earnings, loss ofbenefits, loss ofbonuses, expenses t0 obtain new employment, loss ofjob security and all damages flowing therefrom,” EXh. A (Complaint), Prayer for Relief, 1] 1; see also id.,W 17, 19, 28, 41, 42, 47, 1391976802 6 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 8 of 18 48, 54, 55, 62, 63 (seeking loss 0f earnings and benefits and “losses in salary, bonuses, job benefits, and other employment benefits Which he would have received from Defendants”); (b) “general and special damages t0 compensate Plaintiff for any past and future medical expenses and suffering and related damages,” id., Prayer for Relief, 11 2; (c) “punitive damages, as allowed by law, that Will sufficiently punish, make an example 0f, and deter future conduct by Defendants,” id., Prayer for 9’ CC Relief, 1] 3; (d) “penalties under all relevant statutes, costs and disbursements incurred in this suit,” and “attorney’s fees and costs.” id., Prayer for Relief, W 4, 5, 7. 23. However, as discussed above, Defendants may remove this action to federal court notwithstanding Plaintiff’s failure to plead a specific dollar amount in controversy. To that end, Defendants’ Notice of Removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Dart Cherokee, 135 S.Ct. at 555; see Arias, 936 F.3d at 925 (“[A] a notice of removal ‘need not contain evidentiary submissions.’ Instead, evidence showing the amount in controversy is required ‘only When the plaintiff contests, 0r the court ’97 questions, the defendant’s allegation. ). Moreover, Defendants’ allegations regarding federal court jurisdiction, including the amount in controversy, must be accepted as true unless and until otherwise contested. Accord Dart Cherokee, 135 S.Ct. at 553. 24. As set forth below, and necessarily assuming that Plaintiff will prevail on each claim asserted in the Complaint, the compensatory damages, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and statutory attorney’s fees sought by Plaintiff establish that the amount-in-controversy exceeds $75,000.4 COMPENSATORY DAMAGES 25. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges “[r]easonable accommodations could have been made for plaintiff s physical disability, such as placement in a warehouse position 0r placement 0n a different driving route such as a ‘key drop” or long haul route which involves limited t0 no interactions 4 The amount in controversy calculations, as set forth below, are based 0n an assumptionfor purposes 0f removal only that the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint regarding his theories of liability are true but without any type 0f express 0r implied admission that the conduct alleged in the Complaint occurred, that Plaintiffhas suffered any damages, and that such liability in fact exists. See, e.g., Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Ca, 425 F.3d 689, 694 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Removability under § 1446(b) is determined through examination of the four corners 0f the applicable pleadings, not through subj ective knowledge 0r a duty t0 make further inquiry.”). 1391976802 7 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 9 of 18 With customers.” Exh. A (Complaint), 1] 38. Plaintiff further alleges that, “[r]ather than make any attempt to accommodate Plaintiff,” he was retaliated against and wrongfully terminated “due to his disability and based 0n his request for an accommodation 0f his disability.” Id., 1N 16, 17. Plaintiff further alleges Defendants “failed to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff‘s disability” because it was aware of and failed to offer an available position that was “the perfect fit” for Plaintiff’s “medical needs.” Id. ,W 39-40. Plaintiff also alleges Defendants violated the FEHA by “refusing and/or failing t0 engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process With Plaintiffregarding his work restrictions and disabilities.” Id., 11 46. 26. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that the FEHA “prohibits employers from retaliating against employees Who make a request for accommodation for their disabilities and Who complain of a lack of accommodation for their disabilities,” and that Defendants violated the FEHA by “discriminating against and terminating Plaintiff” as a result 0f his “requests for accommodation and complaints of a lack 0f all reasonable accommodations for his disability.” Id., W 51, 52. Plaintiff also alleges that he was “wrongfully terminated, in Violation of substantial and fundamental public policies 0f the State of California” With respect to “retaliation, tortious discharge, and adverse employment actions taken against Plaintiff for complaining of labor code (sic) Violations, all in Violation 0f various state statutes including but not limited t0 Violations 0f California’s Constitution and the [FEHA].” Id., 1] 59. Plaintiff also alleges Defendants” “act of retaliating against Plaintiff for his disability and requests for accommodation 0f his disability constitutes wrongful termination in Violation of public policy.” Id., 1] 61. 27. The Complaint avers that, as a result 0f Defendants” alleged conduct, Plaintiff “has sustained and continues t0 sustain substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits,” and “losses in salary, bonuses, job benefits, and other employment benefits which he would have received from Defendants.” Id., 1W 28, 42, 47, 48, 54, 55, 62, 63 (Emph. added). He prays for “special damages in an amount according to proof for Plaintiff’s loss ofmmm earnings, loss of benefits, loss of bonuses, expenses to obtain new employment, loss ofjob security and all damages flowing therefrom.” Id., Prayer for Relief, 1] 1. 28. Notably, the amount in controversy is not limited to damages incurred prior to 1391976802 8 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 10 of 18 removal. Instead, as the Ninth Circuit held in Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Ca, it includes 10st wages incurred after the time ofremoval where, as here, they are expressly prayed for as relief in the operative pleading. See Chavez, 888 F.3d at 417-18 (holding that 10st wages incurred after removal were appropriately included in the amount in controversy since they were claimed at the time the case was removed by defendant). Indeed, in determining the amount in controversy, it is appropriate t0 consider the amount 0f lost wages through the time of trial. See, e.g. , Tiffany v. 0 ’Reilly Auto. Stores, Ina, 2013 WL 4894307, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2013) (post-removal lost earnings through trial properly included in the amount in controversy). 29. Plaintiff was formerly employed by Defendants as a “Class A Driver” until he “was terminated by Defendants 0n 0r about September 18, 2020.” See Exh. A (Complaint), 1H] 6, 16. From approximately February 2020 through September 2020, Plaintiff was on a medical leave 0f absence. See id., W 7-9. Plaintiff alleges that, 0n or about September 2, 2020, he obtained completed paperwork from his physician “informing Defendant 0f Plaintiff’s ability t0 return t0 work With a reasonable accommodation of minimizing contact with people.” Id., 1] 11. Plaintiff further alleges that, at the time 0f his termination, he was Willing and able t0 return t0 work in a warehouse position or placement 0n a different driving route, which involved limited to n0 interaction With customers. See id., 1W 13-16. Before his termination, Plaintiff was employed 0n a full-time basis at an hourly rate ofpay 0f $28.00, or approximately $1, 120.00 per week based on a 40-hour workweek, exclusive 0f overtime, double time, holiday pay, 0r other employment benefits received by him during his employments 30. Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff prevails on any claim for 10st wages from his alleged termination date (September 18, 2020) through the date of removal 0f this action t0 federal court only, the lost wages amount in controversy is conservatively estimated t0 be not less than 5 If challenged, Defendants expressly reserve and d0 not waive their right t0 supplement and/or amend their removal submissions t0 rely 0n other, higher, reasonable assumptions and/or estimates in calculating the amount in controversy, including, without limitation, by including any lost benefits in calculating the amount in controversy-which would increase the amount in controversy. See Arias, 936 F.3d at 922 (“a removing defendant’s notice ofremoval ‘need not contain evidentiary submission”’); Jam's v. Health Net, Ina, 472 F. App’x 533, 534-35 (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2012) (holding court erred in refusing t0 consider evidence of amount in controversy submitted after removal in response t0 a remand motion). 1391976802 9 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 11 of 18 $16,800.00 [600 hours (approximately 15 weeks [September 18, 2020 - December 31, 2020] X approximately 40 h0urs/week) X $28.00/h0ur], exclusive 0f overtime, double time, 0r holiday pay. However, Plaintiff seeks to recover lost earnings well past the date 0f removal. See, e.g., EXh. A (Complaint), 1] 19 (alleging that “Plaintiffhas suffered and continues t0 sufier from losses 0f earnings and otherwise in amounts as yet unascertained but subj ect to proof at trial”) (Emph. added). 3 1. Indeed, it is appropriate t0 consider the amount 0f lost wages through the time 0ftrial. See, e.g., Tiffany, 2013 WL 4894307, at *3-4 (denying remand in employment discrimination action and accepting calculation 0f 108 weeks of post-removal lost wages through date of trial as appropriately included in amount-in-controversy calculation). Defendants conservatively estimate that this matter will conclude by the end 0f June 2023, 0r Within 30 months 0f its removal from the State Court.6 Based thereon, calculating lost wages through trial yields an additional amount in controversy ofnot less than $145,600.00 [5,200 hours (130 weeks [January 1, 2021 - June 30, 2023] X approximately 40 hours per workweek) X $28.00/h0ur], exclusive 0f overtime, double time, 0r holiday pay. See, e.g., Chavez, 888 F.3d at 417 (“If a plaintiff claims at the time 0f removal that her termination caused her to lose future wages, and if the law entitles her t0 recoup those filture wages if she prevails, then there is n0 question that future wages are ‘at stake’ in the litigation, whatever the likelihood that she Will actually recover them”). 32. Consequently, the total amount in controversy in connection With Plaintiff’s prayer for lost past and future wages is not less than §1622400.00, not including any lost overtime or holiday pay or other employment benefits (e.g., paid sick leave and vacation) to which Plaintiff would have been entitled had his employment with Defendants not ended (which Defendants reserve the right t0 include if their amount-in-controversy calculations are challenged). As such, even without considering Plaintiff’s additional requests for punitive damages, emotional distress damages, and attorneys” fees, it is “more likely than not” that the amount in controversy based on Plaintiff’ s prayer for lost wages alone exceeds the jurisdictional minimum 0f $75,000. 6 This 30-month estimate is conservative in light of the 2020 U.S. Courts Caseload Statistics, Which show that the median time interval for disposition of civil cases in this District, from filing through trial, is approximately 36.2 months (0r approximately 157 weeks). See Table C-5 at URL https://Www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/c-5/judicial-business/2020/09/30 (September 30, 2020). 1391976802 10 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 12 of 18 EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DAMAGES 33. Plaintiff also seeks t0 recover “general damages and special damages to compensate Plaintiff for any past and future medical expenses and suffering and related damages,” Which he claims to have suffered as a result 0f Defendants’ purported conduct as alleged in the Complaint. See EXh. A (Complaint), Prayer for Relief, 1] 2; see also id., 1N 17, 28, 41, 42, 48, 55, 63. 34. Emotional distress damages are appropriately considered by the Court in determining Whether the amount in controversy is satisfied for purposes of removal. Kroske, 432 F.3d at 980; see also, e.g., Simmons, 209 F.Supp.2d at 1034; Miller v. Michigan Millers Ins. C0., 1997 WL 136242, *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 1997) (Patel, J.). Where a complaint does not seek a specific dollar amount of recovery 0n a claim for emotional distress damages, “[i]n order to establish the amount 0f emotional distress damages in controversy, a defendant may introduce evidence ofjury verdicts in cases involving analogous facts.” Rivera v. Costco Wholesale Corp, 2008 WL 2740399, *4 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2008) (Wilken, J.). District courts in California recognize that “emotional distress damages in a successful employment discrimination case may be substantial.” Simmons, 209 F.Supp.2d at 1034 (emph. added); Richmond v. Allstate Ins. Ca, 897 F.Supp. 447, 450 (SD. Cal. 1995) (same). Indeed, emotional distress damages awards in wrongful termination actions and actions based 0n discrimination or retaliation in Violation 0fFEHA, like this one, frequently exceed the $75,000 amount in controversy 0n their own. See, e.g., Liemandz‘ v. Mega RV Corp, 2011 WL 2912831 (Cal. Super. Ct. Feb. 4, 201 1) ($385,000 emotional distress award t0 plaintiffWho alleged wrongful termination based on age upon return to work from medical leave).7 35. In Kroske, 432 F.3d at 980, the Ninth Circuit held that the trial court properly estimated $25,000 for emotional distress damages for purposes 0f satisfying the amount-in-controversy Where 7 See also, e.g., Grodzik v. Calif Conservation C0rps., 2010 WL 2734467 (Cal. Super. Ct. June 15, 2010) ($100,000.00 emotional distress award t0 plaintiff 0n discrimination/failure to accommodate/retaliation claims); Anderson v. Am. Airlines, Ina, 2008 Mealey’s CA Jury Verdicts & Settlements 2008 ($1 million emotional distress award in federal FEHA discrimination action); Kolas v. Access Bus. Grp., 2008 WL 496470 (Cal. Super. Ct. Jan. 14, 2008) ($200,000 emotional distress damages based on a claim that plaintiffwas fired based on his age and disability and in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim for a herniated disc he sustained 0n the job); Lemke v. BCI Coca-Cola 0f Los Angeles, 2004 WL 5825304 (Cal. Super. Ct. Dec. 1, 2004) ($135,000.000 emotional distress damages awarded in wrongful termination action wherein plaintiff alleged failure t0 accommodate and retaliation for engaging in protected activity). 1391976802 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 13 of 18 the plaintiff’s wage loss was only $55,000 (Which is significantly less than the 10st wage amount in controversy in this removal). Accordingly, based on the Complaint’s allegations (which are harmonious with the estimation deemed appropriate in Kroske), Defendants conservatively estimate that the minimum value of Plaintiff s emotional distress damages, if he were to prevail (as must be presumed for purposes 0f removal), would be at least $25,000.00 for purposes 0f calculating the reasonable amount in controversy in this action. PUNITIVE DAMAGES 36. Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages in connection with his claims. See Exh. A (Complaint), 1N 29, 43, 49, 56, 64 (alleging that Defendants’ alleged conduct “entitle[s] Plaintiff t0 punitive damages against said Defendants”); see also id., 1H] 30, 43, 49, 57, 64 (alleging that the Defendants’ alleged conduct was in “conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and with the intent, design and purpose of injuring Plaintif ,” and therefore, Plaintiff is “entitled t0 punitive 0r exemplary damages”); id., Prayer for Relief, 11 3 (praying for punitive damages to “sufficiently punish, make an example 0f, and deter future conduct by Defendants”). 37. The Ninth Circuit has held that punitive damages should be considered by a district court when determining the amount-in-controversy Where they are recoverable as a matter 0f law. See Gibson, 261 F.3d at 945. District courts routinely find that “the potential for large punitive damage awards in employment discrimination cases” satisfies the $75,000 amount in controversy Without even considering other damages. See Simmons, 209 F.Supp.2d at 1033; see also, e.g., Chambers v. Penske Truck Leasing Corp, 2011 WL 1459155, *4 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2011 (finding that amount in controversy was satisfied because “punitive damages in employment matters may be substantial”); Haase v. Aerodynamics Ina, 2009 WL 3368519, *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2009) (acknowledging million-dollar punitive damages awards and denying remand in employment discrimination action, noting that “even a minimum award of punitive damages would satisfy the jurisdictional requirement”).8 Furthermore, punitive damages verdicts 0n claims similar to Plaintiff’ s 8 See also California Civil Jury Instruction (CACI) 2433 (2015) (quoting Gantt v. Sentry Ins., 1 Ca1.4th 1083, 1101 (1992) (“A tortious termination subj ects the employer t0 ‘liability for compensatory and punitive damages under normal tort principles. ”’)). 1391976802 1 2 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 14 of 18 claims here typically far exceed the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum 0n their own. See, e.g., Lopez v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Ina, 2009 WL 1090375, * 10-18 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2009) (affirming $2 million punitive damages award 0n plaintiff’ s FEHA discrimination/wrongful termination claims). 38. Accordingly, based on the Complaint’s allegations and the estimated values of Plaintiff” s compensatory and emotional distress damages set forth above, Defendants conservatively estimate that the minimum value of Plaintiff’s punitive damages, if he were to prevail (as must be presumed for purposes 0f removal), would be at least $75,000.00 for purposes 0f calculating the reasonable amount in controversy.9 STATUTORY ATTORNEYS’ FEES 39. Plaintiff s Complaint also seeks attorneys’ fees in connection With his claims pursuant to the FEHA and “any other applicable statutes.” EXh. A (Complaint), 1N 3 1 , 44 (praying for “attorney fees against said Defendants, as allowed by California Government Code § 12965 and any other applicable statutes for Plaintiff” s prosecution 0f this action”); see also id. , 1] 65 (alleging that Plaintiff is “entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees” as a result ofDefendants’ alleged “retaliatory or other illegal and prohibited acts”); id, Prayer for Relief, 1] 7. The FEHA provides for the recovery 0f statutory attomeys’ fees by the prevailing party. See, e.g., Cal. Gov’t Code § 12965(b). 40. In the Ninth Circuit, When attorneys’ fees are authorized by statute, they are appropriately part ofthe calculation of the “amount in controversy” for purposes 0fremoval. Fritsch, 899 F.3d at 794; see Gait, 142 F.3d at 1155-56 (“[W]here an underlying statute authorizes an award 0f attorneys’ fees, either With mandatory 0r discretionary language, such fees may be included in the amount in controversy”); see also Arias, 936 F.3d at 928 (finding district court erred in excluding prospective attomeys’ fees from the amount in controversy). Indeed, “a court must include future 9 This amount is actually under calculated for purposes ofremoval. In State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. C0. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 403, 425 (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the longstanding historical practice of setting punitive damages at two, three, or four times the size of compensatory damages, while “not binding,” is “instructive,” and that “[s]ingle-digit multipliers are more likely to comport With due process.” Here, Defendants estimate that Plaintiff is seeking compensatory and emotional distress damages 0f at least $187,400 [$162,400 + $25,000]. Utilizing the smallest ratio 0f 2:1 that State Farm found to be “instructive” (but without conceding its ultimate propriety for use in this case), and basing any potential exemplary damages award solely on the general damages at issue in this action, the potential punitive damages award in this action is approximately $374,800.00 [2 x $187,400 ($162,400 + $25,000)], which 0n its own exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of $75,000.00. 1391976802 13 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 15 of 18 attomeys’ fees recoverable by statute or contract when assessing Whether the amount-in-controversy requirement is met.” Fritsch, 899 F.3d at 794 (emph. added); see Arias, 936 F.3d at 927-28 (noting that there is n0 split in authority as t0 Whether attorneys’ fees should be considered in the amount in controversy and reaffirming Fritsch’s holding that “a court must include future attorneys’ fees recoverable by statute 0r contract When assessing whether the amount-in-controversy requirement is met”). 41. The Court’s own knowledge and experience in ruling on prevailing plaintiffs’ motions for attorneys’ fees in discrimination and wrongful termination cases, like this action, should indicate that it is “more likely than not” that Plaintiff will seek an attorneys’ fees award 0f at least $75,000.00 ifthis case is litigated to judgment in ajury trial.” See, e.g., Wysinger v. Auto. Club, 157 Ca1.App.4th 413, 430-432 (2007) (affirming $980,000 attorneys’ fees award in FEHA discrimination action); Lopez, 2009 WL 1090375, at *18-21 (affirming trial court’s award of $1 million in attorneys’ fees 0n FEHA discrimination/wrongful termination claims); see also, e.g., Crawford v. DirecTV, Ina, 2010 WL 5383296 (Cal. Super. Ct. Sept. 29, 2010) (awarding approximately $160,000 in attorneys’ fees in FEHA disability/wrongful termination action Where the plaintiff’s recovered damages were only $175,000); Harris v. City 0f Santa Monica, 2007 WL 4303742 (Cal. Super. Ct. Feb. 27, 2007) (awarding $401,188 in attorneys’ fees where plaintiff prevailed in wrongful termination action); Campos v. Valley Family Health Ctr. Med. Grp. Ina, 2007 WL 3275361 (Cal. Super. Ct. May 9, 2007) (awarding $1 17,165 in attorneys’ fees to prevailing plaintiff in wrongful termination action). 42. Indeed, Defendants reasonably estimate at this juncture that its own attorneys’ fees t0 defend this action through a jury trial and post-trial motions Will be W611 over $75,000.00 based 0n its own past litigation experience. SUMMARY OF AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY 43. Based 0n the foregoing, and excluding for purposes 0f this removal any lost 10 Given the other damages at issue in this action, even a minimal award of attorneys’ fees would cause the amount in controversy to exceed the jurisdictional minimum in this action. See, e.g., Sasso v. Noble Utah Long Beach, LLC, 2015 WL 898468, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2015) (using a “reasonable rate for employment cases” 0f $300 per hour and “an appropriate and conservative estimate” 0f 100 hours to find that attorneys’ fees in that case could “reasonably be expected to equal at least $30,000”). 1391976802 14 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 16 of 18 employment benefits to Which Plaintiff claims to be entitled, the amount in controversy on Plaintiff’ s Complaint is not less than §337a400.00, which far exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold: Damages/Amounts Claimed Amount in Controversv Lost Wages, exclusive 0f benefits $162,400.00 Emotional Distress Damages $25,000.00 Punitive Damages $75,000.00 Statutory Attorneys’ Fees $75,000.00 TOTAL AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY: $337,400.00 44. Accordingly, this Court has original jurisdiction in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because: (1) there is complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendants; and (2) it is more likely than not that the damages and attomeys’ fees sought by Plaintiff exceed the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold. 45. Defendants expressly reserve the right to amend or supplement this Notice ofRemoval and the evidence in support thereof to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law t0 provide additional supporting evidence 0r include any additional sums sought in the Complaint, but not included herein, should any aspect 0f this removal and/or the information set forth herein be challenged. See, e.g., Arias, 936 F.3d at 925-29 (defendant must be provided “a fair opportunity to submit proof” where amount in controversy contested); Jam's, 472 F. App’x at 534-35 (holding court erred in refusing to consider evidence 0f amount in controversy submitted after removal in response t0 a remand motion). VENUE 46. Venue lies in this Court because the action is pending in this district and division. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 47. Nothing in this Notice of Removal is intended 0r should be construed as any type of express or implied admission by Defendants of any fact, of the validity or merits of any 0f Plaintiff’ s claims, causes of action, and allegations, or 0f any liability for the same, all of which is/are hereby 1391976802 15 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 17 of 18 expressly denied, or as any type of express 0r implied waiver or limitation 0f any 0f Defendants’ rights, claims, remedies, and defenses in connection with this action, all 0fwhich are hereby expressly reserved. WHEREFORE, the above-entitled action should be removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County 0f Santa Clara t0 this United States District Court for the 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Northern District of California. DATED: January 4, 2021 MCGUIREWOODS LLP 139 1 97680.2 By: /s/ Remy Kessler Matthew C. Kane, Esq. Remy Kessler, Esq. Amy E. Beverlin, Esq. Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC. and PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC 1 6 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 18 of 18 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County 0f Los Angeles, State 0f California. I am over the age 0f eighteen years and not a party t0 the within action; my business address is 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501. On January 4, 2021, I served the following document(s) described as DEFENDANTS PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC. AND PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT on the interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: W. ZeV Abramson, Esq. Attorneysfor Plaintiff Nissim Levin, Esq. Jorge Madrigal Christina Begakis, Esq. ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 3580 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1260 Los Angeles, California 90010 BY MAIL: I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing With the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. Such envelope(s) were placed for collection and mailing with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, CA, on that same day following ordinary business practices. (C.C.P. § 1013 (a) and 1013a(3)) D BY ELECTRONIC DELIVERY: I caused said document(s) to be transmitted electronically to the above addressees D BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I deposited such document(s) in a box 0r other facility regularly maintained by the overnight service carrier, 0r delivered such document(s) t0 a courier or driver authorized by the overnight service carrier t0 receive documents, in an envelope or package designated by the overnight service carrier With delivery fees paid 0r provided for, addressed t0 the person(s) served hereunder. (C.C.P. § 1013(d)(e)) D BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such envelope(s) t0 be delivered the addressee(s). (C.C.P. § 1011) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 4, 2021, at Los Angeles, CA. Matthew Whitney 1391976802 17 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 W. Zev Abramson, Esq. #289387 Nissim Levin, Esq. #306376 Christina Begalds, Esq. #316779 ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 3580 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1260 Los Angeles, California 90010 Tel: (213) 493-6300 Fax: (213) 382-4083 Attorneys for Plaintiff, JORGE MADRIGAL E-FILED 11/18/2020 11:00 AM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara 20CV373699 Reviewed By: M Vu SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA JORGE MADRIGAL, an individual, VS. PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC., a corporation; PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1-100, Defendants. Case No.: 20CV373699 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EMAND FOR JURY TRIAL: 1. Disability Discrimination 2. Failure to Accommodate 3. Failure to Engage in the Good Faith Interactive Process 4. Retaliation in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act 5. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy Over $25,000 PLAINTIFF complains and alleges as follows: 1. On information and belief, Plaintiff, JORGE MADRIGAL, is a resident of the State of California. 2. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant, PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC. was doing business in California at 5480 Monterey Road, Gilroy, CA 95020, and was the employer of Plaintiff from December 2016 through his wrongful termination on or about September 18, 2020. Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial 1 Exhibit A Exhibit A Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1-1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 1 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant, PERFORMANCE ,TRANSPORTATION, LLC. was doing business in California at 5480 Monterey Road, Gilroy, CA 95020 and was the employer of Plaintiff from December 2016 through his wrongful termination on or about September 18, 2020. 4. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities, whether individual, - corporate, or associate, of those Defendants fictitiously sued as DOES I through 100 inclusive and so Plaintiff sues them by these fictitious names.. Upon discovering the true names and capacities of these fictitiously named Defendants, Plaintiff will amend this complaint to show the true names and capacities of these fictitiously named Defendants. 5. Unless otherwise alleged in this complaint, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of that information and belief alleges that at all times herein mentioned, each of the remaining co-Defendants, in doing the things hereinafter alleged, was acting within the course, scope and under the authority of his/her/its agency, employment, or representative capacity, with the consent of her/his/its co-Defendants. 6. In or around December 2016, Plaintiff was hired by Defendants as a Class A Driver. 7. In or around February 2020, Plaintiff began experiencing respiratory symptoms and was thereafter diagnosed with pneumonia, a disability which affects Plaintiff's ability to breathe. 8. As a result of Plaintiffs disability, Plaintiff was placed on medical leave by his physician. Plaintiff provided doctor's notes to his employers. 9. Subsequently, Plaintiff's physician extended Plaintiff's medical leave to September 2020 as a result of Plaintiff's disability and Plaintiff's status as "high risk" in the climate of the COVID-19 pandemic. 10. On or about August 25, 2020, Defendants requested updated paperwork from Plaintiff's physician regarding Plaintiff's disability. Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial 2 Exhibit A Exhibit A Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1-1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 2 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11. Plaintiff complied with Defendant's request on or about September 2, 2020 with completed paperwork from Plaintiffs physician informing Defendant of Plaintiffs ability to return to work with a reasonable accommodation of minimizing contact with people. 12. Upon receipt of Plaintiff's request for accommodation, Defendant scheduled a meeting with Plaintiff on or about September 8, 2020. 13. On or about September 8, 2020, Plaintiff met with Defendants to discuss his request for accommodation. Plaintiff proposed a transition to a position within Defendant's warehouse to accommodate Plaintiffs disability and request for minimal contact with other persons. Defendant denied Plaintiffs request and failed to offer any other options to accommodate Plaintiff's disability and simply ended the meeting. As such, Defendants failed to participate in any good faith interactive process. 14. Accommodations could have been made for Plaintiff such as placement in a warehouse position or placement on a different driving route such as a "key drop" or long haul route which involves limited to no interaction with customers. 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendant operated a long-haul route between the Gilroy area and Los Angeles. This route involves little if any customer contact and was not regularly assigned to any particular driver. Defendant's agents were aware of this position and failed to offer it to Plaintiff despite its availability and the perfect fit between the route's characteristics and Plaintiff's medical needs. 16. Rather than make any attempt to accommodate Plaintiff, Plaintiff was terminated by Defendants on or about September 18, 2020 due to his disability and based on his request for an accommodation of his disability. 17. As a result of being subjected to discrimination, retaliation and termination of employment by Defendant due to Plaintiff's disability, Plaintiff suffered emotional distress and medical expenses. Further, as a result of all of the foregoing and following actions taken towards Plaintiff as alleged herein, Plaintiff has incurred loss of earnings and benefits in an amount not yet ascertained. Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial 3 Exhibit A Exhibit A Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1-1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 3 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 18. All of the foregoing and following actions taken towards the Plaintiff as alleged herein were carried out by Defendants in a deliberate, cold, callous, malicious, oppressive, and intentional manner in order to injure and damage the Plaintiff. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer from losses of earnings and otherwise in amounts as yet unascertained but subject to proof at trial. First Cause of Action DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION 20. Plaintiff re-alleges the information set forth in Paragraphs 1-19 as though fully set forth and alleged herein. 21. This cause of action is based upon Government Code section 12926(m), which defines physical disability as having any physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss that affects one or more of the following body systems: neurological, immunological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory, including speech organs, cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genito-urinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin and endocrine, and the disability limits an individual's ability to participate in major life activities. This cause of action is also based upon Government Code section 12940 for discriminating against Plaintiff on the basis of physical disability. 22. Plaintiff's disability (actual and/or perceived), specifically his pneumonia and additional respiratory symptoms, constituted a disability as defined above in Government Code §12926(m). 23. Defendants are an "employer" as defined by and subject to Government Code section 12900, et al. 24. Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act by filing charges that Defendant violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and was issued the Notice of Case Closure/Right-to-Sue Letter granting Plaintiff the right to bring suit against Defendant. Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial 4 Exhibit A Exhibit A Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1-1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 4 of 12 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 25. Defendant was aware that Plaintiff was disabled or at least perceived that he was disabled. 26. Reasonable accommodations could have been made for Plaintiff's disabilities, such as placement in a warehouse position or placement on a different driving route such as a "key drop" route which involves limited to no interaction with customers, but were not provided. 27. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of the Government Code sections set forth herein by terminating Plaintiff's employment because of his disabilities (actual and/or perceived) and requests for disability accommodation. 28. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer emotional distress, losses in salary, bonuses, job benefits, and other employment benefits which he would have received from Defendants, plus expenses incurred in obtaining substitute employment and not being regularly employed all to his damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of this court, to be ascertained according to proof. 29. The grossly reckless, careless, negligent, oppressive and/or intentional, malicious, and bad faith manner in which said Defendants engaged in those acts as described in this cause of action entitle Plaintiff to punitive damages against said Defendants in an amount within the jurisdiction of this court, to be ascertained by the fact finder, that is sufficiently high to punish said Defendants, deter them from engaging in such conduct again, and to make an example of them to others. 30. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the punitive conduct of said Defendants was ratified by those other individuals who were managing agents of said Defendants. These unlawful acts were further ratified by Defendants and done with a conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights and with the intent, design and purpose of injuring Plaintiff. By reason thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages in this cause of action in a sum to be determined at the time of trial. 31. Plaintiff also prays for reasonable costs and attorney fees against said Defendants, as allowed by California Government Code §12965 and any other applicable statutes for Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial 5 Exhibit A Exhibit A Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1-1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 5 of 12 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs prosecution of this action in reference to the time Plaintiffs attorney spends pursuing this cause of action as well as any other applicable statutes. Second Cause of Action FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE 32. Plaintiff re-alleges the information set forth in Paragraphs 1-31 as though fully set forth and alleged herein. 33. This cause of action is based upon Government Code section 12926(m), which defmes physical disability as having any physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss that affects one or more of the following body systems: neurological, immunological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory, including speech organs, cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genito-urinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin and endocrine, and the disability limits an individual's ability to participate in major life activities. Moreover, this cause of action is also based upon Government Code section 12940 for discriminating against Plaintiff on the basis of his physical disability and for failing to provide reasonable accommodation of Plaintiffs physical disability. This cause of action is also based upon Government Code section 12940 for discriminating against Plaintiff on the basis of his disabilities and for filling to provide reasonable accommodation of Plaintiffs disabilities. 34. Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act by filing charges that Defendants discriminated against him and his employment and violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and has received a Right to Sue Letter. 35. Plaintiff's disability (actual and/or perceived), specifically his pneumonia and additional respiratory symptoms, constituted a disability as defined above in Government Code §12926(m). 36. Defendants are an "employer" as defined by and subject to Government Code section 12900, et al. 37. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Defendants were aware of Plaintiffs disability (actual and/or perceived) as described above. Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial 6 Exhibit A Exhibit A Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1-1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 6 of 12 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 38. Reasonable accommodations could have been made for Plaintiff's physical disability, such as placement in a warehouse position or placement on a different driving route such as a "key drop" or long haul route which involves limited to no interaction with customers, but were not provided. 39. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendant operated a long-haul route between the Gilroy area and Los Angeles. This route involves little if any customer contact and was not regularly assigned to any particular driver. Defendant's agents were aware of this position and failed to offer it to Plaintiff despite its availability and the perfect fit between the route's characteristics and Plaintiff's medical needs. 40. Defendants failed to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff's disability. 41. As a result of being subjected to Defendants' failure to accommodate, discrimination and termination of employment, Plaintiff suffered emotional distress. Further, as a result of all of the foregoing and following actions taken towards Plaintiff as alleged herein, Plaintiff has incurred loss of earnings and benefits inan amount not yet ascertained. 42. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer emotional distress, losses in salary, bonuses, job benefits, and other employment benefits which he would have received from Defendants, plus expenses incurred in obtaining substitute employment and not being regularly employed all to his damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of this court, to be ascertained according to proof. 43. The grossly reckless, careless, negligent, oppressive and/or intentional, malicious, and bad faith manner in which said Defendants engaged in those acts as described in this cause of action entitle Plaintiff to punitive damages against said Defendants in an amount within the jurisdiction of this court, to be ascertained by the fact finder, that is sufficiently high to punish said Defendants, deter them from engaging in such conduct again, and to make an example of them to others. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the punitive conduct of said Defendants was ratified by those other individuals who were managing agents of said Defendants. These unlawful acts were further ratified by Defendants and done with a conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights and with the intent, design and purpose of injuring Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial 7 Exhibit A Exhibit A Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1-1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 7 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff. By reason thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages in this cause of action in a sum to be determined at the time of trial. 44. Plaintiff also prays for reasonable costs and attorney fees against said Defendants, as allowed by California Government Code §12965 and any other applicable statutes for Plaintiffs prosecution of this action in reference to the time Plaintiff's attorney spends pursuing this cause of action as well as any other applicable statutes. Third Cause of Action FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE GOOD FAITH INTERACTIVE PROCESS 45. Plaintiff re-alleges the information set forth in Paragraphs 1-44 as though fully set forth at length. 46. As alleged herein and in violation of California Government Code section 12940(n), Defendant violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act by, among other things, refusing and/or failing to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with Plaintiff regarding his work restrictions and disabilities. 47. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's willful, knowing, and intentional failure to engage in the interactive process, Plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits. 48. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer emotional distress, losses in salary, bonuses, job benefits, and other employment benefits which he would have received from Defendants, plus expenses incurred in obtaining substitute employment and not being regularly employed all to her damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of this court, to be ascertained according to proof. 49. The grossly reckless, careless, negligent, oppressive and/or intentional, malicious, and bad faith manner in which said Defendants engaged in those acts as described in this cause of action entitle Plaintiff to punitive damages against said Defendants in an amount within the jurisdiction of this court, to be ascertained by the fact finder, that is sufficiently high to punish said Defendants, deter them from engaging in such conduct again, and to make an example of them to others. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the punitive Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial 8 Exhibit A Exhibit A Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1-1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 8 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 , 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 conduct of said Defendants was ratified by those other individuals who were managing agents of said Defendants. These unlawful acts were further ratified by Defendants and done with a conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights and with the intent, design and purpose of injuring Plaintiff. By reason thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages in this cause of action in a sum to be determined at the time of trial. Fourth Cause of Action RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT 50. Plaintiff re-alleges the information set forth in Paragraphs 1-49 as though fully set forth and alleged herein. 51. This cause of action is based upon California Government Code Section 12940, et seq. which prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who make a request for accommodation for their disabilities and who complain of a lack of accommodation for their disabilities; and prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who complain of disability discrimination. 52. Defendant violated California Government Code Section 12940, et seq. by doing the following acts all because of Plaintiff's requests for accommodation and complaints of a lack of all reasonable accommodations for his disabilities, including but not limited to, discriminating against and terminating Plaintiff as a result of his requests for accommodation of his disability as described in the general allegations above. 53. Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act by filing charges that Defendants discriminated and retaliated against her and her employment and violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and has received a Right to Sue Letter. 54. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's willful, knowing, and intentional, retaliation, Plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits. 55. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer emotional distress, losses in salary, bonuses, job Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, 9 Exhibit A Exhibit A Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1-1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 9 of 12 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 benefits, and other employment benefits which he would have received from Defendants, plus expenses incurred in obtaining substitute employment and not being regularly employed all to his damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of this court, to be ascertained according to proof. 56. The grossly reckless, careless, negligent, oppressive and/or intentional, malicious, and bad faith manner in which said Defendants engaged in those acts as described in this cause of action entitle Plaintiff to punitive damages against said Defendants in an amount within the jurisdiction of this court, to be ascertained by the fact finder, that is sufficiently high to punish said Defendants, deter them from engaging in such conduct again, and to make an example of them to others. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the punitive conduct of said Defendants was ratified by those other individuals who were managing agents of said Defendants. These unlawful acts were further ratified by Defendants and done with a conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights and with the intent, design and purpose of injuring Plaintiff. By reason thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages in this cause of action in a sum to be determined at the time of trial. 57. Defendants, and each of them, committed the acts alleged herein recklessly, maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, for an improper and evil motive amounting to malice (as described above), and with a reckless and conscious disregard of Plaintiffs' rights. All actions of Defendants, and each of them, their agents and employees, herein alleged were known, ratified and approved by the Defendants, and each of them. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive and exemplary damages from Defendants, and each of them, for these wanton, obnoxious, and despicable acts as allowed by law, that will sufficiently punish, make an example of, and deter future conduct by Defendants. Fifth Cause of Action WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY 58. Plaintiff re-alleges the information set forth in Paragraphs 1-57 above and by this reference incorporates said paragraphs herein as though fully set forth at length. 59. Plaintiff's employment was wrongfully terminated, in violation of substantial and fundamental public policies of the State of California that inures to the benefit of the public, with Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial 10 Exhibit A Exhibit A Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1-1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 10 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 respect to retaliation, tortious discharge, and adverse employment actions taken against Plaintiff for complaining of labor code violations, all in violation of various state statutes including but not limited to violations of California's Constitution and the Fair Employment and Housing Act. 60. As a result of their employment relationship, Defendant was obligated to restrain from discharging Plaintiff for reasons which violate or circumvent said policy, law, or the objectives that underlie each and not to compound their illegal conduct by retaliating against Plaintiff. 61. Defendant's act of retaliating against Plaintiff for his disability and requests for accommodation of his disability constitutes wrongful termination in violation of public policy. 62. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's willful, knowing, and intentional failure to engage in the interactive process, Plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits. 63. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer emotional distress, losses in salary, bonuses, job benefits, and other employment benefits which he would have received from Defendants, plus expenses incurred in obtaining substitute employment and not being regularly employed all to his damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of this court, to be ascertained according to proof. 64. The grossly reckless, careless, negligent, oppressive and/or intentional, malicious, and bad faith manner in which said Defendants engaged in those acts as described in this cause of action entitle Plaintiff to punitive damages against said Defendants in an amount within the jurisdiction of this court, to be ascertained by the fact finder, that is sufficiently high to punish said Defendants, deter them from engaging in such conduct again, and to make an example of them to others. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the punitive conduct of said Defendants was ratified by those other individuals who were managing agents of said Defendants. These unlawful acts were further ratified by Defendants and done with a conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights and with the intent, design and purpose of injuring Plaintiff. By reason thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages in this cause of action in a sum to be determined at the time of trial. Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial 1 1 Exhibit A Exhibit A Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1-1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 11 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 65. As a result of Defendant's retaliatory or other illegal and prohibited acts as alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit. 66. The damages herein exceed $25,000.00. 67. Plaintiff requests a jury trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the followina relief: 1. For special damages in an amount according to proof for Plaintiff's loss of past and future earnings, loss of benefits, loss of bonuses, expenses to obtain new employment, loss of job security and all damages flowing therefrom; 2. For all general and special damages to compensate Plaintiff for any past and future medical expenses and suffering and related damages; 3. For punitive damages, as allowed by law, that will sufficiently punish, make an example of, and deter future conduct by Defendants; 4. For all penalties under all relevant statutes; 5. For all costs and disbursements incurred in this suit; 6. For all interest as allowed by law; 7. For attorney's fees and costs; and 8. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. DATED: November 18, 2020 By: ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP Christina Begakis, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff JORGE MADRIGAL Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial 12 Exhibit A Exhibit A Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1-1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 12 of 12 SUMMONS (0TACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC. a corporation; PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, St, perior Court of CA, LLC., a limited liability company; and DOES 1-100 YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): JORGE MADRIGAL, an individual SUM-100 FOR COURT USE ONLY (SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORT14 E- =ILED 11/18/2020 11:00 AM Clerk of Court County of Santa Clara 20CV373699 Reviewed By: M Vu Er velope: 5318075 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 will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you went the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.goviselMelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelocalifornie.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (vnwv.courtinfo.ca.govisellhelp), 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 of S10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. lAVISOI Lo ban demandado. Si no =panda dentro de 30 dlas, la 021t0 puede dad& en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la infonnecitin a contlnuacion. Tiem) 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO despues de qua le entreguen este dteciOn y papeles legates pass presenter una respuesta par escdro en esta carte y hacer que se enbegue una copla al demendante. Una carte a una Hamada telefonica no lo protegen. Su respuesta par wait° done quo ester en formato legal =recto sl doses qua pmeesen su case en la core. Es posible qua haya un fonnularlo quo usted puede user pare su respueshr. Puede encontrar estos formula:1os dole carte y mas informacion en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cores de California (Www.sucorte.ce.gov). en la bibliob3ce de leyes de SU condado o en la code qua le quads mils coma. Si no puede pager le cuota de presentecion, pida al secretario dole core quo to do un formulario de exenclon de pago de cuotas Si no pmsenta su respueste a tlempo. puede perder el case par iircumplirniento yle cotta le podni guitar su sueltio, dinero y bienes sin mils advertencia. Hay arm requisitos legates. Es recomendable qua !lame a un ebogado inmediatemente. Si no conace a un abogado, puede !lamer a un servido de remisiOn a abogados. Si no puede page r a un abogedo, es posIble quo cumpla con los requisitos pare obtener servicios legates gratuitos de un programa de serviclos legates sin fines de ludo. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de ludo one! Mt web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayude doles Cores de California. (vwvw.sucorte.ce.gm) a poniOndose en contact° con la core o el colegio de abogados locates. AVISO: Pot ley, la aide bone derecho a redamer les cuotes y los costos exentos par imponer un gravamen sabre cualquler recuperacion de $10,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediente un acuerdo o una concesion de mbar* en un case de denacho civil. Time qua pager el gravamen dole care antes de quo la code puede desectrarel caso. CASE NUMBER: (Namara del Caso): 20CV373699 The name and address of the court is: (El nombm y direcch5n de la coils es); SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, DOWNTOWN SUPERIOR COURT 191 NORTH FIRST ST., SAN JOSE, CA 95113 The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, Is: (El nombre, Ia direcciOn ye! numem de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante quo no tiene abogado, es): CHRISTINA BEGAKIS; 3580 WILSHIRE BLVD., STE 1260, LOS ANGELES, CA 90010 (213)493-6300 DATE: Clerk, by (Fecha) 11/18/2020 11:00 AM Clerk of Court (Secrldgedi (For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).) (Para prueba de entrega de este citation use el fomiulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010).) NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1. r--1 as an Individual defendant. 2. J as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): 3. on behalf of (specify):-ffr aLtiCe 1 oii -6 coup •Tinc L tf4idhcof under: Eg:i CCP 416.10 (corporation) CCP 416.60 (minor) 1= CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) CCP 416.70 (conservatee) I-I CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) 1-1 CCP 416.90 (authorized person) I= other (specify): 4. EZ by personal delivery on (date) IT , Deputy (Adjunto) Pane loll Fenn Adopted for Mandatory Use Ju al Courted of California SUM•100 [Rev. hay 1, 20091 SUMMONS Code of Civil Prow:lug 5j412.20. 465 wew.00eitsza.gor Exhibit B Exhibit B Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1-2 Filed 01/04/21 Page 1 of 1 SUMMONS (C1TACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC. a corporation; PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC., a limited liability company; and DOES 1-100 YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): JORGE MADRIGAL, an individual SUM-100 FOR COURT USE ONLY (SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORM E-FILED 11/18/2020 11:00 AM Clerk of Court SL perior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara 20CV373699 Reviewed By: M Vu Er velope: 5318075 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 alter 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 will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form If you want the COud to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more Information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ce.goviseffhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court derk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court. • There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpoelifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ce.goviselfhelp), 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 of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. Lo hen demanded°. Si no responde dentro de 30 (flee, la code puede deddir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea to informachin a continuacion. 7/one 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO despues de quo le entreguen este citectkin y metes legates pan3 presenter une respuesta par emit° en este cone y ha cot que se en/rogue una copie al demendente. Una cane o una llama& to/eh:Mica no/a pmtegen. Su respuesta pot Encino bane quo ester en fonnato legal oorrecto sl doses que prooesen su caw en la cone. Es posible que haya un formularto que usted puede user pare su respuesta.. Puede enconbar estos formularlos dole cone y mos infonnadOn one! Centro de Ayuda de las Cones de California Awiw.sucorte.ce.gov), en le bibliotece de !eyes de su condedo o en la code quo le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pager la cuote de presentacitin, pide al secreted° dole code qua le d6 un formulado de exenciOn de pago de cuotas. S/no presents su respuesta a tiempo. puede perder el case par incumpfintiento y to cone be podni guitar su sue/do, diner° y bienes sin mils advertencia Hay otros requisitos legates. Es recomendable que Herne a un ebogado inmediatamente. Si no CONOCO a un abogado, puede !lamer a un servicio de remisiOn a abogados. S/no puede pager e un abogado, es posible qua dimple con los requisitos pare obtener sen.•icios legates gratuitos de un programa de senricios legates sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de ludo en of sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifomie.org), en of Centro de Ayuda de las Codes de California, (wwbv.sucorte.ce.gov) o poni6ndose en contact* con la cone o el colegio de abogados locales. AV1SO: Par ley, le cone Ilene denacho a reclamer las cuotas y los costos exentos pot imponer un gravamen sabre cualquier recuperadon de $10,000 6 mils de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una minced& de arbitraja en un case de derecho civil. Tierra qua pager el gravamen de Ia carte antes de quo la cone puede desechar caso. eimer° del Caso): 20CV373699 The name and address of the court is: CASE NUMBER: (N (El nombre y dhecclon de la carte es): SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, DOWNTOWN SUPERIOR COURT 191 NORTH FIRST ST., SAN JOSE, CA 95113 The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, Is: (El nombre, la diieccien ye! nemero de telefono del abogado del demandente, o del demandante que no Ilene abogado, es): CHRISTINA BEGAKIS; 3580 WILSHIRE BLVD., STE 1260, LOS ANGELES, CA 90010(213)493-6300 DATE: Clerk, by (Fecha) 11/18/2020 11:00 AM Clerk of Court (Seattit*3)1 (For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).) (Para prueba de entrega de este citation use el forrnulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010).) NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1. as an Individual defendant. 2. E= as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): Form Adopted tar hisodstory Use • Judicial Cornea of California 5UM.100 [Rev. July 1. 20091 , Deputy (Adjunto) -kon c3. 1 on behalf of (specify): furfw ma4C;e/ cursp (11(-1;tvti .6( 1,102; Corriekni under. 1---1 CCP 416.10 (corporation) CCP 416.60 (minor) CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) CCP 416.70 (conservatee) aN CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) CCP 416.90 (authorized person) other (specify): 4. '.1X by personal delivery on (date) Ili- SUMMONS Paso 1 oil Cale of Civil FrocedLre 55 412.20. 485 - www.00urted3.gov Exhibit C Exhibit C Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1-3 Filed 01/04/21 Page 1 of 1 , CM-010 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): CHRISTINA BEGAKIS, ESQ. SBN #316779 ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 3580 VVILSHIRE BLVD. STE 1260, LOS ANGELES, CA 90010 TELEPHONE NO.: 213-493-6300 FAX NO. (Optional): 213-382-4083 ATTORNEY FOR (Name). JORGE MADRIGAL, an individual FOR COURT USE ONLY Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 11/18/2020 11:00 AM Reviewed By: M Vu Case #20CV373699 Envelope: 5318075 SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA STREET ADDRESS: 191 NORTH FIRST ST. MAILING ADDRESS: 191 NORTH FIRST ST. cm( AND ZIP CODE SAN JOSE 95113 BRANCH NAME: DOWNTOWN SUPERIOR COURT (DTS) CASE NAME: MADRIGAL V PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC., ET AL CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation CASE NUMBER: 200 V373699 fli Unlimited 7-1 Limited I-1 Counter El Joinder (Amount (Amount demanded demanded is exceeds $25,000) $25,000) Filed with first appearance by defendant (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) JUDGE: 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 ri Auto (22) r-i Uninsured motorist (46) Other PUPD/WD (Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort Asbestos (04) Product liability (24) Medical malpractice (45) ED Other PUPDAND (23) Non-PUPD/WD (Other) Tort Contract Breath ongty) (06) Rule3.7o4f0wntracollectictiwaonsna( Other collections (09) r 1 Insurance coverage (18) Other contract (37) Real Property Eminent domain/Inverse condemnation (14) Wrongful eviction (33) Business tort/unfair business practice (07) I-7 1--1 Other Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer m r real property (26)r--1 Defamation (13) Commercial meaci: 3 I-1 Fraud (16) Residential (32) Drugs (38)1--r--1 Intellectual property (19) -1 I-7 Professional negligence (25) Other non-PI/PDNVD tort (35) Employment 1=1 1Nrongful termination (36) r-i Other employment (15) Judicial Review ED Asset forfeiture (05) 1--1 Petition re: arbitration award (11) VVrit of mandate (02) 71 Other judicial review (39) Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403) Antitrust/Trade regulation (03) F-1 Construction defect (10) I-I Mass tort (40) ni Securities litigation (28) Environmental/Toxic tort (30) 1= Insurance coverage claims arising from the above listed provisionally complex case types (41) Enforcement of Judgment 1--1 Enforcement of judgment (20) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint RICO (27) Other complaint (not specified above) (42) Miscellaneous Civil Petition L 1 Partnership and corporate governance (21) Other petition (not specified above) (43) 2. This case I-1 is =I is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a. Large number of separately represented parties d. 1=1 Large number of witnesses b. I-1 Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more issues that will be time-consuming to resolve courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal c. Substantial amount of documentary evidence court f. 1---1 Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision 3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a. t= monetary b. I-I nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. =I punitive 4. Number of causes of action (specify): 5 5. This case 1-1 is 1-1 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 Date: November 18, 2020 CHRISTINA BEGAKIS, ESQ. (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY) NOTICE • 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. • File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. • If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on 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 only. Page 1012 Forrn Adopted for Mandatory Use Judicial Council of California CM-010 Rev. July 1. 24:07) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal. Rules of Court. rules 2.30. 1220. 3.400-3.401 3.740:Cal. Standards of Judicial ArtrniMstradon, std. 3.10 WVAV.02U1t&CaGIOV Exhibit D Exhibit D Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1-4 Filed 01/04/21 Page 1 of 2 CM-010 [Rev July 1, 20071 INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET CM-010 To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a first paper (for example, a 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 fisted 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 of the 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 plaintiffs 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. CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Auto (22)-Personal Injury/Property Breath of ContractNVarranti (06) Rules of Court Rules 3.400-3.403) Damage/Wrongful Death Breach of Rental/Lease Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03) Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the Contract (not unlawful detainer Construction Defect (10) case Involves an uninsured or wrongful eviction) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) motorist claim subject kr Contract/Warranty Breach-Seller Securities Litigation (28) arbitration, check this item Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) Environmental/Toxic Tort (30) instead of Auto) Negligent Breach of Contract/ Insurance Coverage Claims . Other PUPDAND (Personal Injury/ Warranty (arising from provisionally complex Property DamagelWrongftil Death) Other Breath of Contract/Warranty case type listed above) (41) Tort Collections (e.g., money owed, open Enforcement of Judgment Asbestos (04) book accounts) (09) . Enforcement of Judgment (20) Collection Case-Seller PlaintiffAsbestos Property Damage Abstract of Judgment (Out of Asbestos Personal injury/ Other Promissory Note/Collections County) Wrongful Death Case • Confession of Judgment (non- Product Liability (not asbestos or Insurance Coverage (not provisionally domestic relations) toxic/environmental) (24) complex) (18) Sister State Judgment Medical Malpractice (45) Auto Subrogation Administrative Agency Award Medical Malpractice- Other Coverage (not unpaid taxes) Physicians & Surgeons Other Contract (37) Petition/Certification of Entry of Other Professional Health Care Contractual Fraud Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Malpractice Other Contract Dispute Other Enforcement of Judgment Other PI/PD/WD (23) Real Property Case Premises Liability (e.g., slip Eminent Domain/Inverse Miscellaneous Civil Complaint and fall) Condemnation (14) RICO (27) Intentional Bodily Injury/PO/WO Wrongful Eviction (33) - Other Complaint (not specified (e.g., assault, vandalism) Other Real Properly (e.g.. quiet title) (26) above) (42) Intentional Infliction of VVrit of Possession of Real Properly Declaratory Relief Only Emotional Distress Mortgage Foreclosure Injunctive Relief Only (non- Negligent Infliction of Quiet Title harassment) Emotional Distress Other Real Property (not eminent Mechanics Lien Other PUPCINVD domain, landlord/tenant, or Other Commercial Complaint Non-PUPD/WD (Other) Tort foreclosure) Case (non-tort/rion-complex) Business Tort/Unfalr Business Unlawful Detainer Other Civil Complaint Practice (07) Commercial (31) (non-tort/non-complex) Civil Rights (e.g., discrimination, Residential (32) Miscellaneous Civil Petition false arrest) (not civil Drugs (38) (If the case involves illegal Partnership and Corporate harassment) (08) drugs, check this item; otherwise, Governance (21) Defamation (e.g., slander, libel) report as Commercial or Residential) Other Petition (not specified (13) Judicial Review above) (43) Fraud (16) Asset Forfeiture (05) Civil Harassment Intellectual Property (19) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11) Workplace Violence Professional Negligence (25) Writ of Mandate (02) Elder/Dependent Adult Legal Malpractice Writ-Administrative Mandamus use Other Professional Malpractice Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court Election Contest (not medical or legal) Case Matter Petition for Name Change Other Non-PI/PDIWD Tort (35) Writ-Other Limited Court Case Petition for Relief From Late Employment Review Claim Wrongful Termination (36) Other Judicial Review (39) Other Civil Petition Other Employment (15) Review of Health Officer Order Notice of Appeal-Labor Commissioner Appeals CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Page 2 of 2 Exhibit D Exhibit D Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1-4 Filed 01/04/21 Page 2 of 2 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 12/16/2020 10:43 AM Reviewed By: System System Case #20CV373699 Envelope: 5482552 20CV373699 Santa Clara - Civil System Systemw POS-01 0 ATTORNEY 0R PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY W. ZEV ABRAMSON, ESQ. SBN 289387- ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 3580 WILSHIRE BLVD., STE. 1260 LOS ANGELES, CA 90010 TELEPHONE N0; 2 1 3-493-6300 FAX No. (Optional): 2 13-3 82-4083 E-MAlL ADDRESS (Optional): ATTORNEY FOR (Name): PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA couu'rv or SANTA CLARA STREET ADDRESS: 191 NORTH FIRST STREET K MAILING ADDRESS: SAW .‘ CITY AND ZIP CODE: SAN JOSE, CA 951 13 BRANCH NAME: DOWNTOWN SUPERIOR COURT ‘ PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: JORGE MADRIGAL, AN INDIVIDUAL CASE NUMBER: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, 1N0, ET AL. 20CV373699 Ref. No. or File No‘: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMON.UJ (Separate proof of service is required for each pan‘y served.) -1. At the time of service | was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this action. 2. | served copies of: a- summons complaint Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) package Civil Case Cover Sheet (served in complex cases only) cross-complaint b c. d. e f other (specify documents): DEED! .0) n: . Party served (specify name ofparty as shown on documents served): PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC, A CORPORATION . 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): DAISY MONTENEGRO, CLERK, NATIONAL REGISTERED AGENTS INC. 4. Address where the party was served: 818 W. SEVENTH STREET, S_E; , 303 LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 5. | served the party (check proper box) a_ 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): 12-3-20 (2) at (time): 1:55 P.M. b. D by substituted service. On (date): at (time): | left the documents listed in item 2 with or in the presence of (name and title or relationship to person indicated in item 3): U (1) D (business) a person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the office or usual place of business of the person to be sewed. | informed him or her of the general nature of the papers. (2) 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. I informed him or her of the general nature of the papers. (3) E (physical address unknown) a person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the usual mailing address of the person to be sewed, other than a United States Postal Service post office box. I informed him or her of the general natu're of the papers. (4) E | 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., § 41 5.20). l mailed the documents on \ (date): from (city): orD a declaration of mailing is attached. (5) E l attach a declaration of diligence stating actions taken first to attempt personal service. Page 1 of 2 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS Code of Civll Procedure, § 417.10 Judlclal Couna‘l of California P‘OS-O1O [Rem January 1, 2007] Exhibit E Exhibit E Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1-5 Filed 01/04/21 Page 1 of 2 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: JORGE MADRIGAL, AN INDIVIDUAL CASE NUMBER "BEFENDANT/REsPONDENT: PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, 1NC., ET AL. 20CV373699 5. Q l ,l 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): (2) from (city): (3) I i with two capies 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- D as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): C- E as occupant. d- On behalf 0f (specify): PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC, A CORPORATION under the following Code of Civil Procedure section: 416.10 (corporation) E 415,95V(business organization, form unknown)D 416.20 (defunct corporation) E 416.60 (minor)E 416.30 (joint stock company/association) D 416.70 (ward or conservatee)D 416.40 (association or partnership) [:3 416.90 (authorized person)D 416.50 (public entity) D 415.46 (occupant)E other: 7. Person who served papers a. Name: CARLOS CANAS - ZACHS LEGAL SERVICES Address: 19197 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD, STE. 916, SANTA CLARITA, CA 91387 Telephone number: 818-521-0734 The fee for service was: $ 38.00 | am: (1) not a registered California process server. (2) exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b). (3) l a registered California process server: (i) D owner D employee independent contractor. (ii) Registration No.: 4571 (iii) County: LOS ANGELES 8. I ] I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. $999.5 or 9. E I am a California sheriff or marshal and I certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: 12-4-20 _ {W (W CARLOS CANAS ? L% w» fl (NAME OF PERSON WHO SERVED PAPERS/SHERIFF OR MARSHAL) (SIGNATUEE') Page 2 of 2Pow" [Rev' Jam” 1‘ 2°“ PROOF 0F SERVICE 0F SUMMONs Exhibit E Exhibit E Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1-5 Filed 01/04/21 Page 2 of 2 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 12/16/2020 10:43 AM Reviewed By: System System Case #20CV373699 Envelope: 5482552 20CV373699 Santa Clara - Civil System System / 5 I POS-01 0 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY W. ZEV ABRAMSON, ESQ. SBN 289387- ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 3580 WILSHIRE BLVD., STE. 1260 LOS ANGELES, CA 90010 TELEPHONE No.2 2 1 3-493-6300 FAX No. (Optima): 213-3 82-4083 E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): ArrORNEY FOR (Name): PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR cOURT 0F CALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F SANTA CLARA STREET ADDRESS: 191 NORTH FIRST STREET MAILING ADDRESS: SAM’E CITY AND ZJP CODE: SAN JOSE, CA 951 13 BRANCH NAME: DOWNTOWN SUPERIOR COURT PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: JORGE MADRIGAL, AN INDIVIDUAL CASE NUMBER: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT; PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC., ET AL. ZOCV373699 Ref. No. or File No.2 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS (Separate proof of service is required for each pan‘y served.) 1. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this action. l served copies of: a- summons complaint Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) package Civil Case Cover Sheet (sen/ed in complex cases only) cross-complaint other (specify documents): EDIE! b c. d. e f 9° m . Party served (specify name ofparty as shown on documents served): PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY . Person (other than the party in item 3a) sewed 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): DAISY MONTENEGRO, CLERK, NATIONAL REGISTERED AGENTS INC. 4. Address where the party was served: 818 W. SEVENTH STREET, STE. 930, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 5. I sewed the party (check proper box) a, by personal service. I personally delivered the documents listed in item 2 to the party or person authorized to receive service of process for the party (1) on (date): 12-3-20 (2) at (time): 1:55 P.M. b. E by substituted service. On (date): at (time): I left the documents listed in item 2 with or in the presence of (name and title or relationship to person indicated in item 3): U (1) E (buslness) 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 ,(hgme), a competent member of the househgldjatrlerastj 8 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. (3) D (physical address unknown) a person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the usual mailing address of the person to be sewed, other than a United States Postal Service post office box. I informed him or her of the general nature of the papers. (4) [j | 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): orE a declaration of mailing is attached. (5) E I attach a declaration of diligence stating actions taken first to attempt personal service. Page 1 of 2 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use PROOF OF SERV|CE OF SUMMONS Code of Civil Procedure, §417.10 Judicial Council of California POS-O1O [Rem January 1, 2007] Exhibit F Exhibit F Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1-6 Filed 01/04/21 Page 1 of 2 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: JORGE MADRIGAL, AN INDIVIDUAL CASE NUMBER: BEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, 1NC., ET AL. 20CV373699 5_ c. E by mail and acknowledgment of receipt of service. I mailed the documents listed in item 2 to the party, to the address shown in item 4, by first-class mail, postage prepaid, (1) on (date): (2) from (city): (3) r rwithrtworcopies ofrtherNotjce 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 returh receipt requested. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.40.) d_ E by other means (specify means of service and authorizing code section): D Additional page describing service is attached. 6. The "Notice to the Person Served" (on the summons) was completed as follows: a. 99.6 IDBD as an individual defendant. as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): as occupant. On behalfiofr(specify): PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC., a limited liability company under the following Code of Civil Procedure section: E 416-10 (CQrPQration) E 415.95 (business organization, form unknown)m 416.20 (defunct corporation) D 416,60 (minor)E 416.30 (joint stock company/association) E] 416.70 (ward or conservatee) 416.40 (association or partnership) E 416.90 (authorized person)E 416.50 (public entity) [E 415.46 (occupant) 7E ether: 7. Person who served papers Name: CARLOS CANAS - ZACHS LEGAL SERVICES Address: 19197 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD, STE. 916, SANTA CLARITA, CA 91387 Telephone number: 81 8-521-0734 The fee for service was: $ 19.00 a. .mgov I am: (1) (2) (3) not a registered California process server. exempt from registration un errBusiness and Professions Code section 22350(b). I a registered California process server: (i) E owner Eemployee independent contractor. (ii) Registration No.2 4571 7 (iii) County: LOS ANGELES 8. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 0r 9. E I am a California sheriff or marshal and l certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: 12-4-20 CARLOS CANAS D Wa (NAME OF PERSON WHO SERVED PAPERSISHERIFF OR MARSHAL) (SIGNATURE ) POS-01O [Rev‘ January 1. 2007] PROOF 0F SERVICE OF SUMMONS Page 2 of2 Exhibit F Exhibit F Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1-6 Filed 01/04/21 Page 2 of 2 JS-CAND 44 (Rev. 10/2020) Case 5:21-cv-0002%18?iu88$tfl gifigfigi/M/Zl Page 1 of 3 The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service ofpleadings 0r other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules 0f court. This form, approved 1n its original form by the Judicial Conference 0f the United States 1n September 1974, 1s required for the Clerk 0f Court t0 initiate the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS 0NNEXTPAGE 0F THIS FORM) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS JORGE MADRIGAL (b) County 0f Residence 0f First Listed Plaintiff (EXCEPTIN US. PLAINTIFF CASES) DEFENDANTS PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC.; PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC 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. (C) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) AttomCyS {IfKVIDWVU ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP, W. Zev Abramson (SBN 289387), Nissim Levin (SBN 306376), Christina Begakis (SBN 316779), 3580 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1260, Los Angeles, California 90010, Tel: 213‘493‘6300 MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Matthew C. Kane (SBN 171829), Remy Kessler (SBN 123 165), Amy E. Beverlin (SBN 284745) Kerri H. Sakaue (SBN 301043), l800 Century Park East, 7th Flour, Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501, Tel: 310.315.8200 II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an ‘X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an ‘X” in One Baxfor Plaintzfl (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Boxfor Defendant) 1 U s G Pl I .ff 3 F d 1 Q I PTF DEF PTF DEF . . overnment alntl e era uestlon - - - - r (US Government Not a Party) C1t1zen of Thls State x 1 1 Incorpgrated or P1“1nc1pal 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 x 2 Incotporated and Principal Place 5 5 . . overnmen e en an 1vers1 . ‘ ‘ , ‘ . ‘ f Busmess In Another State 1 P I III °("diam Clnzemhlp 0f “mes m tam ) Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 Foreign Country IV. NATURE 0F SUIT (Place an "X’ in One Box Only) CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES 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 , Product Propefiy 21 USC § 381 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 130 Miller Am 315 Airplane Product Liability Liability 690 Other § 157 § 3729(a» 14o Negotiable Instrument 320 Assault, Libel & slander 367 Health Care/ LABOR PROPERTY RIGHTS 400 State Reappommmem 150 Recovery 0f 33o Federal Employers‘ Phame‘cem‘cal 36‘s.?“ 7 10 Fair Labor Standaxds Act 820 Copyrights 410 Am‘m‘“ _ Overpayment Of Liabili Inlury PmduCt Llablhty ' 430 Banks and Bankmg , f ty b l . 720 Labor/Management 830 Patent Veteran s Bene 1ts 340 Marine 368 As estos P_ersppa Injury Relations I _ 450 Commerce 1 51 Medicare Act product Llablhty 835 Patent-Abbrewated New . 345 Marine Product Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 740 Railway Labor Act Drug Application 460 Depoflatlon 152 EggzlfKELDsifEazglzies 350 Motor Vehicle h 751 Family and Medical 840 Trademark 470 RaCketeer Inflgen‘fed & Veterans) 355 Motor Vehicle product 370 0t er Fraud r Leave Act 880 Defend Trade Secrets corrupt orgamzauons 1 53 R f Liability 371 Truth m Lendmg 79o Other Labor Litigation Act of 2016 430 Consumer Credit ecovery o Overpayment 360 Other Personal Injury 380 Other Personal ProPerty 791 Employee Retirement SOCIAL SECURITY 485 T616911?“ consumer fV t ’ B ft 362 Personal Injury -Medica1 Damage Income security ACt f Promcuon ACt o e eran s else 1‘s Malpractice 385 Prop?” Damage Product I IGRATION 861 HIA (1395 f) 490 Cable/Sat TV 160 Stockholders Sults Llablllty I H I . . 862 BlaCk Lung (923) 850 Securities/commodifies/ 13(5) Ether Coguajt L. bT CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 462 iitglriilaltziitlljon 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange tr t t ‘ '0n a? m “c 1a 1 “y 440 Other Civil Rights HABEAs CORPUS 465 0 h I ~ ~ ' 864 SSID me XVI 890 Other Stam‘my Acm‘“ 196 Franchlse . t er mmlg‘am 865 RSI (405(g» 891 A cultural Acts 441 Votmg 463 Alien Detainee Actions g“ 1REAL PROPERTY x 442 Employment 510 Motions t0 Vacate FEDERAL TAX SUITS 893 Envlronmenta Mattefs 210 Land Condemnation 443 Housing Sentence 870 Taxes (us. Plaintiff 0r 895 Freedom of Informanon 220 Foreclosuxe Accommodations 530 Genem I Defendant) Act. h 23o Rent Lease & Ejectmem 445 Amer. w/Disabiuuw 535 Death penalty 871 IRsiThird Pany 26 USC 896 Arblf'étlofl 24o Tons to Land Emphymem OTHER § 7609 899filggmmFwd“ - ‘ r 446 Amer. w/Disabihu'wher ° “16W 0r Appeal 0f245 T011 PTOduCl Llablllty t 540 Mandamus & Other Agency Decision 29o A11 Other Real Property 448 Educa‘m 550 Civn Rights 950 Constitutionauty of State 555 Prison Condition Statutes 560 Civil Detaineei 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 Conn Appellate Conn Reopened Another District (specifil) Litigation-Transfer Litigation-Direct File VI_ CAUSE 0F Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under Which V0u are filing (Do not cite iurisdictional statutes unless diversity): 28 U.S.C. 1332ACTION . §. . Bnef descrmtlon 0f cause: Claims for discrimination, retaliation, failure t0 accommodate, and wrongful termination VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK 1F THIS Is A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: CONIPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. more than $75,000 JURY DEMAND: X Yes No VIII. RELATED CASE(S), IUDGE DOCKET NUMBER IF ANY (See instructions): IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2) (Place an “X” in One Box Only) SAN FRANCISCO/OAHAND X SAN JOSE EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE DATE 01/04/2021 SIGNATURE 0F ATTORNEY 0F RECORD /S/ Remy Kessler JSCANDMWJO/zozo) Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document1-7 Filed 01/04/21 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 of 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 or 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 of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.) Residence (citizenship) 0f Principal Parties. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party. Nature of Suit. Place an “X” in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient t0 enable the deputy clerk 0r the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the most definitive. Origin. Place an “X” in one 0f the six boxes. (1) Original Proceedings. Cases originating in the United States district courts. (2) Removed from State Court. Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed t0 the district courts under Title 28 USC § 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. (3) Remanded from Appellate Court. Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date. (4) Reinstated or Reopened. Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. (5) Transferred from Another District. For cases transferred under Title 28 USC § 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers 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 t0 changes in statute. Cause 0f Action. Report the civil statute directly related t0 the cause 0f action and give a brief description ofthe cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC § 553. Brief Description: Unauthorized reception 0f cable service. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an “X” in this box ifyou are filing a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction. Jug Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded. Related Cases. This section 0f the JS-CAND 44 is used to 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 to 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. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-00021 Document 1-7 Filed 01/04/21 Page 3 of 3 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County 0f Los Angeles, State 0f California. I am over the age 0f eighteen years and not a party t0 the within action; my business address is 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501. On January 4, 2021, I served the following document(s) described as CIVIL COVER SHEET on the interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: W. ZeV Abramson, Esq. Attorneysfor Plaintifi’ Nissim Levin, Esq. Jorge Madrigal Christina Begakis, Esq. ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 3580 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1260 Los Angeles, California 90010 BY MAIL: I am “readily familiar” With the firm’s practice 0f collection and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. Such envelope(s) were placed for collection and mailing With postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, CA, on that same day following ordinary business practices. (C.C.P. § 1013 (a) and 1013a(3)) D BY ELECTRONIC DELIVERY: I caused said document(s) to be transmitted electronically t0 the above addressees D BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I deposited such document(s) in a box 0r other facility regularly maintained by the overnight service carrier, or delivered such document(s) to a courier 01‘ driver authorized by the overnight service carrier to receive documents, in an envelope 0r package designated by the overnight service carrier with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed t0 the person(s) served hereunder. (C.C.P. § 1013(d)(e)) D BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered the addressee(s). (C.C.P. § 1011) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws 0f the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 4, 2021, at Los Angeles, CA. Matthew Whitney 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County 0f Los Angeles, State 0f California. I am over the age 0f eighteen years and not a party t0 the within action; my business address is 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501. On January 4, 2021, I served the following document(s) described as NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTIES OF DEFENDANTS PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC. AND PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC’S REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT on the interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: W. ZeV Abramson, Esq. Attorneysfor Plaintiff Nissim Levin, Esq. Jorge Madrigal Christina Begakis, Esq. ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 3580 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1260 Los Angeles, California 90010 BY MAIL: I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing With the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. Such envelope(s) were placed for collection and mailing with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, CA, on that same day following ordinary business practices. (C.C.P. § 1013 (a) and 1013a(3)) D BY ELECTRONIC DELIVERY: I caused said document(s) to be transmitted electronically to the above addressees D BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I deposited such document(s) in a box 0r other facility regularly maintained by the overnight service carrier, 0r delivered such document(s) t0 a courier or driver authorized by the overnight service carrier t0 receive documents, in an envelope or package designated by the overnight service carrier With delivery fees paid 0r provided for, addressed t0 the person(s) served hereunder. (C.C.P. § 1013(d)(e)) D BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such envelope(s) t0 be delivered the addressee(s). (C.C.P. § 1011) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 4, 2021, at Los Angeles, CA. Matthew Whitney 1391966121 3 NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTIES OF DEFENDANTS’ REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT
