Removal to Federal Court

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.December 18, 2020

\OOOQQUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHn-tr-y-awm OOQONUIAUJNr-‘OKOOOQONLIIbUJNF-‘O 200V374981 Santa Clara - Civil PAUL M. GLEASON (SBN: 155569) JING TONG (SBN: 285061) GLEASON & FAVAROTE, LLP 4014 Long Beach B1Vd., Suite 300 Long Beach, California 90807 Telephone: (21 3) 452-05 10 Facsimile: (21 3) 452-05 14 pgleason@gleasonfavarote.com jtong@gleasonfavarote.com Attorneys for Defendant TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC. Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 5/6/2021 3:05 PM Reviewed By: L. Quach-Marcella Case #20CV374981 Envelope: 6393829 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA JOGINDER SINGH, and JASVIR KAUR, 3 Plaintiffs, g ) V. ) ) TRANSDEV SERVICES INC. (AKA ) TRANSDEV NORTH AMERICA, INC); and ) DOES 1-50, Inclusive, g Defendants. g ) ) ) ) ) ) /// /// /// /// /// /// /// Case No. 20CV374981 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL OF THIS ACTION FROM STATE COURT T0 DISTRICT COURT Hon. Socrates P. Manoukian 20 Judge: Dept: Action Filed: Trial Date: December 18, 2020 None DEFENDANT’S NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL OF THIS ACTION FROM STATE COURT TO DISTRICT COURT Ina \DOOQONUIAUJNo-s NNNNNNNNNHHHMHMHHHH OONQM-PUJNHOKOWNQMAUJNr-‘O PLAINTIFFS JOGINDER SINGH AND JASVIR KAUR AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT a Notice ofRemoval 0f this action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California 0n May 6, 2021, Federal Case No. 5:21-cv-03363-VKD. A copy of said Notice of Removal is attached hereto as Exhibit A to this Notice and is served and filed herewith. Dated: May 6, 2021 GLEASON & FAVAROTE, LLP PAUL M. GLEASON JING TONG By:flMQZ/ Attorneys for Defendant TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC. 1 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL OF THIS ACTION FROM STATE COURT TO DISTRICT COURT EXHIBIT A HI I \OOOQQUIAUJNu-a NNNNNNNNNr-ar-dp-sr-Au-ar-tr-ar-IHH WQGM$WNHO®WQQM&WNHO Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1 Fifed 05/05/21 Page 1 0f 17 PAUL M. GLEASON SBN: 155569) JING TONG (SBN: 28 061) GLEASON & FAVAROTEQ LLP 4014 Long Beach Blvd, Sulte 300 Long Beach, Callforma 90807 Telephqne: E2 l 33 452-05 10 FaCSImlle: 213 452-0514 pgleason@gleasonfavarote.com Jtong@gleasonfavar0te.com Attorne s for Defendant TRAN DEV SERVICES, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOGINDER SINGH, and JASVIR KAUR, Plaintiffs, V. TRANSDEV SERVICES INC. (AKA TRANSDEV NORTH AMERICA, INC); and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Defendants. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// Case N0. 5 :2 1-CV-03363-VKD DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT £28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1367, 1441, and 446] State Action Filed: December 18, 2020 Trial Date: None DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT A \OOOQONU‘I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-O3363 Document l Filed 05/05/21 Page 2 of 17 TABLE OF CONTENTS JURISDICTION ........................................................................................................ 1 INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT .......................................................................... 2 BASIS FOR REMOVAL .......................................................................................... 2 FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION ...................................................... 2 SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION .............................................................. 3 DIVERSITY JURISDICTION ........................................................................ 4 AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY .............................................................................. 6 THE REMOVAL IS TIMELY ................................................................................ 11 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS ................................................................................ 12 i TABLE OF CONTENTS KOOOQONUI-hUJNr-a NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘v-lo-tv-dwwv-ah-ar-d WQONM-PWNHowmQQMaupWNHO Case 5:21-0v-«03363 Document 1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 3 of 17 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Federal Cases Anthony v. Security Pac. Fin’l Services, Inc., 75 F.3d 311 (7th Cir. 1996) ..................................................................................... 10 Aucino v. Amoco Oil C0.. 871 F.Supp. 332 (SD. Iowa 1994) ......................................................................... 10 Bovle V. Lorimar Productions, Inc., 13 F.3d 1357 (9th Cir. 1994) .................................................................................... 9 Cucci V. Edwards, 510 F.Supp.2d 479 (CD. Cal. 2007) ........................................................................ 6 Davenport V. Mutual Ben. Health & Acc. Ass’n, 325 F.2d 785 (9th Cir. 1963) .................................................................................... 9 Galt G/S V. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 8, 10 Hertz Corp. V. Friend, 559 U.S. (2010) ........................................................................................................ 5 Hunt V. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (1997) ................................................................................................ 10 Kantor V. Welleslev Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1983) .................................................................................. 4 Luckctt V. Delta Airlines, Inc., 171 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 1999) .................................................................................. 10 Richmond V. Allstate Ins. C0., 897 F.Supp. 447 (SD. Cal. 2003) ............................................................................. 9 Sanchez V. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F3d 398 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................................................ 6, 10 Sea-Land Service, Inc. V. Lozen Int’l. LLC, (9th Cir. 2002) 285 F.3d 808 .................................................................................... 3 Simmons V. PCR Technology, 209 F.Supp.2d 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2002) ............................................................ 8, 9, 10 St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 US 283 (1938) .................................................................................................... 6 State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. C0. v. Dyer, 19 F.3d 514 (10th Cir. 1994) .................................................................................... 4 United Mine Workers 0fAmerica V. Gibbs. (1966) 383 U.S. 715 .................................................................................................. 3 White v. FCI USA, Inc., 319 F.3d 672 (5th. Cir. 2003) .................................................................................. 10 i TABLE 0F AUTHORITIES \DOOflQM-bUJNr-d NNNNNNNNNMHHHHr-Ir-tr-It-ar-I OOflom-PWNHOCWQQM-PWNHO Case 5:21-cv-O3363 Document 1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 4 of 17 Federal Statutes 28 U.S.C. §1332(a) ....................................................................................................... 6 28 U.S.C. §1332(c) ....................................................................................................... 5 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1367, 1441, and 1446 ............................................................. 1, 2, 3 28 U.S.C. §§1332, 1441, and 1446 ........................................................................... 1, 4 28 U.S.C. §§1367, 1441 and 1446 ................................................................................ 1 28 U.S.C. §1367(a) ....................................................................................................... 3 28 U.S.C. §§1441 and 1446 ...................................................................................... 1, 4 28 U.S.C. §1441(a) ................................................................................................... 1, 6 28 U.S.C. §1441(b)(2) .................................................................................................. 6 28 U.S.C. §1441(c) ....................................................................................................... 4 28 U.S.C. §1446(d) ..................................................................................................... 11 Article III of the United States Constitution ................................................................. 3 State Statutes California Civil Code §3294 ......................................................................................... 9 California Government Code §12940(a), (m), (n), (k) ................................................. 4 California Government Code §12965 ........................................................................... 7 ii. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES QONUIADON 00 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document l Filed 05/05/21 Page 5 0f l7 TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, PLAINTIFFS JODINGER SINGH AND JASVIR KAUR, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendant TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC. (“Defendant”) hereby removes the above-referenced action from the Superior Court 0f the State of California for the County of Santa Clara to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1332, 1367, 1441, and 1446. This Notice is based upon the original jurisdiction of the federal. district court over the parties based upon the existence 0f a federal question herein, under 28 U.S.C §1331 and the existence of diversity under 28 U.S.C. §§1332, 1441, and 1446. Defendant makes the following allegations in support of its Notice 0f Removal: JURISDICTION 1. This action is one over which this court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331 and is one which may be removed by Defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1367, 1.441 and 1446. This action is also one over Which this Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332 and is one which may be removed by Defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1441 and 1446. This is a civil action where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive 0f interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states. 2. Venue is proper in this Court because this is the district court 0f the United States and division embracing the place where the state action is pending. 28 U.S.C. §1441 (a). 3. On or about December 18, 2020, plaintiffs Joginder Singh (“Singh”) and. Jasvir Kaur (“Kaur”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed an original complaint in the Superior Court of the State 0f California in the County of Santa Clara, entitled JOGINDER SINGH. and JASVIR KAUR. V. TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC. (AKA. TRANSDEV NORTH AMERICA, INC); and DOES 1-50, as case number 1 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT \OOOQONUIAUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 6 0f l7 20CV374981 (the “C0mp1aint”), wherein they allege causes of action for: (1) Age Discrimination - Violation of Title IV and FEHA; (2) Disability Discrimination -- Violation of Title IV and FEHA; (3) Failure to Provide Accommodation - Violation of Title IV and FEHA; (4) Failure to Engage in an Interactive Process -- Violation of Title IV and FEHA; (5) Failure t0 Prevent Discrimination - Violation of Title IV and FEHA; (6) Retaliation - Violation of Title IV and FEHA; (7) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (8) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (9) Loss of Consortium; (10) Retaliation and Violation of Public Policy/Tameny. True copies 0f the Summons, Complaint, and Civil Case Cover Sheet are attached to the Declaration of Jing Tong (“Tong Decl.”) as Exhibit A. 4. On April 5, 2021, Defendant was served with the Complaint. A true and correct copy 0f the Service 0f Process Transmittal is attached as Exhibit B t0 the Tong Declaration. 5. On May 4, 2021, Defendant filed an Answer t0 Plaintiffs’ Complaint in Superior Court, County of Santa Clara. A true and correct copy of the Answer is attached to Tong Decl. as Exhibit C. 6. T0 Defendant’s knowledge, n0 other papers or processes have been filed 0r received in this matter by Defendant. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 7. Northern District 0f California Civil Local Rule 3-2 provides that all civil actions which arise in the counties 0f Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito or Monterey shall be assigned t0 the Sail Jose Division. See Northern District Local Rules 3-2(c) and (e), and 3-5(b). Plaintiffs filed this action in Santa Clara County. BASIS FOR REMOVAL FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION 8. The 28 U.S.C. §1331 provides that “the district courts shall have original jurisdiction 0f all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties 0f the United States.” 2 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 7 of l7 9. This Court has original jurisdiction over the instant action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 based 0n federal question jurisdiction. Singh’s complaint asserts claims under the Title IV of the Civil Rights Act, a federal statute. 10. In the complaint, Singh asserts claims under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act for Age Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, Failure t0 Provide Accommodation, Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process, Failure to Prevent Discrimination, and Retaliation as identified in the caption page, Singh further stated that he has “exhausted administrative remedies by filing charges of discrimination With appropriate federal and state agencies and received his Right to Sue Letter from the EEOC 556-2020-00357 on October 5, 2020” and asserts a claim for retaliation under Title VII. (Exhibit A, Complaint paras. 5, 65, and 66.) As such, this action presents a federal question over Which this Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331 and removal of Singh’s complaint is proper. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION 11. Under 28 U.S.C §1367(a), “except as provided in subsection (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by federal statute, in any civil action 0f which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part 0f the same case 0r controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention 0f additional parties.” The complaint includes state law claims that “form part 0f the same case or controversy” as the federal law claims. United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, (1966) 383 U.S. 715, 725-726; Sea-Land Service, Inc. V. Lozen Int’l, LLC, (9th Cir. 2002) 285 F.3d 808, 814). 12. In the complaint, Singh asserts claims for Age Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, Failure t0 Provide Accommodation, Failure t0 Engage in the Interactive Process, Failure t0 Prevent Discrimination, and Retaliation all under 3 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE 0F REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT AWN \DOONQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-O3363 Document 1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 8 of 17 Title IV of the Civil Rights Act as identified in Singh’s caption page, and under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for retaliation (Complaint, paras. 65-66). The complaint also contains Singh’s state law claims under California Government Code §12940(a), (m), (n), (k) for Age Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, Failure to Provide Accommodation, Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process, Failure to Prevent Discrimination, and Retaliation. The complaint also contains a single claim by Kaur for loss 0f consortium resulting from Singh’s termination. All 0f the federal and state law claims arise from the same transaction 0r occurrence and form the same case 0r controversy, i.e., they arise out of the Singh’s allegations that he was wrongfully .terminated from his employment with Defendant. 13. Since the Court has jurisdiction over both the federal law and state law claims in Plaintiffs” Complaint, the case may be properly removed to federal court. 28 U.S.C. §1441(c). DIVERSITY JURISDICTION 14. This action is one over which this court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1332 and is one Which may be removed by Defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1441. This is a civil action where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum 0r value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states. 15. Plaintiffs’ Citizenship: As alleged in the complaint, “Mr. Joginder Singh (“ML Singh”) is a resident of Santa Clara County” and. “Mr. Singh’s wife, Jasvir Kaur (“Ms. Kaur”) is a resident 0f Santa Clara County.” (Tong Decl., Exhibit A, Complaint, pg. 2, para. 5) For diversity purposes, a person is a “citizen” of the state in which he or she is domiciled. Kantor V. Welleslev Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983). Residence is prima facie evidence 0f domicile. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. V. Dver, 19 F.3d 514, 520 (10th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, Plaintiffs are citizens of the State of California. /// 4 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 0F CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT \DOOQONUI-k 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 9 of 17 16. Defendant’s Citizenship: Transdev Services, Inc. was, at the time of the filing 0f the state court action, and remains a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Maryland, with its principal place of business in the State of Illinois. (Declaration 0f Marrett McLeod (“McLeod Decl.”), 11113-4; a true and correct copy 0f which is attached to the Tong Decl. as Exhibit D.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332(0), “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.” The Supreme Court has established the proper test for determining the principal place 0f business of a corporation for purposes 0f diversity jurisdiction. Hertz Com. v. E;ie_nd_, 559 U.S. 777 (2010). Inm the Court held that “'principal place 0f business’ [as contained in section 1332(0)] is best read as referring to the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities.” lg; The Court further clarified that the principal place of business is the place where the corporation “maintains its headquarters-pr0vided that the headquarters is the actual center of direction, control and coordination...” 1g; Defendant’s headquarters, and their executive and senior management personnel as well as their primary management operations are both located in Illinois. (McLeod Decl., 114.) Moreover, the corporate officers 0f Transdev Services, Inc. actually direct, control and coordinate the corporation’s activities from Transdev Services, Inc.’s offices in Illinois. _I__c_l_; The corporate human resources department, employee benefits department, legal department, procurement department, accounting department, and IT department utilized by Transdev Services, Inc. are located in Lombard, Illinois. I_d. Simply put, Defendant’s center of “direction, control and coordination” is located in the State 0f Illinois; thus, for diversity purposes, Defendant must be considered citizens 0f Illinois and Maryland (its state 0f incorporation). Accordingly, the Defendant is not a citizen 0f the State of California. 17. As 0f the date 0f this Notice of Removal, defendant Transdev North America, Inc., has not been served with the Complaint. (Tong Decl. 113.) An 5 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT .pUJN QONUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1 Fiied 05/05/21 Page 10 of 17 unserved defendant is ignored when determining whether an action is removable 0n the basis of diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. section 1441(b)(2) (“A civil action otherwise removeable solely on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) of this title may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought”) (Emphasis added); Cucci v. Edwards, 510 F.Supp.2d 479, 482 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (“a resident defendant who has not been served may be ignored in determining removability.”); quoting 14A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller and Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, section 3723 (2d ed. 1985)]. 18. The citizenship of fictitiously named “Doe” defendants is to be disregarded for the purposes of removal. 28 U.S.C. section 1441(a). AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY 19. If the state court complaint expressly seeks more than $75,000.00, removal on the basis 0f diversity will be allowed unless the amount set forth in the initial complaint was stated in bad faith. Because plaintiff instituted the case in state court, there is a strong presumption plaintiff did not inflate the claim to support removal. See St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. V. Red Cab C0., 303 US 283, 290 (1938); Sanchez V. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F3d 398, 402 (9th Cir. 1996). 20. Singh was terminated from his employment with Transdev 0n September 13, 2019. (McLeod Decl., 115). Singh alleges that he was terminated “on the basis of age,” “disability 0r medical condition” (Tong Decl., 112 Exhibit A; Complaint, pg. 9, para. 30, pg. 10, para. 40.) Singh alleges as damages, “past, present and future earnings, career opportunities, bonuses and other employment benefits in amounts to be proven at trial,” “consequential, general and special 1 Although not relevant to this removal because Transdev North America, Inc., has not been served, Transdev North America, Inc., was incorporated in Maryland and its principal place 0f business is in Illinois. 6 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT \DOOQQUIAWNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHt-tr-Au-ip-AMH OOQONM-hWNHOKOOONQUI-bWNHO Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 11 0f 17 economic damages,” and “humiliation, severe emotional distress and mental and physical. pain and anguish, all to his damage.” (Tong Decl., 112 Exhibit A; Complaint, pg. 9, paras. 31-33, pg. 10, paras. 41-42, pgs. 11-12, paras. 48-49, pg. 13, paras. 55-56, pg. 14, paras. 61-62, pg. 15, paras. 66-67, pg. 16, paras. 75-76, pg. 17, paras. 80-81, pg. 18, paras. 85-86, and pg. 19, paras. 91-92.) Singh also alleges punitive damages as a result 0f Defendant’s conduct. (Tong Decl., {[2 Exhibit A; Complaint, pg. 9, para. 34, pg. 11, para. 43, pg. 12, para. 50, pg. 13, para. 57, pg. 14, para. 63, pg. 15, para. 68, pgs. 16-17, para. 77, pg. 17, para. 82, pg. 18, para. 87, pg. 19, para. 93.) Further, according to the “Prayer” in his Complaint, Singh seeks the following damages from Defendant: 1. Compensatory damages, including loss of wages (front and back pay), career opportunities, benefits and other opportunities 0f employment; 2. Special damages in a sum t0 be proven at trial; Punitive damages in a sum to be proven at trial; 4. Interest, including pre-judgment interest, thereon at the legal rate, including but not limited to Civil Code §3291; 5. Attorney’s fees according to proof, pursuant to California Government Code §12965, or other applicable statutes or contracts; 6. Costs of suit incurred herein; and such other and further relief as the Court may seem just and proper. (Tong Decl. 112 Exhibit A; Complaint, pg. 20, paras. 1-6.) 21. Defendant will be able t0 establish the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limit. 22. Here, Singh was paid hourly at $30.27 at the time of termination for full-time work. (McLeod, 115.) Singh alleges in his complaint a “loss in past, present, and future earnings” and, “special economic damages.” (Tong Decl. 112 Exhibit A; 7 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT .n \OOOQGUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-Cv-03363 Document 1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 12 of 17 Complaint, pg. 9, para. 31-32, pg. 10, para. 41, pgs. 11 and 12, para. 48, pg. 13, para. 55, pg. 14, para. 61, pg. 15, para. 66, pg. 16, para. 75, pg. 17, para. 80, pg. 18, para. > 85, pg. 19, para. 91.) Considering the “loss in past, present, and future earnings,” Singh’s economic damages from September 13, 2019 (the date of his termination) until trial, assuming a trial date of April 5, 2022 (which is one year from the date that Defendant was served with the Complaint) will exceed $162,974.66 ($62,962.00 x 2 years + $5,246.83 x 6 months + $242.16 x 23 days.) (McLeod Decl. 115.) Kaur asserts in her loss of consortium claim that she “suffer[ed] the loss of [the] healthy experience of marital life, including 0f the duties encompassing marriage as well as financial support.” (Tong Decl. 112 Exhibit A; Complaint, pg. 18, para. 84.) 23. Singh seeks damages associated with his alleged “humiliation, fear, anxiety, severe emotional distress and mental and physical pain and anguish.” (Tong Decl., {[2 Exhibit A; Complaint, pg. 9, para. 33, pg. 10, para. 42, pg. 12, para. 49, pg. 13, para. 56, pg. 14, para. 62, pg. 15, para. 67, pg. 16, para. 76, pg. 17, para. 81, pg. 18, para. 86, pg. 19, para. 92.) Damages for emotional distress “may be considered when calculating the amount in controversy even where not clearly pled in the complaint.” Simmons V. PCR Technology, 209 F.Supp.2d 1029, 1034 (ND. Cal. 2002). It is recognized that “emotional distress damages in a successful employment discrimination case may be substantial.” 1g; at 1034. Kaur asserts as part of her loss 0f consortium claim that she “suffer[ed] the loss of companionship, solace, comfort, and joy.” (Tong Decl., 112 Exhibit A; Complaint, pg. 18, para. 84.) 24. Singh also seeks reasonable attorney’s fees. (Tong Decl., 1B Exhibit A; pg. 20, para. 5.) The Ninth Circuit has held that attorney’s fees may be included in the amount in controversy if recoverable by statute or contract. Galt G/S V. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 1998). The court in the case of Simmons 209 F.Supp.2d at 1034-35 stated that “[attorneys’ fees] necessarily accrue until the action is resolved,” and thus, the Ninth Circuit [in Galt] must have anticipated that district courts would project fees beyond removal.” As such, the Simmons court 8 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT UI-kUJN \OOOQQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21~cv-03363 Document 1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 13 of l7 held that the “measure of [attorneys’] fees should be the amount that can reasonably be anticipated at the time 0f removal, not merely those already incurred.” In fact, the court in Simmons noted that in its experience, “attorneys’ fees for individual discrimination cases often exceed the damages.” 25. Even a conservative estimation of attorneys’ fees in an employment case claiming statutory fees would support an amount in controversy that exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. See e.g., Lefldr v. Rancho Los Amigos/Countv of Los flggjgg, BC 412351 (2010) (court awards plaintiff’s attorney’s fees in the amount 0f $171,918.) Thus, Singh’s attorneys” fees (a figure which will necessarily accrue until the action is resolved), also establishes that the instant action presents an amount in controversy in excess 0f $75,000.00. 26. Punitive damages are also included in calculating the amount in controversy if they are recoverable under state law. Davenport V. Mutual Ben. Health & Acc. Ass’n, 325 F.2d 785, 787 (9th Cir. 1963); see also Richmond v. Allstate Ins. Co., 897 F.Supp. 447, 450 (S.D. Cal. 2003). Singh seeks punitive damages alleging that “the foregoing acts of TRANSDEV were oppressive, malicious, and despicable, and Mr. Singh is therefore, entitled to an aware 0f punitive damages against TRANSDEV in an amount to be proven at trial.” (Tong Dec1., ‘fl 2 Exhibit A; Complaint, pg. 9, para. 34, pg. 11, para. 43, pg. 12, para. 50, pg. 13, para. 57, pg. 14, para. 63, pg. 15, para. 68, pgs. 16-17, para. 77, pg. 17, para. 82, pg. 18, para. 87, pg. 19, para. 93.) If Singh succeeds in establishing these allegations, he would be entitled to punitive damages under California Civil Code section 3294. California law does not provide specific monetary limitations 0n the amount of punitive damages that may be awarded under statute. Rather the proper amount 0f punitive damages is determined based on the reprehensibility 0f the defendant’s misdeeds - the ratio between compensatory and punitive damages, and the ratio between damages and defendant’s net worth. Boyle V. Lorimar Productions, 1115;; 13 F.3d. 1357, 1359-60 (9th Cir. 1994). Indeed, some courts have recognized 9 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT \OOOQOU‘I-P-UJNr-A N N-- r-t b-I b-I H r-a h-A b-l r-l OOQQUIAUJNHCOOONQM-PWNHC Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document l Filed 05/05/21 Page 14 of 17 that an award for punitive damages can be significant, and that in some cases, a punitive award itself could establish the amount in controversy. See e.2., Aucino V. Amoco Oil C0.. 871 F.Supp. 332, 334 (S.D. Iowa 1994) (concluding in a discrimination and wrongful termination case that the purpose of punitive damages is t0 capture a defendant’s attention and deter others from similar conduct, and thus, the plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages could alone exceed the jurisdictional minimum). 27. Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in controversy, the removing party need only show that it is more likely than not that the plaintiff’s claim exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. Sanchez V. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th. Cir.1996). §§§ Simmons 209 F.Supp.2d at 1031-35 (finding that the plaintiffs alleged lost income of $25,600 at the time 0f removal included with unspecified amounts for medical expense damages, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees anticipated to incur through trial, satisfy the amount in controversy required to establish diversity jurisdiction); White v. FCI USA, Inc. 319 F.3d 672, 674 (5th Cir. 2003) (a wrongful termination claim including a “lengthy list 0f compensatory and punitive damages” including loss of pay, impaired earning capacity, emotional distress, etc. Combined With a claim for attorney fees and punitive damages, was sufficient t0 exceed the $75,000 minimum amount 'in controversy required to establish diversity jurisdiction.) Removal is therefore proper if, from the allegations of the Complaint and the Notice 0f Removal, it is more likely than not that the claims exceed $75,000.00. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996); Luckett V. Delta Airlines. Inc., 171 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 1999). In determining whether the jurisdictional minimum is met, the Court considers all recoverable damages, including emotional distress damages, punitive damages, statutory penalties, and attorneys’ fees. Hunt V. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 347-48 (1997); Galt G/S, 142 F.3d at 1155-56; Anthony V. 10. DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT MAUJN \OOOQQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-O3363 Document 1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 15 of 17 Security Pac. Fin’l Services, Inc., 75 F.3d 31 1, 315 (7th Cir. 1996). 28. Here, the combination 0f Singh’s claims for general damages, emotional distress, special damages, “loss earnings, deferred compensation, and other 59 C6employment benefits, medical expenses, and future medical expenses,” costs incurred including reasonable attorney’s fees, make it clear that the instant action presents an amount in controversy in excess 0f $75,000. Singh’s claim for special damages, alone ($162,974.66) exceed the $75,000 jurisdictional limit. Kaur’s claim for “financial support” and “1083 0f companionship, solace, comfort and joy” also presents an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000, as Singh’s claim for special damages or loss of income exceeds $75,000. Although Defendant vigorously denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover any damages 0r other amounts in this matter, based on a conservative good faith estimate of the value of the claims of this action, if Plaintiffs prevail 0n each 0f their causes of action the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied as to each plaintiff. THE REMOVAL IS TIMELY 20. As required by 28 U.S.C. section 1446 (d), this Notice of Removal is timely in that it has been filed within thirty (30) days of service 0f the Complaint. 21. As required by 28 U.S.C. section 1446(d), Defendant will give notice 0f this removal t0 Plaintiffs through their attorneys 0f record. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 11. DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 0F CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT \DOOQO\M#UJNH NNNNNNNNNr-iwr-av-ar-lr-AHHHH WQQM$WNHO©OONQQJI$UJNHO Case 5:21-cv~03363 Document 1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 16 of l7 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS 22. By filing this Notice of Removal, Defendant does not concede nor waive any defense or motion relating t0 this action. Defendant reserves all. defenses. WHEREFORE, having provided notice as required by law, the above-titled action should be removed from the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara t0 this Court. Dated: May 5, 2021 GLEASON & FAVAROTE, LLP PAUL M. GLEASON JING TONG By3/s/ Jing Tong Jlng Tong Attorneys for Defendant TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC. 12. DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT \DOONQMAUJNH NNNNNNu-at-In-AI-In-ou-uu-I-a-dw Case 5:21-cv-03363 DoCument 1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 17 0f 17 PROOF 0F SERVICE I, Thomas Steinhart, .declare: . O , ’ . I am and was at the tlme of the servmqmenfiloned m thls declaratlon, em loyed 1n the County of Los Angeles, Cal‘lforma. I am pver the age of 18 years an not afatty to the Wlthm act1qn. M busmess address ls Gleason & Favarote, LLP, 401 Lon Beach Blvd., Sulte 30 , Lon Beach CA 90807. On Ma 2021 I served a co%levs[) o the folfowm document s :DEFEN ANT’S NOTICE 0F OVAL OF CI L ACTIO FROM _ o . STATE COURT ?nllthe partles to thls actlon by placmg them 1n a sealed envelope(s) addressed as .o ows: Attorney Party(ies) Served Method of Service KARAN K. GILL, ES . Attorne s for Plaintiffs, First Class Mail LAW OFFICES OF ' RANK. JOGIN ER SINGH GILL . . and JASVIR KAUR 1990 North Cahforma Blvd., 8th Floor ' Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Tel: (51%) 629-0533 Fax: (51 ) 281-0640 karan@kk21awoffices.com ¥BY MAIL I placed the sealed envelope(s) for collection and mailing by ollowucl’g t. e opdlnary busmpssfpraptgce of Gleason & Favarote, LLP, Long Beach, ahfomla. _I am readlly anfuhar w1th Gleason & Favarote, LLPfs practlcp for collecting and prpcessm of coyrequndence for maxlmg With the Unlted States Postal Serv1ce, sa1 practlce beln that, 1n ghq ordmary cqurse of bqsmess, correspondenqe Wlth postage fu ly.p1jepa1d is deposfied Wlltlh the Umted States Postal Servme the same day as 1t ls placed for co ectlon. D EBY OVERNIGHT COURIER]. I causgd the sealed_enve10pe(s) to be ?fhveredfbgr a commerc1al couner serv1ce for overmght dehvery to the o Ices 0 t D EBY HAND] I directed thg sealed envelopc(s) to the arty(ies) so . eSI nated on the servwe 11st to be dehvered by Ace ttorney Servme, Inc. e addressee(s). this ate. D [BY CM/ECF S_YSTEM1 [paused the above-referench document s t0 be sent by electromc transmlssmn to the Clerk’s Office usm the C F S stem for filing which pnerated a Notice of Electronic iling to the /_ECF reglstrants Int ls case. I deplare under penalty offetjulfipnder the laws of the State of Californ' hat the above ls true and correct, an thatt ls declaratlon was executed on M , 2021, at Long Beach, California. /7 ThW 1 “ PROOF 0F SERVICE \OOOQO’xUt-fiLAJNi-i NNNNNNNNNo-aHh-u-‘u-aI-‘Hr-Ir-ay-A OO‘QQMAMNHOKOOOQGMAWNHO Case 5:21»cv~03363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 1 0f49 ' PAUL M. GLEASON SBN: 155569) JING TONG (SBN: 28 061) GLEASON & FAVAROTE, LLP 4014 Long Beach Blv.d., Sulte 300 Long Beach, Callfomla 90807 Telephone: €213 452-0510 FaCSImlle: 213 452-05 14 pgleason@gleasonfavarote.com Jtong@gleasonfavarote.com Attorne s for Defendant TRAN DEV SERVICES, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOGINDER. SINGH, and JASVIR KAUR, Plaintiffs, V. TRANSDEV SERVICES INC. (AKA TRANSDEV NORTH AMERICA, INC.); and DOES l-SO, Inclusive, Defendants. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// Case N0. DECLARATION OF JING TONG IN SUPPORT OF REMOVAL State Action Filed: December 18, 2020 Trial Date: None DECLARATION 0F JING TONG IN SUPPORT OF REMOVAL KOOOQONM-kWNH NNNNNNNNNHHn-IHHHHHy-‘fl OOQONMAWNHOWOOQQM¥WNNO Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 2 of 49 DECLARATION OF JING TONG I, Jing Tong, hereby declare and state as follows: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the state of California and I am admitted to practice before this Court. Except as to those matters stated on information and belief, I have direct and personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and if called upon to do so, I could and would competently testify to the same. 2. I am informed and believe that plaintiffs Joginder Singh and Jasvir Kaur filed a Complaint against Transdev Services, Inc. (“Defendant” 01' “Transdev”) and. Transdev North America, Inc. on December 18, 2020. A true and correct copy of the Summons, Complaint, and Civil Case Cover Sheet, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. I am informed and believe that the Summons, Complaint, and Civil Case Cover Sheet attached as Exhibit A was personally served on defendant Transdev Services, Inc. on April 5, 2021 at 3:39 pm. Defendant Transdev North America, Inc., has not been served with the Complaint. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Service of Process Transmittal defendant Transdev Services, Inc. received. 4. On May 4, 2021, Defendant filed an Answer to Plaintiff‘s Complaint in the Superior Court, County of Santa Clara. A true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 5. N0 other pleadings, process and/or orders were served upon or by Defendant in the state court action. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 1 DECLARATION OF JING TONG IN SUPPORT 0F REMOVAL KO 00 q C\ UI #' U0 N H NNNNNNNNNHHHHHr-lww-A- OOQONMAWNHOKOOONQM-FWNHO Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 3 of 49 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is the declaration of Marrett McLeod, Director of Human Resources for Transdev, in support of Transdev’s Notice of Removal. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration is made and executed on May 5, 2021, at Long Beach, California. fl fl 2 DECLARATION OF JING TONG IN SUPPORT OF REMOVAL Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 4 of 49 EXHIBIT A 0 03 ent - i e f HI I Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1-1. Filed 05/05/21 Page 5 0f 4:0 . ' ‘ wow SUM-100 SUMMONS mwmuzsalm (CITACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE To DEFENDANT: EHLED (AwsoAL DEMANDADO): 1 2,18,2020 9.18 pMTRANSDEV SERVICES INC. (AKA TRANSDEV NORTH AMERICA, mc.); and Does ' 1-50, Indusive, Clerk Of CCU“ Superior Court of CA, You ARE BEING SUED BY PLMNTiFF: County of Santa Ctara {LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DWANDANTE): ZOCV374981 JOGINDER SINGH. and JAsvm KAUR. Reviewed By; R. Tie" Envelope: 5504695 NOTmE! You have been sued. The mun may decide against you m’l'hout your being beam unless you respond wimin 30 days. Read the information beiow. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS afier 01‘s summons and legal papersm sewed on you to file a mitten response at this court and have a copy served on the piaintifi. A letter or phone cal wilt not proied you Your written response mus: be m proper legal lozm if you wan! Ihe court to hear your case There may be a court brm that you Gan use for yout response. Youm I‘m these noun Iona: and more Infonnmim at the California Cams Onfine Sofi-fle‘p Center(mcom ca90mm»). your county iaw library, or me courthouse neares: you. If you cannot pay the {fling fee, ask the noun dark for a fee waiver tom. Ifyou do not file your response on time you may lose the case by defauit, and your wages. monay. and property may be taken without further waning from the court. Theta are Omar lega! requirements. You may wan! to ml! an anomey right away. if you do no! know an anomey. you may want Io call an attorney referral service. I! you came! afford an attorney. you may be digibIe for free lags! services from a nonpmm legal services program. You can locata mesa nonprofit groups at the Califomia Legal Sewices Web site (www.lawhalpcalibmla.om). the California Coufls Online Setf-Help Center (www.martwomgov/selmw), or by confining your lam! cam! or coutuy bar associauon. NOTE: The court has a mummy lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or atblttafion award o! $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's tier: mus: be paid before the mnwfldknflss the case. 1Awsor Lo ban demandado. Stnomm denim do 30 dies. la cone pucda docidlr en su contra sin ascuchar su vem‘dn. Lea Ia infomaa'on a confinuaddn. Time 30 DIASDE CALENDARIO dawués da qua la ammguen esta clam ypom: legal» para presenterum respuosre porascmo en esla aorta y bacerqua so enmgue una amia atdamandanfe. Una cans o um liamada telelbm'ca no lo pmtegan. Su mspuesta pa! escn‘to Ilene qua estar an {ammo bgalaormao sideseaquepmcosensu cam en Ia cane. Espos'ble qua haya un formular'n qua uaadpuada unrpala su mSpuesta. Puade encontrar ostas fannulan‘os do la aorta y mas Wmu‘dn an cl Centm doAyuda dc Ia: Com: da Camomla (www.sucodesagov], on ia biblloteca d9 leyes de sucondado a en lamo qua Ie Quads m5: coma. SI no pueda pagarla cunts do prasentacifin, pm a! semantic dc Ia carts qua le dé un lbrmulan‘c de exonclOn d3 page da wotas. Sim pressure su mspuasla a tiempo, puede parder cl case par incumpllmlenfo y la cone Ia podré guitarsu suolda, dumby blanos sin masammnda. Hayouus mquiytos legales. Esmmmmdabla qua (lame a an abagadomama. SI no oonoaa a un sbagada, pueda flamers un servicb dc remisr‘én a abogados. Sino puedepagan un abogado, es paslbla qua wavple con Io:muiwos pan obtmer servicios Iegalos gratuilos do un pmgrama do sewicios legals: sin fines dc Iucm. Puado encontrar axles glupos sin fines dc lucm an e! sitia web do California Legal Sewices, (Maw.WlpcafifomiaMoss) en e! Comm d9 Ayuda da Ias Codes do Califomla. (www.sucone.ca .gov) o pmléndose an cantacto con I9 cone o e! coleglo do abogadas locales AVISO: Par lay, Ia cane liens derecho a redamarlas cuotas y Ios castes exentos parlmponar un gmvaman sabre cualquiermcupemldn d9 $10.0006 més de valor mcibida mediante un acmrdo o una concesién dc arbitraje en un case do darecho civil Time qua pagan!gravomen dc fa cone antes do quakMa desechar e! case. “a The name and address of the noun is: t casemmtg Elnambra y dimccién d9 Ia coda as “1"” ( Superior Conn of Caiifomia Coulnty of Santa Clara 2°CV374981 Downtown Superior Coun (DTS) 1 91 North First $1.. San Jose. CA 951 1 3 Tho name. address. and telephone number of plaintiff's attomey, or ptaintifi without an attorney. is: {El nombrs. Ia dimocién y e! mimam dc leléfono dc! abogado dc! demandanla. o d9! demandante qua no time abogado. es): Karan K. Gil! 288782 (51 0) 629-0533 LAW OFFICES 0F KARAN K. GILL. 1990 North Caflfornia Blvd., 8th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 DATE; cam by . Deputy (Fee 12/18/2020 9:18 PM Clerk Of Court (Samtm R. Tien (Adjuma) Forpmofaf sen-n‘ce of "11‘s summons. use Pm! of Service ofgummons (font? POS-OIOJ) (Para pmoba de entrega d3 esla citatién use e! lbtmulan'o Proof of Sewioe of Summons. {POS-OiO». NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served i.a as an individua! defendant 2.a as the person sued under the tictih‘ous name of (specify): 3 a on behalf of (speciyr TRANSOEV SERVICES, INC.(AKA TRANSDEV NORTH AMERICA, MC.) under:m cop 416.10 (corpomfion) C3 cop 416.60 (minor)a CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) E CCP 418.70 (commutes)a CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) [j CCP 416.90 (sumoflzed person)a other (specify): 4.E by personal dekivery on (date): M1011mmwh the Mdmm 4 45”Ha Em SUMMONS 95 122;” 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21wcv-03363 Document 1~1 KARAN K. GILL, ESQ. SB# 288782 LAW OFFICES 0F KARAN K. GILL 1990 NORTH CALlFORNlA BLVD, 8TH FLOOR WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 TEL: 510.629.0533 FAX: 5 10-28 I -0640 karan@kkglawoffices.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS Filed 05/05/21 Page 6 0f 49 E-FILED 12/18/2020 9:18 PM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA. County of Santa Clara 200V374981 Reviewed By: R. Tien SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F SANTAL CLARA JOGINDER SlNGH, and JAsvm KAUR, Case No.2 200V374981 Unlimited Jurisdiction I . . P muffs" COMPLAINT: VS. TRANSDEV SERVICES INC. (AKA TRANSDEV NORTH AMERICA, INC); and DOES l-SO, Inclusive, Defendants. ~ u] l l. AGE DlSCRlMINATlON-VIOLATION 0F TITLE IVAN!) FEHA 2. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION- VIOLATION 0F TITLE IVAND FEHA 3. FAILURE T0 PROVIDE ACCOMMODATION-VIOLATIQN OF TITLE IVAND FEHA 4. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN AN LNTERACTIVE PROCESSw-VIOLATlON OF TITLE IVAND FEHA S. FAILURE T0 PREVENT DISCRIMINATION-VIOLATION OF TITLE IVAND FEHA 6. RETALIATION-VIOLATION OF TITLE IVAND FEHA 7. WRONGFUL TERMINATION [N VIOLATION 0F PUBLIC POLICY 8.1NTENTIONAL lNFLlCTION 0F EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 9. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM 10. RETALIATION AND VIOLATION PUBLIC POLICY/TAMENY JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 15. . . fies herein relevant, was a bus driver and an emploflRANSDEV. MR. SINGH’s wife. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 7 of 49 Plaintiffs allege as follows: JURISDICTIQN 1. All wrongful conduct alleged by Plaintiff in this action occurred within thc jurisdictional limits of this Court and Defendant does business in Santa Clara County.w 2. Venue is proper because Plaintiff‘s injuries, damages and harm, including the violation of Plaintiffs Rights occurred in Santa Clara County. Further, one or more of the DEFENDANTS residg, are headquartered and conduct business in this County. TRANSDEV SERVICES INC (“TRANSDEV”) does business and headquartered in the city of San Jose and County of Santa: Clara. PARTIES 3. MR. JOGINDER SINGH (“MR SINGH”) is a gcsident of Santa Clara County, and at all JASVIR KAUR (“MS. KAUR”) is a resident of Santa Clara County, and at all times relevant herein, was and is the spouse of MR. SINGH. TRANSDEV (and DOES 1-50), does business in Santa Clara County. DOE DEFENDANTS 4. Plaintiffs s arc ignorant ofthe true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, ofTRANSDEV sued herein as Does l through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues said TRANSDEV by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs arc informed and believe and, upon such information and belief, allege that each of the DEFENDANTS designated as a Doc is legally 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 ~16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 8 0f 49 responsible in some manner for the events and happenings referred to herein and caused the damages direct and proximately thereby to Plaintiffs as hereinafter alleged. Plaintiffs will seek leave of court to amend this complaint to show the true names and capacities of said Doe DBFENDANTS when same have been ascertained. 5. MR. SINGH has exhausted administrative remedies by filing charges of discrimination with appropriate federal and state agencies and by complying with the Government Code. MR. SlNGH received his Right to Sue Letter from the EEOC 556-2020-00357 on October S, 2020. 6. On or about July 24, 2005, TRANSDEV hired MR. SINGH as a full-time bus shuttle driver at the San Jose Airport in San Jose, California. MR. SlNGl-l drove a shuttle bus that would tranSport passengers at San Jose Airport. 7. On or about 2006, MS. KAUR was diagnosed with a brain tumor. MR. SlNGl-I understood the necessity of his employment for medical insurance for his wife and therefore took his job very seriously. 8. Dufihg his founeen (14) years of employment with TRANSISEV, MR. SlNGH was a dedicate%mitted employee and was documented to be late$201 B. There were no other complaints about his performance. 9. 0n or about 20 19, NICK RODRlGUEZ (“RODRIGUE ”) was made Operations manage: at TRANSDEV. Upon infoxmation and belief, RODRIGUEZ’S age is a direct and proximately between 35 to 40 years. RODRIGUEZ had only been working at TRANSDEV for about a year at the time when the wrongful and illegal actions against MR. SlNGH occurred by the TRANSDEV 10. On or about 2016, MR. SINGH was diagnosed with diabetes. He started a diabetic medication which he took twice a day with food to help control his blood sugar levels. 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 ‘ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2'1 28 Case 5:21-Cv~03363 Document 1~1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 9 of 49 l l. On or about April 4, 2019, MR. SINGH ate a small square piece of a sliced apple while driving the shuttle bus, something he and other drivers had done with no issue for the past l4 years. 12. On or about April 5, 2019, RODRIGUEZ called MR. SINGH around 103m, informing him that he is suspended for eating while driving as it as against the company’s policy. MR SINGH explained that he is a diabetic and occasionally needs to eat couple of small, sliced pieceé ofan apple to maintain his blood sugar levels. RODRIGUEZ stated that it is against the policy of the company and that MR. SINGH was being suspended. MR. SINGH explained and pleaded fofl another chance and explained that it will not happen again, and to not suspend him as his medical insurance will be threatened as he must work certain minimum hours to maintain medical insurance. Due to his own medical condition and that his wife was a cancer patient, losing medical insurance could mean death for the husband and wife. MR. SINGH requested that he be suspended on his short days where he would lose less work hours which he needs to keep his medical insurance. RODRIGUEZ had no empathy or sympathy for MR. SINGH. 13. On or about April ‘6', 2019, RODRJGUEZ ordered MR. smGH'to come to his office next day to look at the vi;%age of him eating the small piece of chopped ”3%“: sign suspension paperwork. MR. SINGH went to his office the next day. MR. SINGH agreed that hc ate sman pieces of a chopped apple but refused t0 sign any paperwork. MR. SINGH explained again that he is diabetic and needs occasionally needs to eat something small and showed him his medication RODRIGUEZ refused to look at the medication containers. MR. SINGH stated that he can bring dogtor’s note or any other medical paperwork proving that he is diabetic. RODRIGUEZ refused to look at anything and stated, “It's not my job to look at your medicine or medical paperwork.” He further stated thatMK SW’GH is suspended and that he can return to work after 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 10 of 49 two days. MR. SINGH again requested for the suSpension to be on short days so that his medical insurance would not be affected but RODRIGUEZ refused. MR. SINGH then requested DWAYNE BROWN (“BROWN"), planning manager for TRANSDEV, for the suspension to occur on short days since he was very familiar that MR. SINGH ’s wife requires medical coverage due to the brain cancer history. BROWN responded, “It’s is not my duty, follow what Nick [RODRIGUEZ] says.” BROWN AND RODRIGUEZ were good friends. l4. MR. SINGH, with help of other drivers was able to secure above 3O hours per week so that his medica! insurance would not bc affected. 15. 1n 2017, 201 8, and 2019, MR. SINGH complained to BROWN, and Human Resources (“HR”), that why is he not following the work list in the order that it is. BROWN was not giving, work to those who were first on the list. BROWN in an angry and loud voice said to MR. SINGH that “You can’t ask me anything. You are the only one that complains each time, no one else says anything.”MK SINGH replied that he should follow the rules and follow the seniority list or else he will complain to union. t V 16. On or about 2018, BROW " ' "to MR. SINGH, that if he gets any opportunity to firé MR. SINGH, he will. "I will not let you go.” 17. On or about August 24, 2019, MR. SINGH went to work around 4pm as relief driver which meant that he was the break and lunch relief driver for a total of 6 buses. Around 7:30pm MR. SINGH had lunch and took his diabetic medication as usual. Around 8pm upon returning fiom lunch, MR. SINGH began to experience stomach pain, and he informed the on-duty supervisor, ESAYAS MEKURIA, (“MEKURJA”) that his stomach was hurting, and he needed to be relieved from work and sent home. MEKURIA responded “l have no extra drivers and l have 5 COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES g..D' .. 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 lthc most privacy possible in the location. MR. SINGH urinated and then went to back to the bu Case §:21-cv-03363 Document 14. Filed 05/05/21 Page 11 of 49 to drive buses myself. I, can’t send you home.” MR. SlNGH had no choice but to drive and around 8:10pm started driving a bus. Around 8:28pm or so MR. SINGH got out of a bus and then around 8:29pm got on another bus. Around 9pm, MR. SINGH suddenly felt extremely heavy pressure around his bladder area in addition to his stomach pain. MR. SlNGH had no time to find a: bathroom and immediately parked the bus, which had about two (2) passengers in it, safely and legally at bus shuttle stop G~TC, got out of the driver seat, began walking towards a fence with q large, tall trash bin near it. While waiking MR. SlNGl-i was unable to control his urine which released as he was walking, he got to the tall trash bin, which was next to a shuttle stop, providinj feeling humiliated. After 40 minutes MR. SINGH felt the same and had to urinate again and did so at the same spot. 18. MR. SINGH is not allowed to use his cell phone on the job as it is against work policy and two drivers had been previously fired for using their cell phone. The dispatch did not operate properly and there was not enough time to use it. W A 19. The only available and permitted bathroo%e drivers was in the rental car building, where passengers were dropped and picked up. The other bathrooms are in the airport. 20. From where MR. SINGH urinated to the rental car place bathroom it would have taken a total ofabout six (6) minutes for MR. SINGH to get to the bathroom, depending on the passengers and parking space availability. If a parking space is not available, then he must call dispatch on security to have the cafi moved to make space available to park. This can easily take about 10 minutes. 21. MR SINGH dréve the bus normally until his shifi ended at midnight and then he went 6 COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2') 28 Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 12 of 49 home. The next day was Sunday and MR. SINGH came to work and had a norma! workday. Then on Monday around 4pm, RODRIGUEZ stated that he was suspending MR. SINGH for peeing and if he wants to sec the video footage he can. He stated that he has video and an eyewitness. MR. SINGH did not deny and agreed that be had urinated and explained that he could not control big urine, that he was in pain, it was so much pressure that he could not control. RODRIGUEZ stated he is suspending MR. SINGH. MR. SINGH asked for how many days, he said unlimited and that the dispatcher win call and only then can he return to work. 22. On or about September 3, 2019, RODRIGUEZ called MR. SINGH and said there is a meeting that he needs to attend. MR. SINGH said he will be there but with someone fiom the union. 23. On or about September 5, 201 9, MR. SiNGH went to the TRANSDEV office in San Jose. RODRIGUEZ, union member named FLO SINOGUI (“SINOGUI”), MR. SINGH’s son, Harprect Singh, was also there as an interpreter. A male from HR was on the speaker phone. The meeting, lastedufar ébout 15 minutes. HR man asked MR. SiNGI-l why he firinated and that you are aware oftl%. MR. SINGH explained that he is a diabetic andthfis in pain and that he could not control his bladder, that he had eaten lunch and taken his medication and he was not sure what happened, but he could not control as it was so much pressure. HR male on the phone asked to give them two days to make a decision. 24. 0n or about September 10, 2019, RODRIGUEZ called MR. SINGH and told him to bring his uniform and that they need to have a meeting. 25. The meeting was held on September 13, 2020 fer about forty (40) minutes, BROWN, 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21~cv-03363 Document 1-1 Fiied 05/05/21 Page 13 0f 49 RODRIGUEZ, MR. SINGH, union member SINOGUL BROWN and RODRIGUEZ were repeating that MR. SINGH had violated the TRANSDEV policy by urinating. MR. SINGH explained, “There was no bathroom nearby and would you terminate me if l urinatcd on myself in the bus?” They were all quiet. SlNOGUl was repeatedly requesting to keep MR. SINGH on the job. But RODRIGUEZ and BROWN had made their decision. MR. SINGH did not want to sign the termination papers but was advised by SlNOGUl to sign the termination papers. MR. SINGH, an empioyee ofTRANSDEV for over 14 years, was terminated, lost medical insurance for himseli and his wife who has a history of brain cancer, and was lcfl feeling humiliated, depressed, with . mental and physical agony. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (For Age Discrimination Against all Defendants) 26. Plaintiff reaneges and incorporates herein by reference ail the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 24 as though fully set forth herein. 27. Thiscamfion is brought pursuant to CALlFORNM GOVERW CODE §12940(a) which prohibits discrimination against a person in terms, conditions or privileges of employment on the basis of age, and the corresponding regulati'ons of the California Fair Employment and Housing Commission, or its successor. 28. At all times herein mentioned, TRANSDEV, jointly or independently, employed five or more persons, bringing said TRANSDEV employer within the provision ofCALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §12900 ct seq., prohibiting employers or their agents fiom discriminating against employees on the basis of age. 29. MR. SINGH is a member of a protected class within the meaning of the aforementioned 8 COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 14 0f 49 Government Code sections. At all relevant times herein, MR. SINGH satisfactorily performed his duties and responsibilities as expected by TRANSDEV and, in fact, exceeded those expectations by his performance. 30. MR. SINGH alleges that TRANSDEV wrongfully retaliated against him, discriminated against him and terminated him on the basis of his age. 3 l. As a direct and proximate result ofTRANSDEVS' discriminatory conduct, MR. SINGH has sustained and continues to sustain substantial loss in past, present and future earnings, career opportunities, bonuses and other employment benefit in amounts to be proven at trial 32. MR. SINGH's damages include all consequential, general and special economic damages in amounts to be proven at trial. 33. As a further direct and proximate result ofTRANSDEV’S discriminatory conduct, MR. SINGH has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, severe emotional distress and mental and physical pain and anguié ail to his damage in a sum according to proof. ., 34. The foregoing acts ofTRANSDEVS were oppressive, malicious, and dCSpicablc, and MR. SINGH is, therefore, entitled to an award of punitive damages against TRANSDEV in an amount to be proven at trial- SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (For Disability Discrimination Against All Defendants) 35. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all the allegations set forth in paragraphs l through 34 as though fully set forth herein. 36. This cause of action is brought pursuant to CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE § 9 COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1‘7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21~cv-03363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 15 0f 49 12940(a) which prohibits discrimination against a person in terms, conditions or privileges oi employment on the basis of disability, and the corresponding regulations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Commission, or its successor. 37. At all times herein mentioned, TRANSDEV, jointly or independently, employed five oq more persons, bringing said TRANSDEV employer within the provision of CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE § 12900 ct seq., prohibiting employers or their agents from discriminating against employees on the basis of disability. 38. MR. SINGH is a member of a protected class within the meaning of the aforementioned GOVERNMENT CODE sections. 39. At all relevant times herein, MR. SINGH satisfactorily performed his duties and reSponsibilities as expected by TRANSDEVS and, in fact, exceeded those expectations by his performance. 40. MR. SINGH alleges that TRANSDEV wrongfully retaliated against him, discriminated against him and terminated hirh on the basis offiis‘ disability or medical condition. 41 . As a direct and proximate result offiEV’S discriminatory conduct, MR. SINGH has sustained and continues t0 sustain substantial loss in past, present and future earnings, career opportunities, bonuses and other employment benefits, in amounts to be proven at trial. MR SlNGH's damages include all consequential, general and special économic damages in amounts ta be proven at trial 42. As a further direct and proximate result ofTRANSDEV’S discriminatory conduct, MR. SINGH has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, fear, anxiety, severe emotional distress and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum according to proof. 10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 174 18 19 20 21 22 23 l 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1-1 Fiied 05/05/21 Page 16 0f 49 43. The foregoing acts ofTRANSDEV were oppressive, malicious, and despicable, and MR SINGH is, therefore, entitled to an award ofpunitive damages against TRANSDEV in an amOunt to be proven at trial. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTIQN (For Failure to Provide Accommodation Against all Defendants) 44. Plaintiff reélleges and incorporates herein by reference all the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 43 as though fully set forth herein. 45. This cause of action is brought pursuant to CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §12940(m) which provides that it is an unlawful employment practice "[flor ah employer or other entity covered by this part to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the known physical on mental disability ofan applicant or employee". 46. MR SINGH advised and informed TRANSDEV, including his supervisors, that he was a éiabetic, TRANSDEV was aware ofthe restrictions on MR. SINGH which would limit his ability %orm his job duties. 47. At such time, TRANSDEV was under a duty to take affirmative steps to offer MR. SINGH accommodation, and not suspend, threaten, humiliate, harass, and terminate hifi employment. 48. As a direct and proximate result ofTRANSDEV‘S discriminatory conduct, MR. SINGER has sustained and continues to sustain substantial loss in past, present and future earnings, career opportunities, bonuses and other employment benefits, in amounts to be proven at trial. MR 1 l COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21~cv~03363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 17 of 49 SiNGl-I's damages include all consequential, general, and special economic damages in amounta to be proven at trial 49. As a further direct and proximate result ofTRANSDEV’S discriminatory conduct, MR. SINGH has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, fear, anxiety, severe emotional distress and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum according to proof. 50. The foregoing acts ofTRANSDEV were oppressive, malicious, and despicable, and MR‘ SINGH is, therefore, entitled to an award of punitive damages against TRANSDEV in an amount to be proven at trial. FOURTH CAUSE 0F ACTION (For Failure to Engage in Interactive Process Against all Defendants) 51. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the ailegations set forth in paragraphs l through 50 as though fully set forth herein. 52. This cause of action is brought pursuant to CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE § 1294001) which biovides that it is an unlawful employment inacticc "(flor‘ ax: employer or other entity covermis pan to fail to engage in a timely, good faith, intéfi process with the employee or applicant to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a: request for reasonable accommodation by an employee or applicant with a known physical or mental disability of known medical condition". 53. MR. SINGH advised and informed TRANSDEV, including his supervisors, that he was a diabetic, TRANSDEV was aware ofthe restrictions on MR- SlNGI-l which would limit his ability to perform his job duties. 54. Rather than engage in an interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation . 12 COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21~cv~03363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 18 0f 49 for MR. SlNGH, including but not limited to disability leave, TRANSDEVS instead unjustifiably terminated MR. SINGH. 55. As a direct and proximate result ofTRANSDEV’S discriminatory conduct, MR. SlNGH has sustained and continues to sustain substantial loss in past, present and future earnings, career! opportunities, bonuses and other employment benefits, in amounts to be proven at trial. MR! SINGH‘s damages include all consequential, general, and special economic damages in amount% to be proven at trial 56. As a further direct and proximate result ofTRANSDEV’s discriminatory conduct, MR. SINGH has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, fear, anxiety, severe emotional distress; and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum'according to proof. 57. The foregoing acts ofTRANSDEV’S were oppressive, malicious, and despicable, and MR. SINGH is, therefore, entitled to an award of punitive damages against TRANSDEV in an amount to be proven at trial. y-ou. . FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION --r (For Faih%évcnt Discrimination Against All Defendants) mm 58. Plaintiff rcallegcs and incorporates herein by reference alt the allegations set forth in paragraphs [throfigh 57 as though fully set forth herein. 59. TRANSDEV had a statutory duly, pursuant to CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §. 1294000 to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination fiom occurring in the workplace. 60. TRANSDEV breached its statutory duty of care to MR. SINGH by failing to take all 13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 19 0f 49 reasonable steps necessary to prevent the discrimination experienced by MR SINGH, ultimately resulting in his wrongful termination. 61. As a direct and proximate result ofTRANSDEV’S discriminatory conduct, MR. SINGH has sustained and continues to sustain substantial loss in past, present and future earnings, career opportunities, bonuses and other employment benefits, in amounts to be proven at trial. MR‘ SlNGH's damages include all consequential, general, and special economic damages in amount; to be proven at trial. 62. As a further direct and proximate result ofTRANSDEV’s discriminatory conduct, MR. SINGH has suffered and continues to stiffer humiliation, fear, anxiety, severe emotional distress and mental and physical pain and apguish, all to his damage in a sum according to proof. 63. The foregoing acts ofTRANSDE'V were oppressive, malicious, and despicable, and MR. SINGH is, therefore, entitled to an award ofpunitive damages against TRANSDEV in an angiount to be proven at trial. ‘ sgyu CAUSE 0F Aclggu (TITLE Vl] and Ffiflfliafim Against All Defendants) 64. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporates herein by reference all the allegations set forth in paragraphs l through 63 as though fully set foxth herein. 65. MR. SINGH believes and thereon alleges that TRANSDEV’s adverse actions taken against him as set forth herein occurred in retaliation for MR. SINGH claiming a that he is a diabetic. Such retaliatory actions are unlawful, discriminatory, and retaliatory in violation oi CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940 et seq. and have resulted in damages and injury to MR. SINGH as alleged herein. 14 COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES 10 11 ’12 13 14 15 1.6. - -- firagraphs i through 68 as though fully set forth herc‘i'r“; 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 20 0f 49 66. As a direct and proximate result ofTRANSDEV’s discriminatory conduct, MR. SINGH has sustained and continues to sustain substantial loss in past, present and future earnings, career opportunities, bonuses and other employment benefits, in amounts t0 be proven at trial. MR. SlNGH‘s damages include all consequential, general, and special economic damages in amounts to be proven at trial. 67. Asg funhcr direct and proximate result ofTRANSDEV’s discriminatory conduct, MR. SlNGH has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, fear, anxiety, severe emotional distress and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum according to proof. 68. The foregoing acts ofTRANSDEV were Oppressive, malicious, and despicable, and MR. SINGH is, therefore, entitled to an award ofpunitive damages against TRANSDEV in an amOunu to be proven at trial. . SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (For Wrongful Tennination in Violation ofPublic Policy Against All Defendants) 69. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporatéé 'herein by referénce all ofihe allegations set forth in 70. MR. SINGH was 63 years old at the time of his wrongful termination by TRANSDEV and was suffering fiom a medical condition diagnosed as diabetes for which he requested accommbdation and to be not suspended or terminated as he had been a loyal and dedicated employee for over 14 years. 71. TRANSDEV refused to provide accommodation to MR. SINGH for his known medical condition. 72. TRANSDEV refused to engage in an interactive process to determine a reasonable 15 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1~1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 21 of 49 accommodation for MR. SlNGH, including but not limited to disability leave. 73. At all times relevant herein, there existed fundamental and established California public policies, as codified by case'law and statute, including but not limited to: (a) CALLFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §12940(a); (b) CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §l 2940(h); (c) CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §12940(k); (d) CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §12940(m); and (e) CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §12940(n). 74. TRANSDEV violated California public policies by wrongfully terminating MR. SINGH on the basis of his age; by wrongfully terminating MR. SlNGH on the basis of disability and medical condition; by failing to provide MR. SINGl-l accommodation for his known disability and medical condition; by failing to engage in an interactive process with MR. SINGH; by failing to firevent discrimination toward MR. SINGH and by terminating MR. SINGH in retaliation for his medical condition and for him requesting repeatedly that TRANSDEV provide cxtra work hours to employees based on the list. ..---... 75. As al-direct and proximate result ofTRANSDBV’S discriminétory conduct, MR. SINGH has sus-tfi%nd continues to sustain substantial loss in past, prcsfiutme earnings, career opportunities, bonuses and other employment benefits, in amounts to be proven at trial. MR. SINGH'S damages include all consequential, general, and Special economic damages in amounts to be prover: at trial 76. As a further direct and proximate result ofTRANSDEV’S discriminatory conduct, MR. SINGH has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, fear, anxiety, severe emotional distress and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum according to proof. 77. The foregoing acts ofTRANSDEV were oppressive, malicious, and despicable, and MR. 16 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15' 16 17' 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1~1 Fiied 05/05/21 Page 22 of 49 SlNGH is, therefore, entitled to an award of punitive damages against TRANSDEV in an amount: to be proven at trial. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Intentional lnfliction of Emotional Distress against all Defendants) 78. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporates herein by reference all ofthe altcgations set forth in paragraphs l through 81 as though fully set forth herein. 79. TRANSDEV’S conduct as alleged herein was intentional, extreme, and outrageous. TRANSDEV’S conduct of intentionally suspending, terminating, harassing, humiliating MR. SlNGH because he engaged in protected activity and pleaded for understanding and accommodation for his medical condition is extreme and outrageous conduct which directly caused harm t6 MR. SINGH. 80. As a direct and proximate resuit ofTRANSDEV’s discriminatory conduct, MK SINGH has sustained and continues to sustain substantial loss in past, present and future earnings, career u-v SlNGH's damagesin% consequentiai, general, and special economic dam%amounts to be proven at trial 81. As a further direct and proximate result ofTRANSDEV’s discriminatory conduct, MR. SINGH has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, fear, anxiety, severe emotional distress and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum according to proof. 82. The foregoing acts ofTRANSDEVs were oppressive, malicious, and despicable, andMR SINGH is, therefore, emitted to an award of punitive damages against TRANSDEV in an amouni to be proven at trial. I 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 3.8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-O3363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 23 of 49 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Loss of Consortium Against All Defendants) 83. Plaintiff rcalleges and incorporates herein by reference all ofihe allegations set forth in paragraphs l through 82 as though fully set forth herein. 84. TRANSDEV conduct directly caused MR. SINGH’S spouse to suffer the loss of companionship, solace, comfort, joy, and healthy experience of marital life, including all of the duties encompassing marriage as well as financial support. 85. As a direct and proximate result ofTRANSDBV’S discriminatory conduct, MR. SINGH has sustained and continues to sustain substantial loss in past, present and future earnings, career opportunities, bonuses and other employment benefits, in amounts to be proven at trial. MR. SlNGH's anfiages include all consequential, general, and "special economic damages in amount: to be proven at trial 86. As a further direct and proximate result ofTRANSDEV’S discriminatory conduct, MR. ‘ Sl.NGH has suffered and continues to sfiffer humiliation, fear, anxiety, severe emotionaldim; an_d mental and physical pain and I " ‘ " , all to his damage in a sum according to proof. . 87. The foregoing acts ofTRANSDEV were oppressive, malicious, and despicable, and MR1 SINGH is, therefore, entitled to an award of punitive damages against TRANSDEV in an amount to be proven at trial. TENTH CAUSE 0F ACTION (For Retaliation And Violation Pubiic Policy/Tameny Against All Defendants. ) 88. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all the allegations set forth in paragraphs l through 63 as though fully set forth herein. 18 COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 v16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv~03363 Document l~1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 24 of 49 89. MR. SINGH believes and thereon alleges that TRANSDEV’S adverse actions taken against him as set forth herein. occurred in retaliation for MR. SINGH repeatedly complaining that company rules were not being followed and extra work hours ofwork should be given to whoever is first on the work list. 90. TRANSDEV violated public policy by retaliating against MR. SlNGl-l by suspending and terminating his employment. 91. As a direct and proximate result ofTRANSDEV’s retaliatory conduct, MR. SINGH has sustained and continues to sustain substantial loss in past, present and future earnings, career opportunities, bonuses and other employment benefits, in amounts to be provcn at trial. MR. SlNGH's damages inciude all consequential, general, and special economic damages in amounts to be prover: at trial. 92. As a further direct and proximate result ofTRANSDEV’S retaliatory conduct, MR. SINGH has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, fear, anxiety, severe emoiional distress and mental and physical pain and-a'nguish, all to his Hamage in a sum according to proof. 93. The foregoing acts ofTRANSDEV were%ive, malicious, and despicable, and MR. SINGH is, therefore, entitled to an award of punitive damages against TRANSDEV in an amount to be proven at trial. l/ l/ // // l/ // 19 COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES M- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1‘7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 25 of 49 l/ DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY MR. SINGH hereby demands a trial by jury. I . PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, MR. SlNGHs prays forjudgment as follows: FOR ALL CAUSES OF ACTION: l. Compensatory damages, including loss of wages (flout and back pay), career opportunities, benefits and other opportunities of employment; 2. Special damages in a sum to be proven at tn'al; 3. Punitive damages in a sum to be proven at trial; 4. Interest, including pre-judgment interest, thereon at the legal rate, including but not limited to Civil Code §329l; 5. Attorney's fees according to proof, pursuant to California Govgmment Code § 12965, or other appgstatutes or contracts; m 6. Costs of suit incurred herein; and Such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper. DATED: December 15, 2020 LAW OFFICES 0F KARAN K.GILL By: ‘7a k4 //// KARAN K. GILL ‘ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTFFS 20 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 26 0f 49 O I CM~O10 ammevonpmwvmmmmvmm.mammm; mccmrussomv ”Karan K. Gil! 288782 LAW OFFICES OF KARAN K. GILL 199D North Cafifomia Blvd.. 8th Floor, Walnut Creek. CA 94596 . . mmmo; {510) 629-0533 mm; (510) 281-0640 'e°"°“'?a"y F"ed anomaliesmp Joginder Singh and Jgsvir Kaur Y suPeno" court 0f CA; summon count or CALIFORNIA. comm! or Santa Clara ounty 0f Santa Clara, smmss191 North First St. n 1 2,13,2020 9:13 pM wnewoaess: . _ . cmmum: coneSan Jose 951 13 ewewed By‘ R' T'en mums: Downtown Superior Court (0T8) ase #ZOCV374981 CASE NAME: nvelope: 5504695 Singh v. Transdev Services lnc., et at. c'vu- CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation WWCV374981E Unlimited 1:} Limited D [:3 .(Amount (Amount Counter Jomder MG? demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant ' exceeds 525.000) $25.000‘or Cass) (Cal. Ruies of Coun, rule 3.402) DEPT: Items 1~6 below must be completed (see instmctions on gage 2). 1. Check one box below for the case type that best descrbes this case: Auto Ton Conlfld Provisionafly Complex CM! Litigafion Mo (22) E Bream dmauamwam, (95, (cu. Rum or Conn, rules ammuos) Uninsured mom: (46) D Rune 3.740 cwecuons (09) D Antitrustrrrade :eguiauon (03) omen- Pwolwo (Persona: mgurymmpeny D Other collections (09) D Construction detect (10) Damflm'mg‘u' 9““) 7°” [j lnsmance coverage (18) E3 Mass ton (40) Asbastoa (04) E] omer contact (37) E3 Securmes migauon (28) Pwd‘m “ahm‘y (24) Rea! Ptoperty D Environmentalfloxic mt! (30) Medic” ma'mc‘ice (45) 5mm dOmBiM'Werse Insurance coverage claims arising from theD om, FWDMD (23) - condemnation (14) above Iisted provisionally commex case NomPI/PDMD (omen Ton D WW9“Mm" <33) Wes (m :3 Business todluntair business practice (O7) OM ’93, Pmpefly (25) Enm'ceme'“ 0' Judgmem3 Cm tights (08) Unlawful Detainer m Enforcement of judgment (20)3 Defamafion (13) D commemifll (31} Miscalluneous Civil Complaint3 Fraud (1s) Residential (32) E] mco (27)D Inteflecmai Prom")! (1 9) E] DNQS (33) D Other comphint (not specified above) (42)a Pm‘GSSW' "99W?!“ (25) Jud‘m' “9"“ Misceuaneous civil PetitionD om“ mn’PIIPDMD D Asseuor‘eme (05) E Paflmwm'wfioram governance (21) Employment D Petition re: arbitration award (1 1) D Other Damian (m: specified above} (43)m Wrongtun germination (36) U wm of mandate (02)D Other employment (15) E Other judiciat miew g9) 2. This case [:3 is E is not complex under rule 3.400 of the Caiifomia Rules of Court. If the case is compiex. mark the factors requiring excepfional jucficial management: a.D Large number of separately represented parties d.D Large number of witnesses b.D Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e.D Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states. or countries, or in a federal court c.B Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. D Subsiantial postjudgment judicial supervision Remedies scught (check all that apply): am monetary hm nonmonetary; declaratory or injuncflve relief c. mpunmve Number of causes of action (specimflo This case D is E is not a class action suit. If mere are any known related cases. file and serve a notice of related ca Date: 1211512020 Karan K. Gifl 99'?!” (Y may use f nn CM-015.) mmmmmm t PARTY) NOTICE o Piaintifl must file this cover sheet with the first paper flied in the action or proceeding (except smali claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code. Famity Code. or Welfare and institutions Code). (Cal. Ruies of Court. rule 3.220.) Failure to fiIe may result in sanctions. 0 File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by locai court rule. o If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the Catifomia Rules of Court. you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding. o Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a compiex case, this cover sheet will be used for stafistical purposes ontx 1 flWWMWW , CML CASE COVER SHEET wwwsmflmggegfiwmfinm, , @4004, ”4033393 Mom“My 1.2m m.Waam Case 5:21-Cv-03363 Document 1-1 Filed Ub/Ub/m Page 4/ or 49 CM-m INSTRUCTIONS 0N HOWTO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET D To Pulmms and Others Hung Pint Papas. If you are filing a rust paper (for example. a Win!) in a civil case. you must annuals and file. along with your first papa. lhe Civil Case Cover Shoal containsd on page 1. This information will be used m campus statistics about the types and numbels chases filed. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. ln item 1. you must chedt onehox {orthe Gasetwe that best describesthe ease. mite case fits both a general and a more specific type oicase liswd in item 1. check the more spodflc one. If the case has multiple causes of adlon. check the box um best indicaus me primary cause of action. To assist you in computing me sheet. examples of the cases that belong under each mo type In Rem 1 are prow’dod below. A cover shut must be mad only with your Initial paper. Failute m file a cover sheet with me first paper mod in a civit ease may subject a party. us counset. or boIh lo sanctions under mics 2.30 and 3.220 o! the Canton“: Rules of Com. To Patties In Rule 3.740 Collections ems. A ‘ooflecfions case“ um Me 3.740 b defined as an action for recovery of money owed m a sum stand to be comm that is not more than 325.000. exclusive of mums! and attorney‘s toes. arising 1mm a transaction in whim pmpofly. comes. or money was acquired on credit. A oolootions case dons no! include an action seeking me Mowing: (1) ton damages. (2) punitive damages. (3) tecmrm of real property. (4) recovery of poisons! propeny. or (5) a ptejudgmenl writ of attachment. The identification of a case as a ml: 3.740 eoflections case on mi: tom: means that it will be exempt from the gamut ttme-ior-servloe requimmonls and case managamam miss, um» a defendant flies a responsive pleading. A mi: 3.740 eollecfions use will ha suhfect to me mquirements for «Moe and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740. To Putin In Complex Cases. m complex cases only. patties must also use (ha CM! Casa Com Shoe! lo designate whemar Ihe easel: complex. If a plain“ believes the case is oomph: under rule 3.400 of the California Rules o! Court. this must be indented by completing ma appmprlato boxes in items 1 and 2. If a palm!!! designates a case as comptex. the cover sheet must be sewed with me complaint on all patties to the action. A defendant may filo Ind «Ne no ialer than tho time of its first appearance a binder in the plainm designation. a counter-designation that the case is not complex. or. if the plaimiff has made no designation, a designation that ma case is complex. CASEm8 MIDW5 AutoTon Comm VMw-lly Comply: CM! uncanon (Cal. Auto(22mm InjutylPWy Brad: o! ConnuMamnty (06) Rum ofCom Rules31M:) DamagaMrmqul Death Bmach ofWoes Antiwalfado Regulation (03) Unhwnduoma (45) (lune Comradmotummduaimr 009mm pared (10) aseinvommunmw uWevflfion) Chmlnvomma‘ranam mamm daimW lo . W 80m“LW (28) autumn. daeckWsm Wladfmdwmgbgsm) Emiommnwrrouc Ton (30) MadoMum) Negligent BracketConrad! momma Coverageagm mummm(vmwam Warmly Mainemem9wWWM) 09mMdComramemy also type J (41)7m 001th: (o.g. monoyowodmm Edema: o!Judgment Asbestos (o4) bookamnm) em of Judgmnt (fl)“mmmmm OoflecfimCau-Solamm mmdmtomofmmmm way] Other PromissoryHummus 1:3)“M (m mum 3mm“(mo, 'mmcomae(WW damn: mums)mm» (24) 00W) (‘8) simsmemmWI Maipndiee (‘5) ‘ AutoSWW Maunlwafive Agency Amrdwmmm- 01MOman (no: unpaidmug, EnPhyddms t Surgeons r Comma (37) WWW E! 0‘om»mum Hum» Care «mama! Franc "dome“ 0" n% "ma m. mow mm“MW muliry(e.g..sup EmmamWanna ”bum! OM! Compimt and {am Condemnaflm (14) R00 (27) Mnfnnal wugnurymom? Wensumm) mmuwmdm E9. assau mm Other Real Property (e.g., quiet tine) (26} “m” Rd e,omlawman“! mummmmm ' Y memmmm gwmmm mommmfiwe ‘ n! Mm? 2 m I ) ( ”M 0303: (mn-to’flhon-conglex)flan Oflw’) art clown .WW! Business 11an Deters” Other Gui CompflmComm Civl! mam: (e.g.. Rowan“! (32) "l“?ammpmm smuggmo his. ms!) (M!OM Drugs (3!) fifths case involves mega! W (31)Mum!) (OI) W died!W8M0mm amPeaflon(MWDem “a‘-m’om” m ISCW0’ROW m", (‘3) 1mm)» mlam (05) om ~ mammas) PamRamam (m Wemwmmmm Woman! Negligence (25) wm o! Mandate (02) Ah... LegalMam wm-Mmlnlm Mmdnmus mmm“ OtterPm» Malprawce wm-uandamus on Umiud Cowl hfmm Chm“ (”a“m""”9“” 0mm ' mmtoraewsmme“WouterNon-PNPDIWDTun (35} WW Limited Court Case Claim8W Other av“ PetitionngM Tumlmflon (36)owawmvs» °""‘“;..““"a§:.mé3«';3um Notice ctA CammiuionerAmi: nunMmmafl I.”a clvu. muss covansaga Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 28 of 49 EXHIBIT B ~ ~03 Document - iie f HI I Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document Filed 05/05/21 Page 29 of 49 Cl CT Corporation Service of Process Transmittal 04/05/2021 CT Log Number 539330771 TO: Beverly Wedin, Manager, Legal Department Transdev North America, Inc. 720 E Butterfield Rd Ste 300 Lombard, IL 60148-5601 RE: Process Served in California FOR: Transdev Services, Inc (Domestic State: MD) l!NCLOSl!D ARI! COPll!S OF Ll!GAL PROCl!SS Rl!Cl!IVl!D BY THI! STATUTORY AGl!NT OF THI! ABOVE COMPANY AS FOLLOWS: TITLI! OF ACTION: DOCUMl!NT(S) SERVED: COURT/AGl!NCY: NATURE OF ACTION: ON WHOM PROCESS WAS Sl!RVED: DATE AND HOUR OF Sl!RVICI!: .JURISDICTION SERVED : APPl!ARANCE OR ANSWER DUE: ATTORNl!Y(S) I Sl!NDER(S): ACTION ITEMS: REGISTERED AGENT ADDRESS: JOGINDER SINGH and JASVIR KAUR, PLTFS. vs. TRANSDEV SERVICES INC, ETC., ET AL., DFTS. I I To: TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC. None Specified Case II 20CV374981 Employee Litigation • Wrongful Termination CT Corporation System, Los Angeles, CA By Process Server on 04/05/2021 at 15:39 California None Specified None Specified CT has retained the current log, Retain Date: 04/05/2021, Expected Purge Date: 04/10/2021 Image SOP Email Notification, Beverly Wedin beverly.wedin@transdev.com C T Corporation System 818 West 7th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 800·448·5350 MajorAccountTeam 1 @wolterskluwer.com The information contained in this Transmittal is provided by CT for quick reference only. It does not constitute a legal opinion, and should not otherwise be relied on, as to the nature of action, the amount of damages, the answer date, or any other information contained in the included documents. The recipient(s} of this form is responsible for reviewing and interpreting the included documents and taking appropriate action, including consulting with its legal and other advisors as necessary. CT disclaims all liability for the information contained in this form, including for any omissions or inaccuracies that may be contained therein. Page1of 1/RK Case 5:21-cv~03363 Documentl-l ‘ " Q. Wolters Kluwer PROCESS SERVER DELIVERY DETAILS Date: Mon, Apr 5, 2021 Server Name: Jim Sands Entity Served TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC. Agent Name C T CORPORATION SYSTEM Case Number ' 20CV374981 Jurisdiction CA Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 31of49 EXHIBIT C » ~03 ent l-l i e 0f 4 HI I ‘OWQQUIAOJN-fl NNNNNNNNNn-i-‘L-Ah-y-no-an-mw-IM WQO‘MfiWNV‘OWWQO‘xM-hwwflo . Facsimile: Case 5:21-cv~03363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 32 of 49 PAUL M. GLEASON (SEN: 155569) JING TONG (SBN: 285061) GLEASON & FAVAROTE, LLP 4014 Long Beach Blvd., Suite 300 Long Beach, California 90807 Telephone: (2 1 3) 452-05 1 O (2 1 3) 452-05 14 pgleason@gleasonfavarote.com jtong@gleasonfavarote.com Attorneys for Defendant TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA JOGINDER SINGH, and JASVIR KAUR, Plaintiffs, v. TRANSDEV SERVICES INC. (AKA TRANSDEV NORTH AMERICA, INC); and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) /// /// /// /// /// /// /// Case No. 20CV374981 DEFENDANT TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER T0 PLAINTIFFS JOGINDER SINGH AND JASVIR KAUR’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT Judge: Hon. Socrates P. Manoukian Dept: 20 Action Filed: December l8, 2020 Trial Date: None DEFENDANT TRANSDEV SERVICES, lNC.’S ANSWER T0 PLAINTIFFS JOGINDER SINGH AND JASVIR KAUR’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT ‘OOOQOSMAWNw-n NNNNNNNNNHh-HHHHHu-awu ooqoxmawN-ockoooqmm-hmmwo Case 5:21~cv~03363 Documentl-l Filed 05/05/21 Page33 of49 T0 PLAINTIFFS JOGINDER SINGH, and JASVlR KAUR AND THEIR ATTORNEYS 0F RECORD: Defendant Transdev Services, Inc. (“Defendant”) hereby answers the unverified Complaint filed by plaintiff Joginder Singh (“Singh”) and plaintiff Jasvir Kaur (“Kant”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) as follows: GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant to the provisions of Section 431 .30(d) of the Califomia Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant generally denies each and every allegation and cause of action contained in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and further denies that Plaintiffs have been damaged in any manner or amount, or at all, as a result ofany act or omission by Defendant. Additionally, Defendant asserts the following affirmative defenses and prays for judgment as set forth below: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Cause of Action) 1. As a separate and affirmative defense to Plaintifi‘s’ Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that each purported cause of action in the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) 2. As a separate and affirmative defense to Plaintiffs’ Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that the claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations, including but not limited to Government Code sections 12900, et seq, 12960 and 12965 and California Code of Civil Procedure sections 335.1, 337, 338, 339, 340 and 343, and/or any other applicable statutes of limitation. THIRD AFF ' TIVE DEF NS (Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies) 3. As a separate and affirmative defense to Singh’s Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant is informed and believe, and based upon such information and 2 nEfiNnANT TRANSDEV SERVICES, mess ANswififi‘o PLAINTIFFS JOGINDER SINGH AND JAsvm KAUR’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT \OWQQMhWNy-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHh-fiwmu-Iflm W‘JO‘MAWNHOWW‘JQMAWNHO Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 34 of 49 belief alleges, that Singh has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, including those set forth in California Government Code Section 12940, et seq., and the express gievance and arbitration provisions of the applicable collective bargaining agreements. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Jurisdiction) 4. The court lacks jurisdiction to hear Singh’s allegations or claims because Singh agreed to arbitrate his claims before an arbitral forum and waived his right to litigate his claims to trial, with or without a jury. (Not the Employer) 5. As a separate and affirmative defense to Singh’s Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Singh’s claims against Defendant fail as a matter of law because Transdev North America, Inc. was not Singh’s employer and is therefore an improperly named entity.W (Doctrine of Laches) 6. As a separate and affirmative defense to Singh’s Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Singh’s claims, are barred, in. whole or in pan, by the doctrine of lashes. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) 7. As a separate and afi‘n‘mative defense to Singh’s Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant is informed and believes and based upon such information and belief allege that Singh has or had unclean hands with respect to the matters alleged in his Complaint, and on that ground, is barred from recovering any reliefon his Complaint. /// /// /// / // 3 DEFENDANT TRANSDEV fiRVICES, INC.’S ANSWER T0 PLAINTIFFS JOGINDER SINGH AND JASVIR KAUR’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT ©00QO‘MhUJNH-‘k NNNNNNNNNHHHflHu-In-twww OOQQMfiWNF‘OWOONIQkhfit-DMh-‘O Case 5:21~cv-03363 Document 1~l Filed 05/05/21 Page 35 0f 49 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) 8. As a separate and afiirmative defense to Singh’s Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Singh is barred, in whole or in part, for the reason that, by his actions, Singh is estopped from bringing any claim for reliefagainst Defendant. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver) 9. As a separate and affirmative defense to Singh’s Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant is informed and believe 'and based upon such information and belief alleges that by his conduct, Singh has waived any right to recover any relief by his Complaint. (Consent) 10. The Complaint, and each cause of action set forth therein, is barred, in whole or in part, because Singh consented to, approved, or participated in the alleged conduct about which Singh now complains. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Satisfaction and Accord) 11. Singh’s Complaint is barred, in whole 0r in part, by the principles of accord and/or satisfaction and payment. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Novation) 12. The Complaint, and each cause 0f action therein, is barred, in whole or in part, based on one or more novations. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Ratification) l3. As a separate and affirmative defense to Singh’s Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that some or all of Singh’s claims are barred because the 4 DEFENDANT TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC.‘S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS JOGINDfR SINGH AND JASVIR KAUR’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT \OOOQQM&UJNH OOQQMAWNHOWOOQONM&WNHQ Case 5:21~cv-O3363 Document 1-1 Fiied 05/05/21 Page 36 of 49 alleged conduct complained ofby Singh was done by persons or entities other than Defendant and, that at all time, said persons or entities acted without the consent, authorization, knowledge, or ratification of Defendant with regard to the acts as alleged in the Complaint. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Preemption/LMRA 29 U.S.C. § 185) 14. The claims of Singh are preempted/barred by Section 301 of the Labor Relations Management Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 and Singh’s claims are subject to the various grievance and arbitration provisions set fonh in his collective bargaining agreement. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Preemption/National Labor Relations Act) 15. As a separate and affirmative defense to Singh’s Complaint Defendant alleges that to the extent Singh’s claims involve conduct that is governed by a collective bargaining agreement or seek remedies that are governed or regulated by federal law or a collective bargaining agreement, such claims are preempted by federal law and the National Labor Relations Act. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (At-Will Employee) 16. As a separate and affirmative defense to Singh’s Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that some or all of Singh’s claims fail because Singh was at all time employed as an at-will employee ofDefendant. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Mixed Motive) 17. As a separate and affirmative defense to Singh’s Complaint and to each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges, assuming arguendo, that there was a violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act and/or other violation of law, Singh’s claims remain barred, in whole or in part, because even without any said impermissible conduct, the employment actions taken herein still would have been taken due to work performance reasons and/or other legitimate, nonprohibited, and/or independent reason(s). Defendant herewith raises the “mixed- motive” defense. 5 DEFENDANT TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER T0 PLAINTIFFS JOGINDER SINGH AND JASVIR KAUR’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT \OOOQ@MhWN.-n NNNNNNNNNi-lh-tt-Ip-Ir-so-In-Iwu-tI-a OOQONMAWNHowwxlONM-FWNHO Case 5:21~cv-03363 Document 1-1 Fiied 05/05/21 Page 37 of 49 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lawful Conduct) 18. As a separate and affirmative defense to Singh’s Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that none of Defendant’s acts were spiteful, malicious, in bad faith or motivated by any ill will or fraud. Instead, Defendant’s acts, if any, were privileged, non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory, proper and taken in accordance with Defendant’s rights as accorded by law. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEEENSE (Breach of Employment Obligations) 19. The Complaint is barred and/or the alleged damages must be reduced, in Whole or in part, because Singh breached his obligations to his employer. TWENT TH AFF ATIV DEF NSE (Good Cause/Legitimate Business Reason) 20. As a separate and affirmative defense to Singh’s Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that, at all relevant times, Defendant acted with a good faith belief that it had good cause and/or a legitimate non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory business reason to act as it did and did not directly or indirectly perform any acts that would constitute a violation of Singh’s rights. As a consequence, Singh is not entitled to any damages or penalties whatsoever. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Good and Sufficient Lawful Cause) 21. As a separate and affirmative defense to Singh’s Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that at all times relevant hereto, Singh is barred from any recovery in this action because there were good and sufficient lawful cause and reasons for any alleged employment actions that affected Singh /// /// /// 6 DEFENDANT TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS JOGINDER SINGH AND JASVIR KAUR’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT H NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH ‘O w \l O\ Uknb U) N Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 38 0f 49 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Just and Proper Exercise) 22. As a separate and affirmative defense to Singh’s Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that its conduct was a just and proper exercise of managerial discretion, undertaken for fair and honest reasons, comporting with good faith under the circumstances then existing, and was privileged and justified. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Business Judgment Rule) 23. Singh’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any decisions made by Defendant with respect to Singh’s employment were reasonably based on the facts as they understood them. TWENTY-FOURTH AEflRMATIVE DEFENSE (Impossibility) 24. Singh’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by impossibility of performance. TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE _ (Substantial Compliance) 25. Defendant substantially complied with all obligations under the law. TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Outside Course and Scope of Employment) 26. To the extent any alleged discrimination occurred, which Defendant deny, any alleged discrimination committed by any employees or agents of Defendant was outside the scope and course its respective employment. TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Contributory or Comparative Fault of Singh) 27. As a separate and affirmative defense to Singh’s Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Singh was, at all times mentioned in the Complaint, guilty of comparative and/or contributory negligence or fault and is therefore barred from recovery. /// 7 DEFENDANT TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWERTO PLAINTIFFS JOGINDER SING}! AND JASVIR KAUR’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT ©00QQM¥UDNH NNNNNNNNNi-It-Ir-ag-IH-waw WQmm-5WNHOWOOQO‘MAUQNHO Case 5:21-cv--03363 Document l~l Filed 05/05/21 Page 39 0f 49 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Apportionment of Responsibility) 28. As a separate and affinnative defense to Singh’s Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that. if Singh sustained any loss under the circumstances alleged in the Complaint, which is denied, Defendant is liable only for that portion ofdamages, if any, which corresponds to Defendant’s degree of fault or responsibility, and Defendant is not liable for damages attributable to the responsibility, negligence or fault of Singh or of any other person or entity, whether named or unnamed in the Complaint. TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Preaexisting Condition) 29. As a separate and affirmative defense to Singh’s Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Singh is not entitled to recover damages to the extent that any purported emotional distress damages allegedly suffered by Singh were caused by any pre- existing psychological condition(s). THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Not Disabled) 30. Singh was not disabled within the meaning of Calsz'omia Government Code Section 12926 et seq.; and therefore, the Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, fails. THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Accommodation Requested) 3 1. Sirigh never requested any reasonable accommodation and, therefore, cannot state a disability claim, including but not limited to any claim for alleged disability discrimination under California Government Code Section 12940 et seq. THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process) 32. Singh has waived or, alternatively, cannot state nor assert any cause of action for any alleged disability discrimination under California Government Code Section 12940 et seq. because of the failure of Singh and/or his agents to cooperate and or engage in the interactive 8 DEFENDANT TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS JOGINDER SINGHAND JASVIR KAUR’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT H NNNNNNNNNuHHp-u-auuu-p-au- OOHO‘M-bwwwowocflONM-hWNh-‘O ‘OOONIONU‘AWN Case 5:21wCV»03363 Document l~1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 4O 0f 49 process. THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Not Qualified) 33. Singh was not qualified 0r could not perform the essential duties 0f his position with or without reasonable accommodation. THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unreasonable Request/Undue Hardship) 34. To the extent Singh claims that he requested an accommodation, such request was unreasonable and would have produced an undue hardship. Therefore, Singh cannot maintain any disability claim, including but not limited t0 any claim under California Government Code Section 1 2940 et seq. THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Risk of Safety and Health of Singh and Others) 35. Singh was not qualified or could not perform the essential dutiw of his position in a manner that would not endanger his health or safety or the health or safety of others, with or without reasonable accommodation. THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Certification from Health-Care Provider) 36. The Complaint, and each cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or in part, on the grounds that Singh failed timely to provide Defendant with a health-carc provider’s certification of Singh’s alleged restrictions. THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Release/Assignment/Settlement) 37. Singh’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because they or any rights related thereto have been released and/or assigned, and/or by any prior settlement of such claims. /// /// /// 9 DEFENDANT TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS JOGINDER SINGH AND JASVIR KAUR’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT \OOONJQM-hWNu-u NNNNNNNNM-nu-immu-‘r-nr-omv-n- WQQM-fiqu-‘o‘omqo‘kchbwmflo Case 5:21~cv-03363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 41 0f 49 THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (After-Acquired Evidence) 38. As a separate and affirmative defense to Singh’s Complaint and to each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Singh’s right to recovery is barred in whole or in pan by the doctrine ofAfier-Acquired Evidence. THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Avoidable Consequences) 39. Singh is not entitled to recover any damages as prayed for in the Complaint on the grounds that such damages could have been avoided under the doctrine of avoidable consequences. FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Injury or Harm) 40. As a separate and affirmative defense to Singh’s Complaint, Defendant allege that Singh did not suffer an injury and that Kaur was not harmed by any injury suffered by Singh. FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (OffsetlSet Off) 41. If Singh sustained any damage as a result of conduct alleged in the Complaint, which Defendant denies, then Defendant is entitled to offset/setoff against any such recovery any and all amounts owed to Defendant by Singh, any overpayments to Singh, any damages or harm caused to Defendant by Singh’s actions or inaction, including without limitation, amounts received by Singh as income or payments from other sources, including but not limited to that received under federal or state disability benefits laws, or by any other benefits received by Singh. FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unjust Enrichment) 42. The imposition ofany liability upon Defendant would unjustly enrich Singh. FORTY-TH FFIRMAT DEFENSE (Workers Compensation Exclusive Remedy) 43. As a separate and affirmative defense to Singh’s Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that if Singh sustained damages by reasons of the 10. DEFENDANT TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS JOGINDER SWGH AND JASVIR KAUR’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT \OOOQQthwr- NNNNNNBNNp-amu-aHI-Iu-nuHa-IH OOQQUIAW HONOOOVO‘xMAth-‘O Case 5:21~cv~03363 Documentl-l Filed 05/05/21 Page 42'0f49 allegations in the Complaint, which allegations arc denied, Singh’s exclusive remedy for such damages are governed by the California Workers’ Compensation Act. Cal. Labor Code §§ 3200, et seq. and §§ 3600, et seq. FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Attorney’s Fees) 44. As a separate and affirmative defense to Singh’s Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that said Complaint fails to allege complaints sufficient to allow recovery of attorneys’ fees from Defendant. FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Speculative Damages) 45. As a separate and affirmative defense to Singh’s Complaint and to each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Singh’s claims for damages are precluded to the extent those alleged damages are speculative. FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Not Outrageous) 46. As a éeparate and afiirmative defense to Singh’s Complaint and to each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that if Singh suffered any emotional distress (and Defendant denies that Singh suffered any such distress), the conduct causing Singh’s emotional distress was not outrageous and the emotional distress was not severe. FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Good Faith Dispute) 47. As a separate and affirmative defense to Singh’s Complaint, Defendant denies that it owed any amounts to Singh; but if it should be determined that any amounts are owed, Defendant alleges that at all times herein, reasonable good faith disputes existed as to whether any such amounts were owed. /// /// /// ll. DEFENDANT TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS JOGINDER SINGH AND JASVIR KAUR’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT \O m \l G M $.03 N H NNNNNNNNNi-to-Hu-n-Hn-at-n-An-ap-a mfiQthNHOOOO‘JONm-hWNi-‘O Case 5:21-cv-O3363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 43 0f 49 FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMA’TIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Mitigate Damages) 48. As a separate and affirmative defense to Singh’s Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that if Singh sustained damages by reason of the allegations in the Complaint, which allegations are denied, then Singh may not recover for such damages because by his own acts and omissions, he has failed to properly mitigate those damages. FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (ERISA) 49. Singh is not entitled to recover any compensatory or other monetary damages for any alleged benefits as prayed for, including medical or retirement benefits, because the exclusive remedy for such alleged damages is the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. FIFTIETH AFFIRMA'I‘IVE DEFENSE (No Entitlement to Prejudgment Interest) 50. Any claim for prejudgment interest is barred as to any purported cause of action for which such relief is not available. FIFTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Punitive Damages/Penalties Unconstitutional) ' 51. Singh is not entitled to recover any punitive or exemplary damages, or any penalties, as prayed for in the Complaint on the grounds that any award of punitive or exemplary damages or penalties under California law in general, and/or any such award under California law as applied to the facts of this specific action, would violate the constitutional rights of Defendant under provisions of the United States and California Constitutions, including but not limited to the due process clauses of the Fifih and Fourteenth Amendments of the United Statw Constitution and the excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment clauses of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. H/ /// 12. DEFENDANT TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS JOGINDER SINGH AND JASVIR KAUR’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT WOOQQMhUJN-i NNNNNNNNNuHHHHmHflHp-a mQQM#WNHOCOO\IO\M-bWNHO Case 5:21-cv~03363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 44 0f 49 FIFTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Punitive Damages/Failure to State Sufficient Facts) S2. As a separate and affirmative defense to Singh’s Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Singh is not entitled to recover punitive damages because neither Defendant nor any of its employees or agents have committed fraudulent, oppressive, malicious, willful, or egregious acts giving rise to liability, nor have they displayed reckless indifference to Singh's rights and Singh has not adequately pied a claim for punitive damagm under California Civil Code Section 3294. FIFTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Resei'vation of Rights) 53. Defendant does not presently know all of the facts and circumstances of Singh’s claims. Defendant reserves the right to amend this Answer should it later discover facts demonstrating the existence of additional afi‘umative defenses. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays as follows; l. That Plaintifl's take nothing by this action; 2 That the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice; 3 That judgment be entered in favor of Defendant; 4. For costs of suit and for reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by Defendant; and 5 For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: May 4, 2021 GLEASON & FAVAROTE, LLP PAUL M. GLEASON JING TONG By: RANSDEVAttorneys for Dcfc SERVICES, INC. 13. 'DEFENDANT TRANsfiEV SERVICES, mexs ANSWER To iLAINTIFFs JOGINDER SINGH AND JAsvm KAUIvs UNVERmED COMPLAINT \OmQGM&WNt-n NNNNMNNNNHHHHo-It-IHHHH O°-leUI&WNHO\OOO\IO\M~hbJNF-*O Case 5:21-cv~03363 Document 1&1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 45'of 49 PROOF 0F SERVICE I, Thomas Steinhart, declare: r I am and was at the time ofthe service mentioned in this declaration, employed in the County ofLos Angeles, California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is Gleason & Favarote, LLP, 4014 Long Beach Blvd., Suite 300, Long Beach, CA 90807. On May 4, 2021, I served a cogfisighofthe followmg' document(s%i ' DEFENDANT TRANSDEV CES, INC.’S ANSWER O PLAINTIFFS JOGINDER SINGH AND JASVIR KAUR’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT on the parties to this action by placing them in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: Attorney Party(ies) Served Method of Service KARAN K. GILL, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiffs, One Legal, LLC LAW OFFICES 0F KARAN K. GILL JOGINDER SINGH and 1990 North California Blvd., 8th Floor JASVIR KAUR Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Tel: (5 10) 629-0533 Fax: (51 0) 28 1 -0640 karan@1_c_lgglawoffices.com [BY OVERNIGHT COURIER] I caused the sealed enveIOpe(s) to be delivered by a commercial courier service for overnight delivery to the oflices ofthe addressee(s). [BY HAND] Idirected the sealed envelope(s) to the party(ies) so designated on the service list to be delivered by Ace Attorney Service, Inc. this date. [BY DESIGNATED ELECTRONIC FILING SERVICE] Ihereby certify that the above-referenced document(s) were served electronically on the parties listed herein at their most recent known email address or email of record by submitting an electronic version of the document(s) to One Legal, LLC, through the user interface at www.onelegal.com. EDD I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on May 4, 202 l, at Long Beach, California. l4. PROOF 0F SERVICE Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 46 of 49 EXHIBIT D c 03 ent - i e f HI I Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document l~l Filed 05/05/21 Page 47 of 49 DocuSign Envelope ID: FBQFGBCO-33C7-431 E-BCA1-6F797F66C1 E0 KOOOQONMQUJNr-A NNNNNNNNNHwawNHh-uw OO‘JCNM-hWNHOKONQQM-BWNHO DECLARATION OF MARRETT MCLEOD I, Marrett McLeod, declare that: I. I am currently employed by Transdev Services, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Transdev”) as a Regional Director of Human Resources. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration or know them in my capacity as an employee of Transdev, based on records maintained by Transdev in the regular course of business and according to its regular practice of keeping those records, and could and would competently testify t0 them under oath if called as a witness. 2. I am informed and believe that Transdev’s corporate records are maintained in the regular course of business, that entries are made in the corporate records at or near the time of the transactions shown, and that the transactions arc entered by the individuals responsible for the processing and tracking of said information. 3. I am informed and believe that Transdev’s state of incorporation is Maryland. 4. Transdev’s headquarters, including its executive and senior management personnel as well as its primary management operations, are located in ~ Illinois and the corporate officers of Transdev actually direct, control, and coordinate Transdev’s corporate activities from Transdev’s offices in Illinois. The corporate human resources department, employee benefits department, legal department, procurement department, accounting department, and IT department utilized by Transdev are all located in Illinois. 5. As the Regional Director 0f Human Resources, I have access to the employee records of current and former Transdev employees, including payroll records. I was able to pull the payroll records for Joginder Singh. Mr. Singh was terminated from his employment with Defendant on September 13, 2019. According to Transdev’s payroll records for Mr. Singh, his last hourly rate was approximately $30.27 an hour and was a full-time employee. Mr. Singh also received medical 1 DECLARATION OF MARRETT MCLEOD IN SUPPORT OF REMOVAL Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 48 of 49 DocuSign Envelope ID: FBSFGBCD-3367-431 E-8CA1-6F797F6601E0 \OOOQQUI-FWNu-A NNNNNNNNNuHMHp-Ii-tr-Au-awm mquhWNF-‘OWOOQCNUIhWNHO benefits as an employee 0f Transdev. I testify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this 5 4 2021 ./ / , at Austm, Texas. 00:118an by: I Mama?WA ' mett McLeod declaration was executed on 2 DECLARATION 0F MARRETT MCLEOD IN SUPPORT OF REMOVAL \OOOQONUIQUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHt-awwww OOQONMLWNMOQOOQQM-hWNh-‘O Case 5:21~Cv-03363 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 49 of 49 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Thomas Steinhart, declare: . _ . . _ I am and was at the tlme of the serwce. menponed 1n thls declaratlon, em loyed 1n the County of Los Angeles, Calgfomla. I am pver the age of 18 years an not afafiy to the w1th1n actlop. M busmess address ls Gleason & Favarote, LLP, 401 Lon Beach Blvd, Sulte 30 P Lon Beach CA 90807. On Ma 2021 I served a 00er les) o the folfowmyfi documentgkzl ,DEC ARATIQN 0F JIN_G Nq IN SUPPOR 0F REM AL cfmllthe pames to thls actlon by placmg them 1n a sealed envelope(s) addressed as o ows: Attorney Party(ies) Served Method of Service KARAN K. GILL, ESQ. Attome s for Plaintiffs, First Class Mail LAW OFFICES OF KARAN K. JOGIN ER SINGH GILL . . and JASVIR KAUR 1990 North Cahforma B1Vd., 8th Floor Walnut Creek CA 94596 Tel: (5 10 626-0533 Fax: (51 281-0640 karan@kkglawoffices.com ¥BY MAIL Iplaped the sealed envelope(s) for collection and mailing by ollowug t. e ondlnary busmpsstpraptgce of Gleason & Favarote, LLP, Long Beach, allforma. I am readlly anjnhar Wlth Gleason & Favarote, LLPfs practlcp for collectmg and prpcessm of cqrrequndence for malhng w1th the United States Postal Servme, sal practlce bem% that, m ghq ordinary cqursc of bqsmess, correspondent); Wlth postage fu ly'pljepald Is deposned Wllt? th_e Unlted States Postal Serv1ce the same day as 1t ls placed for co ectlon. D EBY OVERNIGHT COURIER]. I causgd the sealed envelope(s) to be ehvered b a commercial couner servxce for overnight dehvery to the offices of t e addressee(s). D BY HAND] Idirectqd thg sealed envelope(s) to the arty(ies) so . hQSI ngted on the serv1ce hst to be dehvered by Ace ttomey Servxce, Inc. t 1s a e. D [BY CM/ECF SYSTEMl Ipaused the above-referench document§séto be sent by electrqmc trapsmlssmn to the Clerk’s Office usm the C F S stem for filmg whgch ECF reglstrants mt 1s case. I deplare under penalty offerjurfiunder the .laws of the State of California that the above 13 true and correct, an thatt ls declaration w/as- execute M531 5, 2021 , at Long Beach, California. / (/x/Thomas Steinahrt enerated a Notice of Electronic fling to the 1 PROOF 0F SERVICE Case 5:21-cv~03363 Document 1-2 Filed 05/05/21 Page 1 of 2 JS-CAND 44 (Rev. 10/2020) CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS-CAND'44 civil cover sheet and the information containgd herein {neither replace nor supplement the filin and sqrvice ofplpadings or otheryapgrs as {equired by law, except as. pquded by local rules of court. Thus form, approved m Its ongma) form by the Judmal Conference o ,the United States 1n September 19 4, ls requlred for the Clerk of Court to xmtxate the CIVII docket sheet. (SEE IM€TRUCTI(JMS'0N NEXTPAGE OF THIS FORM.) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS JOGlNDER SINGH’ and JAS‘71R KAUR TRANSDEV SERVICES INC. (AKA TRANSDEV NORTH AMERICA, INCL); and DOES [-50, Inclusive ofRe jdcn jr L} p] m iff s .3 c; 4 Coun ofResidence ofFirst Listed Defendant m' '(b) fig}? pmv ifs p123§§1§;;-52~Asf§§d a t m m (1N 11.. .PLAINNF‘FL‘AQES ONLY) "m NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE- LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. (C) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address. and Telephone Number) Attorneys (#KWW") Karan K. Gill. Esq, Law Offices Of Karan K. Gill, 1990 Nonh Caiifomia Blvd, 8th Floor, Paul Gleason. “fig T0118» OMS“! & anfimic LLP, 4014 Long Bcflch.3M7 Sk*- 3.°0v Long Beach. CA 90807. Walnut Creek, CA 94596, Tel: (510) 6294533, Fax: (510) 28141640, karan@kkglawomces.com M (2‘3) 452-05"): Fax: (213) 45245 l4, vsleason@s|cawnfavarow-COM-Jtons@slensmfmr°‘mm II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an 'X" in One Bax Only} III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an ‘X” in One Box)?» I’Iamzifl (For Diversiol Cases Only) and ()ne Boxfor quendam} PTF DEF PTF DEF l U-S' G°V°mm°m P‘aimiff X 3 Peder“! Qms‘io“ Citizen ofThis State “l . "- l Incorporated or Principal Place 4 » "334 ((1.8. Government No! a I’arw , . ' "' ofBusmcss 1n Thls Sm: ‘ , Citi n TA! 1h. St: '72 1'-2 I tcdandPrin ‘ alPla e "5 .“5 "2 U.S. Government Defendant 4 [Ddiyersitzrh I h‘ P _ I I m ze 0 m CI a e 0:21:32“ In Anothet‘gme c (n Kate 'mzem 'pof ”mes m um "J Citizen or Subject ofa 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 '6 Foreign Counuy Iv NATURE 0F SUIT (Place an ”X” in One Box Only) l 10 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL lNJURY 625 Drug Relflcd Seizure 0f 422 Appeal 23 USC § 158 l " 1-375 Fa“: Claims Act 12° Marine 310 Aixptam 365 Personal Iujmy- Pmduct .__.690 gym!” 2‘ ”SC § 88‘ 423 w:?gmwal 28 USC 376 Qgiggm (31 USC 130 Mm“ A“ 315 Airplane Product Liability L‘ab'my er > § I __ t A § ' (8)) I 14o Negotiable Instrument 329 Assault, me, & Slander 367 Health Care/ : W fimopgxmmcm - 400 Statc Rcappomonmcm 150 RCCOVBT)’ 0f 330 Federal Employers’ Pharmaceutical Persona! ‘7)0 Fair Labor Standards Act 820 C ‘ghts 4w Ammmt . . . In‘ r Product Liabih . 0mm ' .Ovcrpaxment Of Llabmty J‘") 'B’ 720 LaborlMamgemem 830 Pam“ 2430 Banks and Bankmf, Veteran s Benefits 340 M . 368 Asbestos Personal Injury R l . V 450 commerce '15! Medicare Act am“ pmdua Liabjmy 1 e “mm 835 Patent-Abbrewated New I , 152 A {D f h d 345 Marine Product Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 74o Railway Labor Ac: Dmg Application 46° DePO'WlOn sfszgtrizamjgrdgdfl 350 Motor Vehicle m om‘ F d 751 Family and Medical 34o Trademark 47° Racketeer Infhféncfd & Veterans) 355 Mom, vehicle pmduc‘ fl _ ml _ Leave Act 880 Defend Trade Secrets CNN“ orgamfanom 1 53 Rmmy 0f Liabimy 371 TM“ m Lendmé' 790 cum Lake;Liam“ Ac: of2016 480 Cousunm Credu ' Overpayment 360 0m” pmsonal Injury 380 Other Parsons! Properly 79] Employee Retirement fisoemficvmfl 485 Telcpbqne Consumer Of Vflcmn.s Bencfi“ 362 persona! ,nimy _M°dical Damage Incomc Security Act I 86; HIAU395m ‘ Protection Act g ‘ Malpracfiée 385 Psopérity Damage Pmdum ’ - WGRATION u - _-;* 490 Cablfi/Sat TV 360 Stockholders Suns Liability " - -- v _ 862 Blad‘ L‘mg (923) 850 Securities/Comnlodities/ 1:: 31h: C(orxadct ”J b1. I I IICiVlL.RxGHn> v. Zl,:monmgrfinflQN$-_ __‘_,_ 462 iapgzflalzfgon E) 863 D]WC.pIWW (405(g)) Enhange . . V - I 2 .on a? o uc la rty 440 Other CivilRigms HABEAS CORPUS _ ‘ . . , 863 SS!D Tltle XV! 890 Other statutory Acuons 196 Franchise 441 Vows 463 A1. D V 465 ?hgrlmmlgtmm 365 R31 (405(9) 89] Agricultural Acts m. .._._ . ,. V. V _‘ 1 V ten etame-e cuons _ 1 I V I V I I _. 3 ---, REALH‘OPERW ‘1 X 442 Employment '5 [0 Motions to Vacate mmmta‘fixsum I 893 Enumnmemal Matte.“ ‘2]0 Land Condcnmau'on 443 Housing; Sentence 879 Taxes (us. plaintiff o, 395 :medOm Oflnfommmn '1220 Foreclosure Accommodations 530 Gama] Defendant) , “I . 23o Rem Lease & Ejemmem 445 Amer. w/Disabilin'cs- 535 Death penany ; s71 Ixsmmd Party 26 usc 2:: 2;“??? Pr dEm loymem ~ 7 mmstranvc ooe ure240 Tom m Land ~ -~ 446 Am; waxsabiuues-Other OTHER § 609 Act/Review or‘Appeal of 245 Ton Product Liability “8 Ed ~ - 549 Mandamus & gum Agcmy Dccgsion 29o An cum Rea: property “mm" 550 Civil Rights 950 Constitutionalizy ofSm: 555 Prison Condition Statutes 560 Civil Detainee- Conditions of Confinement V. ORIGIN (Mace an "X" m 0m Box Ont,» _ ".2 On‘ginal X 2 Removed fi‘om 3 Remanded from l 4 Reinstatcd or '5 Transfeu‘ed fmm 6 Multidistn‘ct i 8 Multidistfict Proceeding Stale Court Appeilale Court Reopened Another District (speafi) Litigation-Tmnsfer Litigation-Direct File VL CAUSE 0F Chg {hp U38 ,_ Cigfl _ S,_!§§gtc:_.gngiqwhich vou arc filing (Do not cite iumdictionalswam unim- diversiw); ' ' fdc ' lily); Remmmmrlié'Acoomm' mm” m: ' lurmm anal nagging;ygpgaggaarm .vn CHECK 1F THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND S ., V. .. .. . . -. ;. CHECK YES only ifdemanded in compkim: COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. JURY DEMAND: x Yes No VIII. RELATED CASE(S), ‘F ANY (See instmclions): IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2) (Place an “'X' in One Box Only) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND X SAN JOSE EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE JUDGE I DOCKET NUMBER DATE 05/05/2021 SIGNATURE 0F ATTORNEY 0F RECORD ls/ngTong .. H NNNNNNNNqu-Iwu-HHHH-np-a OOQOM-bWN-‘OKDOOQONMAU’NHO Case 5:21-cv-03363 Document 1-2 Filed 05/05/21 Page 2 of 2 PROOF 0F SERVICE I, Thomas Steinhart, declare: . . . . . I am_ and was at the tlme of the servme menponed m thls declaratlon, em loyed m the County of Los Angeles, Ca1_ifom1a. I am pver the age of 18 years an not agarty to the w1th1n act10_n. M busmcss address Is Gleason & Favarote, LLP, 401 Lon Beach Blvd., Sulte 3O , Lon Beach CA 90807. On May , 2021, I served a copégae‘s) o the folfowmg document(s): . . _ CIVIL ER SHEET