NoticeCal. Super. - 6th Dist.February 16, 202110 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES 21 CV3761 07 Santa Clara - Civil David L. Cheng, Bar No. 240926 dcheng@fordharrison.com Paul M. Suh, Bar N0. 321028 psuh@f0rdharrison.com FORD & HARRISON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 2 1 3 -237-2400 Facsimile: 213-237-2401 Attorneys for Defendant Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 4/19/2021 3:50 PM Reviewed By: R. Walker Case #21 CV3761 07 Envelope: 6270433 BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS US LLC (erroneously sued as BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS US, LLC) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA JAVIER DIAZ, individually and on behalf 0f all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, V. BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS US, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. WSACTIVELLP: 1 2 1 85525.1 CASE NO. 2 1CV376 1 07 DEFENDANT BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS US LLC’S NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF AND STATE COURT OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION Action Filed: 2/ 1 6/2021 Date of Removal: 4/19/2021 ICASE NO. 21 CV3761 07 DEFENDANT BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS US, LLC’S NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF AND STATE COURT OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD 8: HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES T0 THE CLERK 0F THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND TO PLAINTIFF JAVIER DIAZ AND HIS COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendant BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS US LLC (erroneously sued as BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS US, LLC), without waiving any of its rights, removed the above-captioned case from this Court by filing a Notice 0f Removal with the Clerk 0f the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), “the State Court shall proceed n0 further unless the case is remanded.” A copy of the Notice 0f Removal is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Dated: April 19, 2021 Respectfully submitted, FORD & HARRISON LLP By; /{ZZ David L. Cheng Paul M. Suh Attorneys for Defendant BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS US, LLC WSACTIVELLP:12185525.1 _ 2 _ /CASE NO. 21 CV3761 07 DEFENDANT BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS US, LLC'S NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF AND STATE COURT OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION EXHIBIT A 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD 8: HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES Case 5:21-cv-02804 Document 1 Filed 04/19/21 Page 1 of 13 David L. Cheng, Bar N0. 240926 dcheng@fordharrison.c0m Paul M. Suh, Bar N0. 321028 psuh@f0rdharrison.com FORD & HARRISON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-237-2400 Facsimile: 213-237-2401 Attorneys for Defendant BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS US LLC (erroneously sued as BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS US, LLC) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JAVIER DIAZ, individually and on behalf Case N0. of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, DEFENDANT BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS US LLC’S V. NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED NORTHERN DISTRICT 0F CALIFORNIA SOLUTIONS US, LLC; and DOES 1 PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, through 20, inclusive, AND 1446 (DIVERSITY JURISDICTION) Defendants. Action Filed: 2/ 1 6/2021 Date 0fRemoval: 4/19/2021 TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS US LLC (erroneously sued as BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS US, LLC) (“Defendant” or “BGIS”) files this notice of removal pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 and 1446. / / / / / / / / / DEFENDANT BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED WSACTIVELLP:12185519.1 SOLUTIONS US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 & 1446 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD 8: HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES Case 5:21-cv-02804 Document 1 Filed 04/19/21 Page 2 of 13 I. INTRODUCTION. 1. On February 16, 2021, Plaintiff Javier Diaz (“Plaintiff”) filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court 0f California, County of Santa Clara, titled “Javier Diaz v. BGIS Global Integrated Solutions US, LLC; and Does I through 20,” Case No. 21CV376107 (the “State Court Action”). (Declaration of Paul M. Suh (“Suh Decl.”) 1] 2.) 2. Pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), a true and correct copy 0f the entire file or record in the State Court Action, including all process and pleadings, and orders served upon Defendant or filed in this action, is attached to the Declaration 0f Paul M. Suh as Exhibit A. (Suh Decl. 11 3, EX. A.) 3. On April 14, 2021, Defendant filed its Answer t0 the State Court Action. (Suh Decl. 1] 4, Ex. B.) 4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), the foregoing exhibits constitute all process, pleadings and orders served on or received by Defendant and/or filed in the State Court Action. T0 Defendant’s knowledge, no further process, pleadings, 0r orders related to this case have been filed in the Superior Court 0f California, County 0f Santa Clara, or served by any party. (Suh Decl. 11 5.) II. NATURE OF THE SUIT. 5. The Complaint filed in the State Court Action alleges the following causes 0f action: (1) failure to pay minimum wages (Cal. Labor Code §§ 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, and 1197; IWC Wage Order §§ 3-4); (2) failure t0 pay overtime (Cal. Labor Code §§ 510, 511, 1194, and 1198; IWC Wage Order § 3); (3) failure t0 provide meal periods (Cal. Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512; IWC Wage Order § 11); (4) failure t0 permit rest breaks (Cal. Labor Code §§ 226.7; IWC Wage Order § 11); (5) failure t0 provide accurate itemized wage statements (Cal. Labor Code § 226); (6) failure to pay all wages due upon separation 0f employment (Cal. Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, and 227.3); (7) failure t0 reimburse necessary business expenses (Cal. Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802); (8) Violation of business & profession code §§ 17200-17208. (Suh Decl. 1] 3, Exh. A.) Plaintiff asserted the above claims both individually and as a putative class action. /// DEFENDANT BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED WSACTIVELLP:12185519.1 - 2 - SOLUTIONS US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 & 1446 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD 8: HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES Case 5:21-cv-02804 Document 1 Filed 04/19/21 Page 3 of 13 III. BASIS FOR REMOVAL. 6. A federal court has “original jurisdiction 0f all civil actions Where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value 0f $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 7. “[A]ny civil action brought in a State Court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 8. Therefore, a state court action may be removed if (1) the action is between citizens of different states, and (2) the matter in controversy exceeds the sum 0f $75,000, exclusive 0f interest and costs. Each of these requirements is met in this case.1 A. Complete Diversity 0f Citizenship. 9. Citizenship of Plaintiff. Plaintiff is a California resident. (Compl. at 11 5.) “The place Where a [person] lives is properly taken t0 be [their] domicile until facts adduced establish the contrary.” Dist. 0f Columbia v. Murphy, 314 U.S. 441, 455 (1941). In the instant case, no facts have been adduced to rebut the presumption that Plaintiff is domiciled in California. Therefore, Plaintiff is a citizen of the State 0f California for diversity purposes. 10. Citizenship of BGIS Global Integrated Solutions US LLC. The citizenship 0f a limited liability company for diversity jurisdiction purposes is the citizenship 0f its members. See Fadal Machining Ctrs., LLC v. Mid-Atlantic CNC, Ina, 464 Fed. Apr. 672, 673 (9th Cir. 2012) (“For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability corporation is a citizen of all states Where its members are citizens.”); Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that “like a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every state 0f Which its owners/members are citizens.”). Defendant was organized under the laws 0f the State 0f Washington and its principal place 0f business is in the State 0f Washington. Defendant’s sole member is BGIS Global Integrated Solutions US Holdings LLC, which is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware With its principal place 0f business in 1 Defendant also asserts that removal may also be accomplished under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), as the matter involves a minimum of 100 class members, that Plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than Defendant, and that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Defendant reserves its right to amend its Notice of Removal. DEFENDANT BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED WSACTIVELLP:12185519.1 - 3 - SOLUTIONS US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 & 1446 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD 8: HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES Case 5:21-cv-02804 Document 1 Filed 04/19/21 Page 4 of 13 the State of Delaware. BGIS Global Integrated Solutions US Holdings LLC’s sole member is BIFM US Buyer, Inc., which is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State 0f Delaware With its principal place of business in the State of New York. Accordingly, for diversity purposes, Defendant is a citizen 0f Delaware and New York. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). 11. The supposed defendants named as “DOES 1 through 20” are sued under fictitious names whose alleged citizenship is t0 be disregarded. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1). 12. Because Plaintiff is a citizen of California, and Defendant is a citizen 0f Delaware and New York, complete diversity exists. B. Amount in Controversy Exceeds $75,000. 13. The Complaint does not allege a damages amount as to each claim. A notice 0f removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Evidence establishing the amount is required only when the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s allegation. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Ca, LLC v. Owens, S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014); see also Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. C0., 102 F.3d 398, 403-04 (9th Cir. 1996). As noted in Dart Cherokee: “‘[D]efendants do not need t0 prove to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy requirement has been met. Rather, defendants may simply allege or assert that the jurisdictional threshold has been met. Discovery may be taken With regard to that question. In case 0f a dispute, the district court must make findings of jurisdictional fact to Which the preponderance standard applies.”’ Id. (quoting House Judiciary Committee Report 0n the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 201 1, H.R. Rep. No. 112-10, p. 16 (2011)).2 Here, the Court can reasonably ascertain from Plaintiff’s complaint and his prayer for relief that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The assertions of Defendant herein are limited t0 its preliminary understanding of Plaintiff’s claims and data currently available to Defendant. “In measuring the amount in controversy, a court must assume that the allegations of the complaint are true and that a jury Will return a verdict for the 2 The Supreme Court went on to say that “[o]f course, a dispute about a defendant’s jurisdictional allegations cannot arise until after the defendant files a notice of removal containing those allegations.” Dart Cherokee, 135 S. Ct. at 554. DEFENDANT BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED WSACTIVELLP:12185519.1 - 4 - SOLUTIONS US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 & 1446 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD 8: HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES Case 5:21-cv-02804 Document 1 Filed 04/19/21 Page 5 of 13 plaintiff on all claims made in the complaint.” Kenneth Rothschild Trust v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 199 F. Supp. 2d 993, 1001 (C.D. Cal. 2002). “When a ‘[d]efendant’s calculations (are) relatively conservative, made in good faith, and based 0n evidence Whenever possible,’ the court may find that the ‘[d]efendant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy is met.”’ Cagle v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Ina, 2014 WL 651923, *7 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2014) (quoting Behrazfar v. Unisys Corp, 687 F. Supp. 2d 1199, 1204-05 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (citations omitted)). Nor does Defendant need to provide summary judgment-type evidence. Id. at *21. 14. While Defendant denies any liability to Plaintiff whatsoever3, Defendant asserts, based 0n the allegations in the Complaint and Plaintiff‘s prayer for relief, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 15. Wage and Hour Claims. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt engineer. At the time of his termination, he earned an hourly rate 0f $56.00. His first assignment began 0n August 12, 2019 and ended March 15, 2020 (approximately 31 workweeks). His second assignment began 0n July 6, 2020 and ended December 18, 2020 (approximately 24 workweeks). During his assignments, he worked a weekly schedule 0f four days a week, With each daily shift being 10 hours. During his employment, Plaintiff worked approximately 203 shifts. Therefore, Plaintiff was entitled to at least one meal period and two rest periods for each 0f these 203 shifts. See Cal. Lab. Code section 512; 8 Cal. Code. Regs. § 11040, subd. 11, 12. 16. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay him minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked due to “on-call time [being] paid at less than minimum wage...” (Complaint at 1] 29.) During his employment, Plaintiff was scheduled to be 0n ‘stand-by’ 0r ‘on-call’ every third week, for the entire week. This would mean his alleged ‘on-call’ “shifts” were twenty-four (24) hours 0n the three days he was not scheduled t0 work that week, or fourteen (14) hours on the four days he was scheduled t0 work a ten hour shift that week. Plaintiff received these alleged ‘on-call’ “shifts” during his second assignment from July 6, 2020 t0 December 18, 2020 3 Defendant in n0 way concedes that Plaintiff is owed any damages at all. DEFENDANT BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED WSACTIVELLP:12185519.1 - 5 - SOLUTIONS US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 & 1446 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD 8: HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES Case 5:21-cv-02804 Document 1 Filed 04/19/21 Page 6 of 13 (approximately seven weeks), and was paid a total 0f $752 for his ‘on-call’ “shift” assignments. While Defendant takes the position that such ‘on call’ “shifts” were not considered hours worked, assuming arguendo the truth of Plaintiffs allegations - that Plaintiff’s on-call time was in fact compensable, but that it was paid at less than minimum wage or not paid overtime - Plaintiffs claim for his “on-call” time would be estimated at $91,760 (([40 hours x 1.5 rate x $56.00/hr] + [88 hours x 2.0 rate X $56.00/hr]] x 7 weeks» - ($752.00 total payments made for Plaintiff’s on- call shifts).4 17. Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff...[was] entitled to receive all required meal [and rest] periods or payment of one (1) additional hour 0f pay at Plaintiff‘s regular rate of pay When [he] did not receive a timely, uninterrupted meal [and rest] period. In Violation of the Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, Plaintiff did not receive all meal [and rest] periods or payment of (1) additional hour of pay...” (Compl. At 1H] 31 & 32.) Moreover, Plaintiff submitted t0 the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency, and which Plaintiff incorporates and refers to his Complaint and intends “to amend the complaint t0 include a cause of action pursuant t0 Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq, after the minimum required review period elapses,” and, thus, is incorporated by reference herein. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s March 18, 2021 letter submission to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency is attached as Exhibit D to the Declaration of Paul M. Suh. The letter describes Plaintiff as seeking to bring a representative action 0n behalf 0f himself and other aggrieved employees. (Suh Decl. 11 8, EX D.) As it relates to his meal and rest period allegations, the letter also states, in relevant part, that “BGIS required aggrieved employees to remain on-duty and on call by phone during unpaid meal breaks,” and that, during rest periods, “employees were required to keep working and remain available by phone for work at all times.” (Suh Decl. 11 8, Ex D at p. 2.). California Labor Code section 226.7 and the applicable IWC Wage Orders provides 4 Given Plaintiffwas expected to be “on-call,” 24-hours per day, for an entire week, and given his typical work schedule being 10 hours per day and 4 days per week, Plaintiff appears t0 be claiming that he is owed, for every week he was “on-call,” an additional 40 hours of overtime (32 hours 0f daily or weekly overtime, and 8 hours of seventh-day overtime) and 88 hours of doubletime (72 hours in daily doubletime, and 16 hours 0f seventh-day doubletime). DEFENDANT BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED WSACTIVELLP:12185519.1 - 6 - SOLUTIONS US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 & 1446 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD 8: HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES Case 5:21-cv-02804 Document 1 Filed 04/19/21 Page 7 of 13 one additional hour of compensation at an employee’s regular rate for each workday that a meal period was not provided. Assuming arguendo that Plaintiff’s allegation was that he did not receive any duty-free meal breaks, for Plaintiff’s meal break claim, there is a potential estimate 0f at least $11,368.00 in damages (203 workdays with entitled meal breaks x 1 meal break penalty per day X $56/hr). 18. California Labor Code section 226.7 and the applicable IWC Wage Orders also provides an employee one additional hour of compensation at an employee’s regular rate for each workday that a rest period was not provided. Assuming arguendo that Plaintiff s allegation that he was not provided any duty-free rest breaks, for Plaintiff’s rest break claim, there is a potential estimate 0f at least $11,368.00 in damages (203 workdays with entitled rest breaks x 1 rest break penalty per day x $56/hr). 19. Further, California Labor Code section 226(c)(1) provides for a penalty of up to $4,000 within the one-year statute of limitations. Defendant issued pay statements t0 Plaintiff on a weekly basis, and accordingly, he received approximately 55 pay statements during his employment with BGIS. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s wage statement penalty claim is estimated to be capped at the maximum 0f $4,000.00. See Chabner v. United 0f Omaha Life Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 1042, 1046 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that in determining the jurisdictional amount in controversy has been satisfied, courts may consider the maximum statutory penalty available). 20. Plaintiff also states that Defendants “engaged in a systemic pattern 0f wage and hour violations. . .all 0f which contribute to Defendants’ deliberate unfair compensation” and “increased their profits” for such Violations by “[f]ailing t0 pay overtime wages at the proper rates.” This also includes his allegation that he and others were under an alternative workweek schedule, and that “Defendant either failed t0 implement a proper alternative workweek or failed t0 properly pay overtime under a valid Alternative Workweek Schedule and thus owe Plaintiff and Class Members unpaid overtime. (Compl. 1] 30.) As noted above, Plaintiff worked a 4 day-IO hour schedule. Assuming the truth of Plaintiff” s allegations that he was not properly paid overtime for working this schedule, it is reasonable to assume Plaintiff was not paid two hours of overtime premiums per shift. See Mackall v. HealthSource Global Staffing, Ina, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS DEFENDANT BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED WSACTIVELLP:12185519.1 - 7 - SOLUTIONS US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 & 1446 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD 8: HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES Case 5:21-cv-02804 Document 1 Filed 04/19/21 Page 8 of 13 119292 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2016). Therefore, Plaintiffs potential claims for such work is at least $11,368.00 (203 workdays x 2 hour 0f unpaid overtime x 0.5 overtime premium rate X $56.00/hr). 21. Plaintiff also claims, based 0n the non-payment 0f meal and rest break penalties and other wages, that he is entitled to waiting time penalties pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 203, which provides that former employees may recover up t0 30 days’ wages if an employer willfully fails to pay all wages owing at the time of termination. Plaintiff’s claim for waiting time penalties is estimated t0 be at least $18,480.00 ([8 hours a day x $56.00/hr X 30 days] + [2 hours a day x 1.5 rate x $56.00/hr] x 30 days). 22. In total, the amount in controversy, is estimated t0 be at least $148,344.00, exclusive attorneys ’fees and interest. 23. Attorneys’ Fees. Plaintiff also seeks to recover attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Labor Code sections 226, 226(6), 1194, 2802 and Code 0f Civil Procedure § 1021.5. (Compl. at Prayer for Relief.) It is well-settled that When authorized by statute, attorneys’ fees are to be included in the calculation 0f the amount in controversy for purposes 0f determining Whether the requisite jurisdictional minimum is met. Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[W]here an underlying statute authorizes an award of attorneys’ fees, either with mandatory or discretionary language, such fees may be included in the amount in controversy”); Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Ina, 243 F.Supp.2d 1004, 1010-11 (ND. Cal. 2002) (in deciding amount in controversy issue, a court may estimate the amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees likely to be recovered by plaintiff if he were to prevail). While Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees cannot be precisely calculated from the face of the Complaint, it is reasonable to assume that the amount of attorneys’ fees Plaintiff could incur in the course of this matter may exceed a damages award. Simmons v. PCR Technology, 209 F.Supp.2d 1029, 1035 (C.D. Cal. 2002); See Fang v. Regis Corp, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 275, *23 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2014) (“Courts in this circuit have held that, for purposes of calculating the amount in controversy in a wage-and-hour class action, removing defendants can reasonably assume that plaintiffs are entitled t0 attorney fees valued at approximately twenty-five percent of the projected damages.”); Salcido v. Evolution Fresh, Ina, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1375, *23 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2016) (fees DEFENDANT BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED WSACTIVELLP:12185519.1 - 8 - SOLUTIONS US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 & 1446 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD 8: HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES Case 5:21-cv-02804 Document 1 Filed 04/19/21 Page 9 of 13 added to amount in controversy and remand motion denied; “[t]he Court finds, consistent With its previous rulings on the issue, that a 25 percent multiplier [t0 calculate fees] is appropriate”). 24. Recent estimates for the number 0f hours expended through trial for single- plaintiff employment cases have ranged from 100 to 300 hours. Sasso v. Noble Utah Long Beach, LLC, N0. CV 14-09154-AB (AJWX), 2015 WL 898468, *12 (C.D. Cal. March 3, 2015) (citations omitted). 25. Plaintiffs counsel has previously filed other wage and hour actions and charges, at the minimum, $475 per hour, and at the maximum, $685 per hour. (Suh Decl. at 11 6, Ex. C - Declaration of Jessica L. Campbell at 11 37.) For instance, in another wage and hour action, Mr. Kashif Haque and Ms. Jessica L. Campbell charged $685 and $475 per hour, respectively. (Julio Cesar Zazueta Perez v. Hal Hays Construction, Ina, et al. - United Stated District Court - Central District of California Case No. 5:16-cv-001461 AG (DTBX) There, Plaintiff’s counsel charged rates as high as $685 per hour. In less than three years (approximately 34 months), Plaintiffs counsel worked more than 495 hours and incurred up to $240,788.00 in attorneys’ fees. Taking the estimated of 100 t0 300 hours as seen in Sasso, it is reasonable to assume that Mr. Haque and Ms. Campbell will expend at least 100 hours prosecuting Plaintiffs individual claims. Accordingly, the total amount 0f fees (at an hourly, blended rate 0f $580) is approximately $58,000.00. See also Pellegrino v. Robert HalfInternat., Inc., 182 Cal. App. 4th 278, 282 & 293 (2010) (Individual wage and hour action Where after discounting the fact that class actions often apply a lodestar multiplier in the range of 2.0 to 4.0 in granting attorneys’ fees for similar causes of action, the appellate court “could not conclude the trial court abused its discretion in selecting a 1.75 multiplier” in granting “plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees, and an amended judgment was entered, awarding, inter alia, plaintiffs’ counsel $978,121.98 in attorney fees” ) (Emphasis added); Heyen v. Safeway Ina, 2014 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3696 (May 23, 2014) (affirming lower court decision to award $603,150 in attorney fees following failed putative class action that resulted in individual judgment in plaintiff’s favor for $26,000). Therefore, taking Plaintiff’s claims for attorneys’ fees in combination With Plaintiff’s potential wage damages will exceed the $75,000 threshold. See Fritsch v. Swift Transp. C0. 0fAriz., LLC, 899 F.3d 785, 794 DEFENDANT BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED WSACTIVELLP:12185519.1 - 9 - SOLUTIONS US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 & 1446 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD 8: HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES Case 5:21-cv-02804 Document 1 Filed 04/19/21 Page 10 of 13 (9th Cir. August 8, 2018) (stating that a court must include future attorneys’ fees recoverable by statute 0r contract when assessing whether the amount-in-controversy requirement is met). 26. Other Relief. Plaintiff seeks open-ended relief for other special damages, compensatory damages, and/or economic damages according to proof at trial. (Compl. at Prayer for Relief, 11 4, 6.) Although uncertain in amount, this additional damages claim only serves to increase the amount in controversy. See Lewis v. Exxon Mobil C0rp., 348 F.Supp.2d 932, 932- 934 (W.D. Tenn. 2004) (the “open ended” relief sought by plaintiff, Who prayed for “judgment to be determined by a jury, for all incidental, consequential, compensatory and punitive damages” established that her case met the amount in controversy requirement even though he pled in the complaint that he did not assert a claim in excess 0f $75,000.) The Court must take into account punitive damages for purposes 0f determining the amount in controversy where such damages are recoverable under state law. Davenport v. Mutual Benefit Health and Accident Ass’n, 325 F.2d 785, 787 (9th Cir. 1963); Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Ina, 243 F.Supp.2d 1004, 1009 (ND. Cal. 2002). 27. Defendant denies that Plaintiff‘s claims have any merit. Defendant also denies that Plaintiff suffered any damages. However, When the relief sought is taken as a whole, the amount in controversy for Plaintiff’s claims exceeds the $75,000 jurisdiction requirement, exclusive of interest and costs. Using the aforementioned methodology, the amount in controversy claimed by Plaintiff is, at minimum, $206,344. This aggregate potential liability is broken down as follows: AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY Wage and Hour Damages $148,344.00 Attorney’s Fees $58,000.00 TOTAL $206,344.00 / / / / / / DEFENDANT BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED WSACTIVELLP:12185519.1 - 10 - SOLUTIONS US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 & 1446 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD 8: HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES Case 5:21-cv-02804 Document 1 Filed 04/19/21 Page 11 of 13 28. Thus, this Court has original jurisdiction over the claims asserted by Plaintiff in this action based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)(1) and 1441(a). IV. THE NOTICE OF REMOVAL IS PROCEDURALLY CORRECT 29. Pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), Defendant has attached to this notice and the declaration of Paul M. Suh, all pleadings, process, orders, and all other filings in the state court action. (Suh Decl. 1H] 3-5, Exs. A-B.) 30. This Notice 0f Removal is timely filed in accordance With 28 U.S.C. 1446(b), in that it is filed Within thirty (30) days after Defendants were provided With any pleading 0r other paper in this matter, and this case has been 0n file for less than one year. See Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Mitchetti Pipe Stringing, Ina, 526 U.S. 344, 354 (1999). The 30-day period for removal runs from the date of service of the summons and complaint, as governed by state law. See Id. Here, Defendant was served with the Complaint on March 19, 2021. (Suh Decl., 1] 2) This Notice of Removal is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) because it is filed within 30 days of the date when Defendant was served With a copy of the Complaint and corresponding summons, accounting for weekends, through its registered agent for service 0f process. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b); Fed. R. CiV. Proc. 6(a); Krug v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., N0. C 11-5190, 2011 WL 6182341, *1 (ND. Cal. Dec. 13, 201 1). Accordingly, the 30-day period for removal runs from April 19, 2021. 3 1. Defendant Will promptly file and serve a notice of removal to the Clerk 0f Superior Court 0f California, County 0f Santa Clara. (See Suh Decl. 11 7.) 32. As required by 28 U.S.C. §1446(d), Defendant will give notice of this removal to Plaintiff. (Suh Decl. 1] 7.) VI. VENUE 33. This action was brought and is pending before the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County. 34. Santa Clara County, California is located within the Northern District 0f California. /// DEFENDANT BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED WSACTIVELLP:12185519.1 - 11 - SOLUTIONS US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 & 1446 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD 8: HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES Case 5:21-cv-02804 Document 1 Filed 04/19/21 Page 12 of 13 35. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(2) because this is the “district and division embracing the place where [Plaintiff’s] action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. §1441(a), & 1446(a). VII. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, Defendant removes this civil action from the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. By removing the action to this Court, Defendant does not waive any defenses, obj ections, or motions available to them under state or federal law. Dated: April 19, 2021 Respectfully submitted, FORD & HARRISON LLP By: /s/Paul M. Suh David L. Cheng Paul M. Suh Attorneys for Defendant BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS US LLC (erroneously sued as BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS US, LLC) DEFENDANT BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED WSACTIVELLP:12185519.1 - 12 - SOLUTIONS US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 & 1446 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD 8: HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES Case 5:21-cv-02804 Document 1 Filed 04/19/21 Page 13 of 13 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Mary Garner, declare: I am a citizen 0f the United States and employed in Los Angeles County, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business address is 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300, Los Angeles, California 90071. On April 19, 2021, I served a copy of the Within document(s): DEFENDANT BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, AND 1446 (DIVERSITY JURISDICTION) D ELECTRONICALLY: I caused a true and correct copy thereof to be electronically filed using the Court's Electronic Court Filing ("ECF") System and service was completed by electronic means by transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing on the registered participants of the ECF System. I served those parties who are not registered participants 0f the ECF System as indicated below. E by e-mail or electronic transmission. Based 0n an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent on the date shown below to the e-mail addresses of the persons listed below. My e-mail address is mgarner@f0rdharrison.com. I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. Kashif Hague Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) Samuel A. Wong Jessica L. Campbell Aegis Law Firm PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: 949-379-6250 Facsimile: 949-379-6251 E-mail: khaque@aegislawfirm.com swong@aegislawfirm.com jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com dgraves@aegislawfirm.com I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the above is true and correct. Executed on April 19, 2021, at Los Angeles, California. Mary Garner DEFENDANT BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED WSACTIVELLP:12185519.1 SOLUTIONS US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 & 1446 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD 8: HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES PROOF OF SERVICE I, Mary Garner, declare: I am a citizen 0f the United States and employed in Los Angeles County, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business address is 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300, Los Angeles, California 90071. On April 19, 2021, I served a copy of the Within document(s): DEFENDANT BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS US, LLC’S NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF AND STATE COURT OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION D by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope With postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California addressed as set forth below. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice 0f collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day With postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course 0f business. I am aware that 0n motion 0f the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date 0r postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. D by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed FedEx Overnight envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a FedEx agent for delivery. by e-mail or electronic transmission. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail 0r electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent on the date shown below t0 the e-mail addresses 0f the persons listed below. My e-mail address is mgarner@f0rdharrison.com. I did not receive Within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. Kashif Hague Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) Samuel A. Wong Jessica L. Campbell Aegis Law Firm PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 926 1 8 Telephone: 949-379-6250 Facsimile: 949-379-6251 E-mail: khaque@aegislawfirm.c0m swong@aegislawfirm.com jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com dgraves@aegislawfirm.com I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed 0n April 19, 2021, at Los Angeles, California. Mary Garner WSACTIVELLP:12 1 85525.1 /CASE NO. 21 CV3761 07 DEFENDANT BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS US, LLC'S NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF AND STATE COURT OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION