defendants signature flight support corporation and bba aviation usa

Cal. Super. - 1st Dist.August 26, 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES David L. Cheng, Bar No. 240926 dcheng@fordharrison.com Alexandria M. Witte, Bar No. 273494 awitte@fordharrison.com FORD & HARRISON, LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 237-2400 Facsimile: (213) 237-2401 Attorneys for Defendants, SIGNATURE FLIGHT SUPPORT CORPORATION and BBA AVIATION USA, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO MIKKI BODDIE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SIGNATURE FLIGHT SUPPORT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; BBA AVIATION USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. CASE NO. CGC-19-575150 DEFENDANTS SIGNATURE FLIGHT SUPPORT CORPORATION AND BBA AVIATION USA, INC.'S NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL OF THIS ACTION TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Complaint Filed: April 10, 2019 Trial Date: None Set DEFENDANTS' NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL OF THIS ACTION TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ELECTRONICALLY F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 06/25/2019 Clerk of the Court BY: JUDITH NUNEZ Deputy Clerk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the above-referenced action has been removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Removal filed in the case of Mikki Boddie v. Signature Flight Support Corporation, a Delaware corporation; BBA Aviation USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, with confirmation of electronic filing. Respectfully submitted, Date: June 25, 2019 FORD & HARRISON LLP By: eng Alexandria M. Witte Attorneys for Defendants, SIGNATURE FLIGHT SUPPORT CORPORATION and BBA AVIATION USA, INC. 2 DEFENDANTS' NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL OF THIS ACTION TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WSACTIVELLP:10610992.1 EXHIBIT 1 Case 4:19-cv-03044-DMR Document 1 -Filed 06/03/19 Page 1 of 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES David L. Cheng, Bar No. 240926 dcheng@fordharrison.com AlexancUria M. Witte, Bar No. 273494 awitte@fordharrison.com FORD & HARRISON, LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 237-2400 Facsimile: (213) 237-2401 Attorneys for Defendants SIGNATURE FLIGHT SUPPORT CORPORATION AND BBA AVIATION USA, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MIKKI BODDIE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SIGNATURE FLIGHT SUPPORT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; BBA AVIATION USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. CASE NO. DEFENDANTS SIGNATURE FLIGHT SUPPORT CORPORATION AND BBA AVIATION USA, INC.'S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1367(a), 1441(a), 144 1(b), 1446 AND 14 53 Action Filed: April 10 2019 Date of Removal: June 3, 2019 WSACT[VELLP:10532803.1 1 DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case 4:19-cv-03044-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/03/19 Page 2 of 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES TABLE OF CONTENTS Page, I. PLEADINGS AND PROCESS, AND ORDERS 1 II. TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL AND CONSENT FROM NON- REMOVING DEFENDANT 2 III. VENUE 3 IV. INTRA-DISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 3 V. JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO THE CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT 3 A. Citizenship of Parties 4 B. The Amount in Controversy Exceeds $5 Million and Plaintiff's Class is More than 100 Class Members 5 VI. NOTICE OF REMOVAL 15 WSACTIVELLP:10532803.1 DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case 4:19-cv-03044-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/03/19 Page 3 of 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Federal Cases Altamirano v. Shaw Indus., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84236 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 14, 2013) 12 Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc., 243 F.Supp.2d 1004 (N.D. Cal. 2002) 12 Cagle v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. F.R.D., 2014 WL 651923 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2014) 8 Chabner v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 1042, 1046 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000) 11 Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S., 135 S. Ct. 547 (20-14) 6 Fong v. Regis Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 275 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2014) 12 Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1998) 11 Garcia v. Wal-Mart Stores, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142807 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2016) 13 Garnett v. ADT LLC, 74 F. Supp. 3d 1332 (E.D. Cal. 2015) 12 Gutierrez v. Stericycle, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20975 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017) 13 Herrera v. Carmax Auto Superstores Cal., LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188729 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 12, 2014) 13 Hughes v. Fosdick, 106 F. Supp. 3d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2015) 13 Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015) 6 Johnson v. Columbia Prop. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2006) 5 Johnson v. Sunrise Senior Living Mgmt., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29631 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2016) 13 Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) 4, 5 Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1983) 4 WS ACTIVELLP:I0532803.1 ii DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case 4:19-cv-03044-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/03/19 Page 4 of 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES Kenneth Rothschild Trust v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 199 F. Supp. 2d 993 (C.D. CaL 2002) 7 Krug v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. C 11-5190, 2D11 WL 6182341 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2011) 3 Kuba v. I-A Ag,ric. Ass'n, 387 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2004) 15 Lew v. Moss 797 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1986) 4 Lopez v. Aerotek, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63615 (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2015) 13 Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 171 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 1999) 7 Mejia v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., No. CV 15-890-GHK JCx, 2015 WL 2452755 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 05) 8 Rodriguez v. CleanSource, Inc., 20_4 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106901, *13-14 12 Salcido v. Evolution Fresh, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1375 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2016) 13 Simmons v. PCR Technology , 209 F.Supp.2d 1029 (C.D. Cal. 2002) 12 Stafford v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. 22014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42564 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2014) 14 Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 93g (9th Cir. 2003) 12 Federal Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 84 3 28 U.S.C. § 1332 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 15 28 U.S.C. § 1367 14 28 U.S.C. § 1391 3 28 U.S.C. § 1441 3, 4, 5 28 U.S.C. § 1446 3 28 U.S.C. § 1453 1, 4 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1367 1, 12 Section 1446 4 WSACTIVELLP:10532803.1 111 DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case 4:19-cv-03044-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/03/19 Page 5 of 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES State Statutes Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. 14 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 415.30 3 1021.5 11 382 4 Cal. Lab. Code 203 11 § 2698, et seq. 2 226 11 12 § 1194, 2699, 2802 10, 11 Other Cal. Civ. L.R. 3-2 3 Cal. Code Regs. § 11190, subd. 11 10 Cal. Code Regs. § 11190, subd. 12 10 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6 3 WSACTIVELLP:10532803.1 iv DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case 4:19-cv-03044-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/03/19 Page 6 of 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, TO PLAINTIFF, AND HER COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants Signature Flight Support Corporation and BBA Aviation USA, Inc. ("Defendants") hereby remove the above-entitled action from the Superior Court of the State of California, City and County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d) (Diversity under Class Action Fairness Act), 1367(a) (Supplemental Jurisdiction), 1441(a), 1441(b), 1446 and 1453, based on the following facts: I. PLEADINGS AND PROCESS, AND ORDERS 1. On August 3, 2017, Plaintiff Mikki Boddie ("Plaintiff'), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint against Defendants entitled "Mikkie Boddie v. Signature Flight Support Corporation, et al.," in the Superior Court of California, for the City and County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-19-575150 (hereinafter, the "Complaint"). A true and correct copy of the original Complaint and Summons is attached to the Declaration of David L. Cheng ("Cheng Decl.") as Exhibit A. The allegations in the Complaint are incorporated for reference in this notice of removal but are not admitted. 2. Plaintiff, and the members of the putative class she seeks to represent, is a person residing in the United States and/or in California with respect to whom Signature Flight Support Corporation employed as non-exempt or hourly employees in the State of California at any time from four years immediately preceding the filing of the lawsuit to the present. (See, e.g., Compl., ¶ 4, Ex. A to Cheng Decl.) The Complaint alleges seven causes of action which Plaintiff pursues on a class action basis: (1) failure to provide required meal periods; (2) failure to provide required rest periods; (3) failure to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to pay minimum wages (5) failure to pay all wages due to discharged or quitting WSACTIVELLP:10532803.1 1 DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case 4:19-cv-03044-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/03/19 Page 7 of 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES employees; (6) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; (7) failure to maintain required records; (8) failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of duties; and (9) Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices. Plaintiff also asserts a Tenth cause of action pursuant to the California Private Attorney's General Act, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 2698, et seq. (See generally Ex. A, supra.) 3. A true and correct copy of the Notice to Plaintiff of Case Management Conference, which was issued by the state court on April 10, 2019, is attached to the Cheng Decl. as Exhibit B. 4. A true and correct copy of the Order Denying Complex Designation for Failure to File Application Requesting Designation, which was issued by the state court on May 14, 2019, attached to the Cheng Decl. as Exhibit C. 5. A true and correct copy of the Proof of Service regarding defendant Signature Flight Support Corporation, which was filed by Plaintiff on May 17, 2019, attached to the Cheng Decl. as Exhibit D. 6. A true and correct copy of the Proof of Service regarding defendant BBA Aviation USA, Inc., which was filed by Plaintiff on May 17, 2019, attached to the Cheng Decl. as Exhibit E. 7. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), the foregoing exhibits constitute all process, pleadings and orders served on, received by Defendants or filed in this action. To Defendants' knowledge, no further process, pleadings, or orders related to this case have been filed in Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco or served by any party. II. TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL AND CONSENT FROM NON- REMOVING DEFENDANT 8. Defendants were served with and received the summons and Complaint by way of Notice of Acknowledgment of Receipt, which was timely returned by mail to Plaintiff on May 6, 2019, and which Plaintiff filed with the Court on May 17, 2019. This notice of removal is timely filed as it is filed within WSACTIVELLP:10532803.1 2 DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case 4:19-cv-03044-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/03/19 Page 8 of 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES thirty (30) days of the date when service of the summons and original complaint on Defendants became effective, accounting for weekends. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6(a); Krug v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA., No. C 11-5190, 2011 WL 6182341, *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2011); see also Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.30(c) (governing service of process through notice of acknowledgment procedures under California law). III. VENUE 9. San Francisco, California is located within the Northern District of California. Thus, venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 84(a) because this is the "district and division embracing the place where [Plaintiff's] action is pending." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1391. IV. INTRA-DISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 10. Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3-2(d), because this action arises in the City and County of San Francisco, it should be assigned to a judge sitting within the San Francisco or Oakland divisions of the Northern District of California. V. JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO THE CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS A 11. This Court has original jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). CAFA provides the federal district courts with original jurisdiction over civil class action lawsuits filed under federal or state law in which any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a state different from any defendant, and where the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). Here, removal is proper under CAFA because, as set forth below, the case is filed as a civil class action, the amount in controversy allegedly exceeds $5 million exclusive of interest and costs, and at least one member (if not all) of the class, of plaintiffs is a citizen of a state different from Defendants. 12. The exceptions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(3)-(5) are not WSACTIVELLP:I0532803.1 3 DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case 4:19-cv-03044-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/03/19 Page 9 of 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES applicable here. 13. This action was initially brought pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 382 on behalf of a putative class of persons who worked as non- exempt or hourly employees for the Defendants in the State of California at any time from four years immediately preceding the filing of the lawsuit to the present. (Compl., in 4-5, Ex. A to Cheng Decl.) Plaintiff also claims the putative class is so numerous that the individual joinder of all members is impracticable. (Compl., at ¶ 13(a).) A. Citizenship of Parties 14. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b), "A class action may be removed to a district court of the United States in accordance with section 1446 (except that the 1-year limitation under section 1446(c)(1) shall not apply), without regard to whether any defendant is a citizen of the State in which the action is brought, except that such action may be removed by any defendant without the consent of all defendants." CAFA's diversity requirement is satisfied when any member of a class of citizens is a citizen of a State different from any defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). 15. For diversity purposes, a person is a "citizen" of the state in which he or she is domiciled. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1983). A person's domicile is the place he or she resides with the intention to remain, or to which he or she intends to return. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). 16. Allegations of residency in a state court complaint can create a rebuttable presumption of domicile supporting diversity of citizenship. Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1986). 17. Here, Plaintiff alleges that "is a female resident of the State of California ...." (Compl., ¶ 3, Ex. A to Cheng Decl. Plaintiff also is a citizen of the United States. Accordingly, Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and the State WSACTIVELLP:10532803.1 4 DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case 4:19-cv-03044-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/03/19 Page 10 of 21 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES of California. Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857. 18. Plaintiff alleges that the proposed class consists of all non-exempt or hourly employees who are or who have been employed by Defendants in the state of California at any time during the four years prior to the commencement of this suit and continuing while this Action is pending. (Compl., 1111 4-5, Ex. A to Cheng Decl.) 19. "[A] corporation is a citizen only of (1) the state where its principal place of business is located, and (2) the state in which it is incorporated." Johnson v. Columbia Prop. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). 20. Signature Flight Support Corporation is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware with its headquarters and principal place of business located in the State of Florida. Accordingly, Signature Flight Support Corporation is considered a citizen of the States of Delaware and Florida. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). 21. BBA Aviation USA, Inc. is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware with its headquarters and principal place of business located in the State of Florida. Accordingly, BBA Aviation USA, Inc. is considered a citizen of the States of Delaware and Florida. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). 22. The presence of Doe defendants in this case has no bearing on diversity with respect to removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) ("[f]or purposes of removal under this chapter, the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded"). 23. Here, diversity of citizenship is met because Plaintiff is a citizen of California while Defendants are citizens of Delaware and Florida. Accordingly, the minimal diversity requirement is fully satisfied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A). B. The Amount in Controversy Exceeds $5 Million and Plaintiff's Class is More than 100 Class Members 24. CAFA requires the "matter in controversy" to exceed "the sum or WSACTIVELLP:I0532803.1 5 DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case 4:19-cv-03044-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/03/19 Page 11 of 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). "The claims of the individual class members shall be aggregated to determine whether the matter in controversy exceeds" this amount. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6). Further, CAFA may only be invoked if the proposed class contains at least 100 members. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). 25. "In deteiuiining the amount in controversy, courts first look to the complaint. Generally, 'the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith.'" Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938)). "Whether damages are unstated in a complaint, or, in the defendant's view are understated, the defendant seeking removal bears the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million when federal jurisdiction is challenged." (Id.) 26. Plaintiff has not alleged a specific amount in controversy in his Complaint. A "defendants' notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold." Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. , 135 S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014). If the plaintiff or the court contests a defendant's allegations, however, le]vidence establishing the amount is required." (Id.) As noted in Dart Cherokee: "`[D]efendants do not need to 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 of a dispute, the district court must make findings of jurisdictional fact to which the preponderance standard applies.'" Id. (quoting House Judiciary Committee Report on the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011, H.R. Rep. No. 112-10, p. 16 (2011). Here, Defendant can plausibly allege, based on Plaintiff's Complaint and his prayer for relief, that the amount in controversy for Plaintiff's class-wide claims exceeds $5 million. The WSACTIVELLP:I0532803.1 6 DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case 4:19-cv-03044-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/03/19 Page 12 of 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES assertions of Defendant herein is limited to its preliminary understanding of Plaintiff's claims and data currently available to Defendant. 27. Here, Plaintiff proposes a class consisting of all non-exempt or hourly employees who are or who have been employed by Defendants in the state of California at any time during the four years prior to the commencement of this suit and continuing while this Action is pending. (Compl., en 4-5, Ex. A to Cheng Decl.) During the Relevant Time Period, between April 10, 2015 to the present, based on personnel and payroll records, Signature Flight Support Corporation, whom employs Plaintiff, employed at least 945 persons at some point as non- exempt, hourly employees (the "Proposed Class"). At any given time, the non- exempt, hourly workforce in California typically worked a schedule of approximately eight (8) hours a day, five (5) days a week. The workforce in California is also issued pay statements on a biweekly basis. The average hourly rate of pay for the Proposed Class was $15.75 an hour. As of the date of the removal, the number of workweeks worked by the Proposed Class was at least 60,998 workweeks. 28. While Defendant denies Plaintiff's claims of wrongdoing and denies her request for relief thereon, the facial allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint and other papers received by Plaintiff, and the total amount of penalties and attorneys' fees at issue in this action, when viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, is in excess of the jurisdictional minimum. Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 171 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1999). "In measuring the amount in controversy, a court must assume that the allegations of the complaint are true and that a jury will return a verdict for the plaintiff on all claims made in the complaint." Kenneth Rothschild Trust v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 199 F. Supp. 2d 993, 1001 (C.D. Cal. 2002). "When a Idiefendant's calculations (are) relatively conservative, made in good faith, and based on evidence whenever possible,' the court may find that the `[defendant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy is WS ACTIVELLP:I0532803.1 7 DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case 4:19-cv-03044-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/03/19 Page 13 of 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES met."' Cagle v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., F.R.D. , 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. Cagle, 2014 WL 651923, *7. 29. However, where a plaintiff alleges that a defendant has "'adopted and maintained uniform policies, practices and procedures' that caused the purported violations of California's [break laws] ... [i]t is not unreasonable to assume that when a company has unlawful policies and they are uniformly 'adopted and maintained,' then the company may potentially violate the law in each and every situation where those policies are applied." Mejia v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., No. CV 15-890-GHK JCx, 2015 WL 2452755, *4 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2015). In that instance, "a 100% violation rate is not an unreasonable assumption to use in estimating the amount in controversy in light of the allegations in the complaint." Id. 30. Plaintiff alleged, in part: (1) failure to provide required meal periods; (2) failure to provide required rest periods; (3) failure to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to pay minimum wages (5) failure to pay all wages due to discharged or quitting employees; (6) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; (7) failure to maintain required records; (8) failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of duties; and (9) Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices. (See generally Compl., Ex. A to Cheng Decl.) She seeks restitution, interest, penalties, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. 31. More specifically, in her Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims for herself and the putative class that "during the CLASS PERIOD, as part of DEFENDANTS' illegal payroll policies and practices to deprive their non-exempt employees all wages earned and due, DEFENDANTS required, permitted or otherwise suffered PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS to take less than the 30- minute meal period, or to work through them, and have failed to otherwise provide WSACTIVELLP:10532803.1 8 DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case 4:19-cv-03044-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/03/19 Page 14 of 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES the required meal periods to PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS." (Compl., at ¶ 15, Ex. A to Cheng Decl.) Plaintiff also alleges at Paragraph 59 of her Complaint that she submitted a letter to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency on January 31, 2019, which is therefore incorporated by reference into her Complaint. (See Complaint, ¶ 59.) A true and correct copy of Plaintiff's January 31, 2019 letter submission to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency is attached as Exhibit F to the Declaration of David L. Cheng. The letter describes Plaintiff as seeking to bring a putative class wage and hour class action on behalf of herself and the same Proposed Class, as alleged in her Complaint. (See Ex. F to Cheng Decl. at 2.) As it relates to her meal period allegations, the letter also states, in relevant part, that "[Defendants] failed to provide their employees timely and uninterrupted thirty-minute meal breaks" and that "[Defendants] consistently failed to provide Ms. Boddie and [proposed class members] meal breaks ....." (Ex. F to Cheng Decl. at 3.) 32. Plaintiff also asserts claims for herself and the putative class that "as part of DEFENDANTS' illegal payroll policies and practices to deprive their non- exempt employees all wages earned and due, DEFENDANTS failed to provide rest periods to PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS as required ....." (Compl., at ¶ 20, Ex. A to Cheng Decl.) Plaintiff also alleges at Paragraph 59 of her Complaint that she submitted a letter to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency on January 31, 2019, which is therefore incorporated by reference into her Complaint. (See Complaint, ¶ 59.) The letter describes Plaintiff as seeking to bring a putative class wage and hour class action on behalf of herself and the same Proposed Class, as alleged in her Complaint. (See Ex. F to Cheng Decl. at 2.) As it relates to her rest period allegations, the letter also states, in relevant part, that "[Defendants] consistently failed to authorize and permit Ms. Boddie and other similarly-situated individuals to take rest breaks ....." (Ex. F to Cheng Decl. at 3.) /// WSACTIVELLP:I0532803.1 9 DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case 4:19-cv-03044-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/03/19 Page 15 of 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 33. Consequently, as a matter of policy and practice, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants uniformly and systematically do not provide Plaintiff and putative class members with lawful meal or rest periods. 34. In her Complaint, Plaintiff also alleges inaccurate wage statement, and final pay claims on a putative classwide basis that are derivative of their meal and rest break claims, described above. (Compl., at TT 16, 21, 32, 36, 42-43, Ex. A to Cheng Decl.) 35. Assuming arguendo that Plaintiff's allegation that employees were not provided any rest breaks (Compl., at ¶1120, 59, Ex. A to Cheng Decl.; see also Ex. F to Cheng Decl. at 2-3), for Plaintiff's rest break claim, there is a potential estimate of at least $4,802,822.45 in damages (60,998 workweeks x 1 rest break penalty per day x 5 days/week x $15.75/hr).1 36. Assuming arguendo that Plaintiff's allegation that employees were not provided any meal breaks (Compl., at ¶¶ 15, 59, Ex. A to Cheng Decl.; see also Ex. F to Cheng Decl. at 2-3), for Plaintiff's meal break claim, there is a potential estimate of at least $4,802,822.45 in damages (60,998 workweeks x 1 meal break penalty per day x 5 days/week x $15.75/hr).2 37. Further, California Labor Code section 226(e)(1) provides for a penalty of up to $4,000 within the one-year statute of limitations, given that Defendants issued pay statements to Plaintiff and members of the putative class on a weekly basis. Based on available pay records for those members of the proposed class whom worked within the relevant one-year statute of limitations period, Plaintiff's wage statement claim is estimated to be at least $878,450.00. See 1 It is reasonable to assume each shift during the week entitled the employee to a rest break because the average shift length was approximately 8 hours. See also 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 11190, subd. 12(A) [entitling employee at least one rest break if employee worked a period of at least 3.5 hours].) 2 It is reasonable to assume each shift during the week entitled the employee to a meal break because the average shift length was approximately 8 hours. See also 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 11190, subd. 11(A) [entitling employee at least one meal break if employee worked a period over 5 hours].) WSACTIVELLP:10532803.1 10 DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case 4:19-cv-03044-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/03/19 Page 16 of 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES Chabner v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 1042, 1046 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that in deteiiiiining the jurisdictional amount in controversy has been satisfied, courts may consider the maximum statutory penalty available). 38. Plaintiff also claims, based on the non-payment of meal and rest break penalties, that the putative class is entitled to waiting time penalties pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 203, which provides that former employees may recover up to 30 days' wages if an employer willfully fails to pay all wages owing at the time of termination. (Compl., at TT 16, 21, 32, 36, Ex. A to Cheng Decl.) During the period of April 10, 2016 to the present, and up until the time of removal, there will be at least 416 individuals worked at some point as a non-exempt, hourly employee of Signature Flight Support Corporation in California who ended their employment. The average rate of pay for these employees was approximately $16.30 per hour. Plaintiff's claim for waiting time penalties is estimated to be at least $1,627,392.00 (416 employees x 8 hours a day x $16.30/hr x 30 days). 39. In total the amount in controversy, is estimated to be at least $12,111,486.89, exclusive of attorneys' fees and interest,3 well over the $5 million threshold. 40. Plaintiff also seeks an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for the putative class. (See Compl. at Prayer for Relief, Ex. A to Cheng Decl. [citing "California Labor Code §§ 1194, 2699, 2802, California Civil Code § 1021.5, and any other applicable provisions providing for attorneys' fees and costs"]; see also Compl., at ¶ 38, 45 [citing Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 226(e), 2699].) It is well- settled that when authorized by statute, attorneys' fees are to be included in the calculation of the amount of Plaintiff's claims for purposes of determining whether the requisite jurisdictional minimum is met. Galt G/S v. .ISS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 1998) ("[W]here an underlying statute authorizes an award of 3 Defendants note that this calculation meets the minimum threshold under CAFA even without a calculation of Plaintiff's other causes of action for unpaid wages for off-the-clock work, overtime, and unreimbursed business expenses, or Plaintiff's requests for attorneys' fees. WSACTIVELLP:10532803.1 11 DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case 4:19-cv-03044-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/03/19 Page 17 of 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES attorneys' fees, either with mandatory or discretionary language, such fees may be included in the amount in controversy"); Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc., 243 F.Supp.2d 1004, 1010-11 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (in deciding amount in controversy issue, court may estimate the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees likely to be recovered by plaintiff if she were to prevail). While Plaintiff's attorneys' fees cannot be precisely calculated, it is reasonable to assume that they could exceed a damages award. Simmons v. PCR Technology, 209 F.Supp.2d 1029, 1035 (C.D. Cal. 2002). Additionally, courts in this circuit have held that it is not uncommon for an attorneys' fees award to be 25% of the recovery. See, e.g., Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 968 (9th Cir. 2003). 41. Particularly in the context of a CAFA removal, courts add 25% of the projected recovery as the amount of fees in controversy. See Fong 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 to attorney fees valued at approximately twenty-five percent of the projected damages."); Altamirano v. Shaw Indus., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84236, *35 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 14, 2013) (denying motion to remand because "the amount in controversy on the five causes of actions totals $4,354,326.48, [and] adding attorneys fees yields a total amount in controversy of $5,442,908.10"); Garnett v. ADT LLC, 74 F. Supp. 3d 1332, 1337-38 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (motion to remand denied because "[a]ssuming that plaintiff correctly estimates the statutory damages available under section 226(e) as $4,064,800, an attorney award of $935,200--or approximately 23 percent of estimated recovery--would suffice to push this case over CAFA's $5 million requirement"); Rodriguez v. CleanSource, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106901, *13.44 (denying motion to remand because "25% of $4,274,189.42, $1,068,547.36, which, when added to the previous figure, produces a total amount in controversy of $5,342,736.78. This exceeds the jurisdictional WSACTIVELLP:10532803.1 12 DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case 4:19-cv-03044-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/03/19 Page 18 of 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES threshold for CAFA."); Herrera v. Carmax Auto Superstores Cal., LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188729, *12-13 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 12, 2014) (denying motion to remand because "Defendant has established that the amount in controversy in Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees claim is 25 percent of the amount in controversy in the above claims"); Gutierrez v. Stericycle, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20975, *51-52 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017) (amount in controversy exceeds $5 million for purposes of CAFA because "it is appropriate to include in the calculation of the amount in controversy a potential fee award of 25% of the value of certain of the substantive claims"); Garcia v. Wal-Mart Stores, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142807, *18 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2016) (motion to remand denied because "Defendant can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the overtime penalties are at least $4 million dollars [and] the addition of twenty-five percent in attorneys' fees would necessarily meet the $5 million amount in controversy requirement under CAFA."); Salcido v. Evolution Fresh, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1375, *23 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2016) (fees 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 [to calculate fees] is appropriate"); Johnson v. Sunrise Senior Living Mgmt., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29631, *17 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2016) ("If Defendant can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the waiting time penalties are at least $4 million dollars, the addition of twenty-five percent in attorneys' fees would necessarily meet the $5 million amount in controversy requirement under CAFA."); Lopez v. Aerotek, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63615, *8-9 (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2015) (approving of calculation of "amount in controversy before attorneys' fees [to be] $4,887,718.00, resulting in a 25 percent attorneys' fee of $1,221,929.50, and reaching a total amount in controversy of $6,109,647.50"); Hughes v. Fosdick, 106 F. Supp. 3d 1078, 1083 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ("the Court concludes that defendants' estimate of an additional 25 percent of the mileage reimbursement value is reasonable" to add as the value of the attorneys' WSACTIVELLP:10532803.1 13 DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case 4:19-cv-03044-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/03/19 Page 19 of 21 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD ez HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES fees demand for purposes of calculating the amount in controversy for a CAFA removal); Stafford v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42564, *24 (RD. Cal. Mar. 27, 2014) ("the amount in controversy includes attorneys' fees, and a common estimate for the attorneys' fees award is 25 percent of the recoverable damages"). 42. Considering the sum of the potential damages from above, estimated to be at least $12,111,486.89, it is reasonable to assume arguendo that the potential attorneys' fees would be $3,027,871.72 ($12,111,486.89 x 25%). 43. Defendants do not concede Plaintiff's claims have any merit, however, when the relief sought on behalf of the putative class is taken as a whole, the amount in controversy for Plaintiff's class claims more likely than not exceeds the $5 million jurisdiction requirement, exclusive of interest and costs ($12,111,486.89 + $3,027,871.72 = $15,139,358.61). 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(d)(2) and 1441(a). See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6) ("In any class action, the claims of the individual class members shall be aggregated to determine whether the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs.") Accordingly, the potential amount in controversy is in excess of the $5 million threshold for CAFA jurisdiction. 44. All other claims for relief under various California statutory laws, including, but not limited to, Plaintiff's Ninth Cause of Action for Unfair Competition in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. and Tenth Cause of Action for violation of PAGA are within the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), because they are so related to the Plaintiff's claims (i.e. Plaintiff's First through Eighth Causes of Action) that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. These other state law claims are derivative of their other claims since they "derive WSACTIVELLP:10532803.1 14 DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case 4:19-cv-03044-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/03/19 Page 20 of 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES from a common nucleus of operative fact and are such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them in one judicial proceeding." Kuba v. 1-A Agric. Ass'n, 387 F.3d 850, 855 (9th Cir. 2004). Jurisdiction is thus appropriate for all of Plaintiff's claims that are transactionally related to Plaintiff's First through Eighth Causes of Action. 45. Finally, CAFA's numerosity requirement of the proposed class having at least 100 class members is satisfied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5)(B). VI. NOTICE OF REMOVAL 46. A copy of this notice of removal will be filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of California, City and County of San Francisco. 47. By removing the action to this Court, Defendants do not waive any defenses, objections, or motions available to it under state or federal law. Defendants expressly reserve the right to require that the claims of Plaintiff and/or all members of the putative class be decided on an individual basis. 48. WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that the Court remove this civil action from the Superior Court of the State of California, City and County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Date: June 3, 2019 Respectfully submitted, FORD & HARRISON LLP WSACTIVELLP:10532803.1 By: /s/ David L. Cheng David L. Cheng Alexandria M. Witte Attorneys for Defendants SIGNATURE FLIGHT SUPPORT CORPORATION AND BBA AVIATION USA, INC. 15 DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case 4:19-cv-03044-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/03/19 Page 21 of 21 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES PROOF OF SERVICE I, Anne Moreno, declare: I am a citizen of 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 June 3, 2019, I served a copy of the following document(s) on the interested parties as follows: DEFENDANTS SIGNATURE FLIGHT SUPPORT CORPORATION AND BBA AVIATION USA, INC.'S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1367(a), 1441(a), 1441(b), 1446 AND 1453 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 o a Notice of Electronic Filing on the registered participants of the ECF System. I served those parties who are not registered participants of the ECF System as indicated below 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 of 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 of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff MIKKI mmatern@maternlawgroup.com BODDIE Mikael H. Stahl; Esq. mstahle@maternlawgroup.com Matern Law Group, PC 1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 200 Manhattan Beach CA 90266 Telephone: (310 531-1900 Facsimile: (310 531-1901 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the State Bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the above is true and correct. Executed on June 3, 2019, at Los Angeles, California. WSACTIVELLP:10532803.1 Anne Moreno 16 DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF REMOVAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Lillian Marquez, declare: I am a citizen of 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 June 25, 2019, I served a copy of the within document(s): DEFENDANTS SIGNATURE FLIGHT SUPPORT CORPORATION AND SBA AVIATION USA, INC.'S NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL OF THIS ACTION TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA D BY U.S. MAIL: 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 above. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of 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 of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Matthew J. Matern Attorneys for Plaintiff, Mikael H. Stahle MIKKI BODDIE Matern Law Group, PC 1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Tel.: (310) 531-1900 Fax: (310) 531-1901 Email(s): mmatern@matemlawgroup.com mstahle@maternlawgroup.com I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on June 25, 2019, at Los Angeles, California. Lillian Marquez FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES DEFENDANTS' NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL OF THIS ACTION TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA