defendant greyhound lines inc notice to plaintiff of removal of civi

Cal. Super. - 1st Dist.November 19, 2020

L ITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 5 2 0 0 N o r t h P a l m A v e n u e S u i t e 3 0 2 F r e s n o , C A 9 3 7 0 4 . 2 2 2 5 5 5 9 . 2 4 4 . 7 5 0 0 Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc.’s Notice to Plaintiff of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court 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 RYAN L. EDDINGS, Bar No. 256519 JULIA G. REMER, Bar No. 330559 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 5200 North Palm Avenue, Suite 302 Fresno, California 93704.2225 Telephone: 559.244.7500 Facsimile.: 559.244.7525 reddings@littler.com jremer@littler.com Attorneys for Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION MARY DOMINGUEZ, an individual, Plaintiff, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. CGC-20-585376 DEFENDANT GREYHOUND LINES, INC.’S NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO JUDGE Trial: TBD Complaint Filed: July 10, 2020 TO PLAINTIFF AND TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 31, 2020, Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC. (“Defendant”), filed a Notice of Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A true and correct copy of Defendant’s Notice of Removal is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Dated: August 31, 2020 RYAN L. EDDINGS JULIA G. REMER LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC. 4846-6143-8663.1 070992.1090 ELECTRONICALLY F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 08/31/2020 Clerk of the Court BY: BOWMAN LIU Deputy Clerk Exhibit A L ITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 5 2 0 0 N o r t h P a l m A v e n u e S u i t e 3 0 2 F r e s n o , C A 9 3 7 0 4 . 2 2 2 5 5 5 9 . 2 4 4 . 7 5 0 0 Notice of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court 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 RYAN L. EDDINGS, Bar No. 256519 reddings@littler.com JULIA G. REMER, Bar No. 330559 jremer@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 5200 North Palm Avenue, Suite 302 Fresno, California 93704.2225 Telephone: 559.244.7500 Facsimile: 559.244.7525 Attorneys for Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARY DOMINGUEZ, an individual, Plaintiff, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT Action filed in State Court: July 10, 2020 San Francisco County Superior Court Case No: CGC-20-585376 TO THE CLERK OF COURT, TO THE PARTIES, AND TO THE PARTIES’ COUNSEL OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC. (“Greyhound” or “Defendant”), by and through the undersigned counsel, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446, hereby gives notice of removal of this lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Notice of Removal”). In support of its Notice of Removal, Defendant respectfully submits to this Honorable Court the following information: STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION (DIVERSITY) 1. Removal jurisdiction exists because this Court has original jurisdiction over the unverified Complaint of Plaintiff MARY DOMINGUEZ (“Plaintiff”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and which may be removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, as it is a civil action in which neither Plaintiff nor any Defendant are citizens of the same state and in which the amount in Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 1 of 34 L ITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 5 2 0 0 N o r t h P a l m A v e n u e S u i t e 3 0 2 F r e s n o , C A 9 3 7 0 4 . 2 2 2 5 5 5 9 . 2 4 4 . 7 5 0 0 2. Notice of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court 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 controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs (Diversity Jurisdiction). Here, Plaintiff was a citizen of California at the time the Complaint was filed in San Francisco County Superior Court and is not currently a citizen of Delaware or Ohio. At the time Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed, and also as of the time of this Removal, Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio. As set forth herein, this case meets all of the requirements for removal, is timely, and is properly removed by the filing of this Notice of Removal. STATE COURT ACTION 2. On or about July 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed this action in San Francisco County Superior Court. See Complaint, available at Exhibit A hereto. This action was served on Defendant on July 31, 2020. See concurrently-filed Declaration of Ryan L. Eddings (“Eddings Decl.”), ¶ 2. 3. Plaintiff’s Complaint purports to assert six causes of action for: (1) failure to pay wages in violation of California Labor Code sections 204 and 210; (2) waiting time penalties pursuant to California Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203; (3) violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200; (4) violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; (5) violation of Labor Code § 98.6; and (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. 4. Defendant filed a General Denial and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint on August 21, 2020. See Exhibit B attached hereto. As of the time of filing this document, Defendant had not yet received a file-stamped copy of its Answer from the Court. 5. The remaining submissions in this action on file with the San Francisco County Superior Court are attached hereto as Exhibit C. TIMELINESS OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL 6. An action may be removed from state court by filing a notice of removal, together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served on the defendant, within 30 days of Defendant receiving an “initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Here, Plaintiff served her Complaint on July 31, 2020. See Eddings Decl., at ¶ 2. Therefore, Defendant can remove this action up to and including Monday August 31, 2020. See FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a) (explaining that “the last day of the period shall be included, Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 2 of 34 L ITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 5 2 0 0 N o r t h P a l m A v e n u e S u i t e 3 0 2 F r e s n o , C A 9 3 7 0 4 . 2 2 2 5 5 5 9 . 2 4 4 . 7 5 0 0 3. Notice of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court 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 but if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.”). VENUE 7. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1441, venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California insofar as Defendant conducts business within San Francisco County, California, which is where Plaintiff was allegedly employed, where the instant action was originally filed, and which is within this Court’s jurisdiction. NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF 8. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), Defendant provided written notice of the filing of this Notice of Removal to Plaintiff. See Defendant’s Notice to Plaintiff of Removal to Federal Court, attached hereto as Exhibit D.1 NOTICE TO THE SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 9. Defendant also filed this Notice of Removal with the Clerk of the San Francisco County Superior Court. See Defendant’s Notice to State Court of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court, attached hereto as Exhibit E.2 FACTS AND LAW SUPPORTING DIVERSITY JURISDICTION 10. This action is a civil action of which this Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and is one which may be removed to this Court by Defendant pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Specifically, this is a civil action between citizens of different states and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, because Plaintiff in effect claims that she is entitled to an award in excess of $75,000 as result of Defendant’s alleged conduct. A. Citizenship of Parties 11. Defendant is informed and believes that Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the State of California. See Complaint, Exhibit A, ¶ 1 (“At all times mentioned herein, and at the time 1 So as to avoid burdening this Court with duplicative filings, the attachments to Exhibit D have been omitted from this filing. 2 So as to avoid burdening this Court with duplicative filings, the attachments to Exhibit E have been omitted from this filing. Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 3 of 34 L ITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 5 2 0 0 N o r t h P a l m A v e n u e S u i t e 3 0 2 F r e s n o , C A 9 3 7 0 4 . 2 2 2 5 5 5 9 . 2 4 4 . 7 5 0 0 4. Notice of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court 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 each cause of action arose, Plaintiff MARY DOMINGUEZ was an individual and a resident of the State of California”). 12. For purposes of removal jurisdiction, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business…” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Defendant is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and Defendant maintains its principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio. See concurrently-filed Declaration of Thy K. Dang (“Dang Decl.”), at ¶ 2. Thus, Defendant is a citizen of Delaware and Ohio. Defendant is not a citizen of California. B. Amount in Controversy 13. In measuring the amount in controversy where it is not explicitly pleaded, this Court must assume that the allegations of the Complaint are true and that a jury will return a verdict in favor of Plaintiff on all claims asserted in the Complaint. Kenneth Rothschild Trust v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 199 F.Supp.2d 1001 (C.D. Cal. 2002). The ultimate inquiry is the amount that is put “in controversy” by Plaintiff’s Complaint, and not how much, if anything, Defendant will actually owe. Rippee v. Boston Market Corp., 408 F.Supp.2d 982, 986 (S.D. Cal. 2005); see also Schere v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., 347 F.3d 394, 399 (2d Cir. 2003) (recognizing that the ultimate or provable amount of damages is not what is considered in the removal analysis; rather, it is the amount put in controversy by a plaintiff’s complaint). Economic damages, non- economic damages, general damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and punitive damages all are included in determining the amount in controversy. See Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1155- 1156 (9th Cir. 1998) (prayer for attorneys’ fees included in determining the amount in controversy where potentially recoverable by statute); Gonzales v. CarMax Auto Superstores, LLC, 840 F.3d 644, 648 (9th Cir. 2016) (stating that compensatory and punitive damages are included in determining the amount in controversy). 14. Where, as here, a plaintiff's state court complaint is silent as to the total amount of damages claimed, a removing defendant need only establish that it is more probable than not that plaintiff’s claim exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 95 F.3d Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 4 of 34 L ITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 5 2 0 0 N o r t h P a l m A v e n u e S u i t e 3 0 2 F r e s n o , C A 9 3 7 0 4 . 2 2 2 5 5 5 9 . 2 4 4 . 7 5 0 0 5. Notice of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court 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 28 856, 860-861 (9th Cir. 1996), amended by, rehrng en banc denied by, 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). 15. To that end, should Plaintiff prevail on her claims for violations of the California Labor Code and wrongful termination in violation of public policy, she would be entitled to recover the amount she would have earned up to the present date, including benefits or pay increases. See Wise v. Southern Pac. Co., 1 Cal.3d 600, 607 (1970). While Defendant disputes that Plaintiff is entitled to recover any damages, for the sake of argument, Defendant analyzes the damages pleaded in the Complaint. Here, Plaintiff alleges that she was employed by Defendant through her termination on or about July 12, 2018. Complaint, ¶ 7. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant employed her as a CSA Ticket Agent. Complaint, ¶ 8. Plaintiff’s last rate of pay was $15 per hour. Dang Decl., ¶ 3. Plaintiff worked approximately 29.3 hours per week as a CSA Ticket Agent for Defendant. Dang Decl., ¶ 3. Plaintiff seeks lost income from the date of her termination on July 12, 2018, through to the present and into the future. See, e.g., Exhibit A, the Complaint, ¶¶ 30, 39 (“Plaintiff has lost, and will continue to lose, earnings and fringe benefits and has suffered and/or will suffer other actual, consequential, and incidental financial losses, in an amount to be proven at trial in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this court.”) As of the date of this Notice of Removal, it has been approximately 111 weeks since Plaintiff was separated from employment with Defendant. Complaint, ¶ 10 (“Plaintiff worked for Defendant from on or about November 3, 2016 until . . . on or about July 12, 2018.”). Given Plaintiff’s rate of pay, Plaintiff alleges to have suffered at least $48,784.50 in damages in the form of lost income as of the date of this filing ($15 hourly wage x 29.3 hours x 111 weeks), with the damages continuing into the future through trial at the rate of approximately $439.50 per week ($15 hourly wage x 29.3 hours). Two years’ of claimed front pay would amount to $45,708 ($439.50 per week x 104 weeks). 16. Plaintiff further seeks to recover damages associated with her claim for failure to pay wages under California Labor Code sections 204 and 210. Complaint, ¶ 14-15. Although Plaintiff does not specify the amount of wages she allegedly is owed, she claims “Defendant did not pay Plaintiff for wages lost due to time-shaving. Consequently, Plaintiff was not paid for all hours he [sic] worked.” Complaint, ¶ 16. Therefore, Plaintiff alleges she “has suffered, and continue [sic] to Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 5 of 34 L ITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 5 2 0 0 N o r t h P a l m A v e n u e S u i t e 3 0 2 F r e s n o , C A 9 3 7 0 4 . 2 2 2 5 5 5 9 . 2 4 4 . 7 5 0 0 6. Notice of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court 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 suffer, losses related to the use and enjoyment of wages and lost interest on such wages all to his [sic] damage in amounts according to proof at trial.” Complaint, ¶ 17. Although Defendant denies each of Plaintiff’s allegations, this claim further augments the amount necessary to establish the jurisdictional amount required for removal. 17. Plaintiff also seeks recovery of waiting time penalties associated with her claim that Defendant “willfully failed to pay Plaintiff all the compensation he [sic] earned” in violation of California Labor Code sections 201, 202 and 203. California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 require employers to pay all compensation due and owing immediately at the time of discharge, layoff, or resignation made with at least 72 hours’ notice, or within 72 hours of resignation made without 72 hours’ notice.” Complaint, ¶ 19-22. In seeking penalties for retaliation under California Labor Code section 201 and 202, Plaintiff again claims that “Labor Code § 203 provides for a civil penalty against any employer who willfully violates Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 and in the amount up to 30 days of an employee’s wages [sic]”. Complaint, ¶ 22. For the purposes of removal, Defendant assumes that Plaintiff is entitled to recover waiting time penalties for 30 days at the same daily rate she earned while employed. Therefore, the aggregate amount of penalties in controversy would be approximately $2,637 ($15 per hour x 5.86 hours per day x 30 days). 18. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks recovery of civil penalties associated with her claim for retaliation under California Labor Code section 1102.5 and separate civil penalties associated with her claim for retaliation under California Labor Code section 98.6. Complaint, ¶¶ 34, 40. In seeking penalties for retaliation for reporting a legal violation under California Labor Code sections 1102.5, Plaintiff claims that “a substantial factor . . . in Defendant’s decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment was because she disclosed unlawful information to a government or law enforcement agency and/or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover and/or correct the violation and/or because he [sic] refused to participate in an activity that would result in the violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation.” Complaint, ¶ 29. As a result, Plaintiff claims that Defendant “is liable for a civil penalty of ten thousand dollars ($10,000).” Complaint, ¶ 34. In seeking penalties for retaliation under Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 6 of 34 L ITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 5 2 0 0 N o r t h P a l m A v e n u e S u i t e 3 0 2 F r e s n o , C A 9 3 7 0 4 . 2 2 2 5 5 5 9 . 2 4 4 . 7 5 0 0 7. Notice of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court 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 California Labor Code section 98.6, Plaintiff again claims that “Defendant is liable for a civil penalty of ten thousand dollars ($10,000).” Complaint, ¶ 40. 19. Plaintiff also seeks damages for the emotional distress. See Exhibit A, the Complaint, ¶ 31 (“Plaintiff has become mentally upset, distressed, embarrassed, humiliated, and aggravated. Plaintiff claims general damages for such mental and physical distress and aggravation in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this court.”) Plaintiff’s claim for severe emotional distress damages further augments the foregoing amounts and demonstrates that the jurisdictional prerequisite for removal of this action is met. See Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 171 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1999) (claims for pain, suffering and humiliation properly may be factored into the jurisdictional analysis for purposes of removal). Although Defendant disputes that Plaintiff is entitled to any such award, plaintiffs in employment cases have been awarded substantial sums for emotional distress. See, e.g., Swinton v. Potomac Corp., 270 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1018 (2002) (award of $30,000); Dotson v. United States, 87 F.3d 682 (5th Cir. 1996) (award of $25,000). In Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2005), cert denied, 127 S.Ct. 157 (2006), the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court’s finding that the amount in controversy had been established. In reaching its holding, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that the plaintiff’s “emotional distress damages would add at least an additional $25,000 to her claim” where he had only $55,000 in lost wages, thus satisfying the amount in controversy requirement “even without including a potential award of attorney’s fees.” Id. at 980. A similar result is compelled here, as Plaintiff expressly seeks damages for emotional distress and lost wages are at issue. Thus, based on Kroske and other analogous cases, the emotional distress component of Plaintiff’s claims is likely to add at least $25,000 to the amount in controversy, if not more. The foregoing, when taken together with Plaintiff’s claims for lost wages, punitive and statutory damages, and attorney’s fees, establishes that the plaintiff’s total damages more likely than not will exceed the jurisdictional amount of $75,000. 20. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks an award of attorneys’ fees in connection with her claims for violation of various provisions of the California Labor Code. See Complaint, Exhibit A, ¶¶ 18, 33, 41. While Defendant again disputes that Plaintiff is entitled to recover any damages in connection with this action, attorney’s fees are also included in the amount in controversy calculation Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 7 of 34 L ITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 5 2 0 0 N o r t h P a l m A v e n u e S u i t e 3 0 2 F r e s n o , C A 9 3 7 0 4 . 2 2 2 5 5 5 9 . 2 4 4 . 7 5 0 0 8. Notice of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court 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 when the underlying claims permit recovery of attorneys’ fees. Galt G/S, supra, 142 F.3d at 1156. While Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees cannot be calculated precisely, it is reasonable to assume that they could exceed a damages award. Simmons v. PCR Technology, 209 F.Supp.2d 1029, 1035 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (holding that where attorneys’ fees are “recoverable by statute,” fees reasonably anticipated over the life of the litigation are included in the amount in controversy analysis); Fritsch v. Swift Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC., 2018 WL 3748667, at *2 (9th Cir. 2018) (in deciding amount in controversy issue, court may estimate the amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees like to be recovered by plaintiff if he were to prevail). Moreover, past cases indicate that the award of attorneys’ fees alone could reach or exceed the jurisdictional amount of $75,000. See Mitchell v. GigOptix, LLC, H036131, at *30 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2011) (noting the trial court’s attorneys fee award of $45,017.15, representing one-fourth of the total fees, for just the claims of unpaid wages, unpaid vacation, and unpaid meal breaks). 21. The amount in controversy also includes punitive damages unless (1) punitive damages are not recoverable as a matter of state law, and (2) it is a legal certainty that plaintiff would not be entitled to recover the jurisdictional amount. See Anthony, supra, 75 F.3d at 315; St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenberg (5th Cir. 1998) 134 F.3d 1250, 1253-1254. Here, Plaintiff alleges that she is entitled to punitive damages for Defendant’s willful and malicious misconduct, but does not provide a total amount of the alleged punitive damages sought. See Complaint, Exhibit A, ¶¶ 32, 45 (“Because the acts taken toward Plaintiff were carried out by Plaintiff’s supervisors, who was [sic] a managerial employee acting in a deliberate, cold, callous, cruel, and intentional manner, in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and in order to injure and damage her, Plaintiff requests that punitive damages be levied against Defendants and each of them, in sums in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this court”). With respect to punitive damages, California law does not provide any specific monetary limit on the amount of punitive damages which may be awarded under Civil Code section 3294, and the proper amount of punitive damages under California law is based on the reprehensibility of a defendant’s misdeeds, the ratio between compensatory and punitive damages, and ratio between damages and a defendant’s net worth. Boyle v. Lorimar Productions, Inc., 13 F.3d 1357 Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 8 of 34 L ITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 5 2 0 0 N o r t h P a l m A v e n u e S u i t e 3 0 2 F r e s n o , C A 9 3 7 0 4 . 2 2 2 5 5 5 9 . 2 4 4 . 7 5 0 0 9. Notice of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court 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 (9th Cir. 1994). Although Defendant vigorously denies Plaintiff’s allegations, if Plaintiff were to prevail on her claims, the punitive damages alone could exceed the jurisdictional minimum. 22. Thus, while Defendant’s position is that Plaintiff is not entitled to damages in any amount, the total amount in controversy appears to be at least $167,129.50 - well over $75,000 as of the date of this Notice of Removal. This sum is reflective of a potential amount in controversy of at least: (1) $48,784.50 in damages in the form of lost income as of the date of this filing, with damages continuing into the future through trial at approximately the rate of $439.50 per week; (2) an unspecified amount of unpaid wages; (3) $45,708 for two years’ of front pay; (4) $2,637 in waiting time penalties; (5) $25,000 in emotional distress damages; (6) $20,000 in applicable statutory damages as requested; and (7) $25,000 in attorney’s fees. Moreover, Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages adds to this amount. As a result, the total amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount of $75,000. 23. Consequently, the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) have been met in that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and because this is a civil action between citizens of different states. WHEREFORE, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, 1441, and 1446, Defendant removes this case from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States Court for the Northern District of California Dated: August 31, 2020 RYAN L. EDDINGS JULIA G. REMER LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC. 4843-2805-1399.1 070992.1090 Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 9 of 34 Exhibit A Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 10 of 34 t A': BROCK iS GONZALES, LLP fi7Cl CENTER DRIVE WEST. ST6, 610 LOS ANGELES, CA 9004S Tel; {310)294-9595 Fax: 961-.3673 TlMai'HY J. G(:)NZAi,ES. 8'fATE J3AR NO, 234 y23 D. AARON BROCK, STAl E BA]^ NO, 241919 5J. I 3 M 10 ?..Qm 4 CLERK OF TH£ COURT SV5 ANNA L, TQSa^,^Attomcys for Plaintiff Mar\- IRiniingue/. 5 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA8 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO9 10 Case No,;MARY DOMINGUEZ, an individual. Plaintiff, 11 COMPLAINT FOR;12 (J< 13 14 €rO cdO 15 vs. I. FAILURE TO PAY WAGES; 2. WAITING TIME PENALTIES:GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-.5C, inclusive. 3. VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200;16 Defendants.17 4. VIO LATION OF LA BOR CODE § 1102.5;18 5. VIOLATION OF LABOR, CODE § 98.6; and 19 20 I6. W.RONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY. 21 22 23 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 24 25 26 27 28 1 COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 11 of 34 Plaintiff MARY DOMINGUEZ hereby brings this employment complaint, demanding a trial by jury, against the above-named Defendants and state and allege as follows: THE PARTIES 1 2 3 1. At all times mentioned herein, and at the time each of Plaintiff s causes of action arose. Plaintiff MARY DOMINGUEZ was an individual and a resident of the State of California. 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, and at the time each of Plaintiff s causes of action arose. Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC. was a Delaware Corporation doing business in the County of San Francisco, State of California, at 200 Folsom Street, San Francisco, California 94105. 3. Plaintiff is imaware of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and for that reason sue said Defendants by such fictitious names. Each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE is negligently, intentionally, or otherwise legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to and caused injuries and damages proximately thereby to the Plaintiff, as herein alleged. Plaintiff will file and serve one or more amendments to this complaint upon learning the true names and capacities of said Defendants. 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some maimer for, and proximately caused, the injuries and damages to Plaintiff hereinafter alleged. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 -32 12 j 14 crO 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon allege, that each of the Defendants named herein acted as the employee, agent, servant, partner, alter-ego and/or joint venturer of one or more of the other Defendants named herein. In doing the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, each of said Defendants acted within the course and scope of his or her relationship with any other Defendant; and gave and received full consent, permission and ratification to the acts and/or omissions alleged herein. Hereinafter in this Complaint, unless otherwise noted, reference to a Defendant shall mean all Defendants, and each of them. 5.20 21 22 23 24 25 26 6. 27 ///28 2 COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 12 of 34 1 ALLEGATIONS 7. Plaintiff worked for Defendant from on or about November 3, 2016 until Defendant wrongfully terminated Plaintiffs employment on or around July 12, 2018. 8. Plaintiff worked for Defendant in the position of CSA-Ticket Agent. At all times, Plaintiff was a good employee. 9. In or around 2018, Plaintiff began complaining to Defendant that her supervisor was violating various Labor laws, including City of San Francisco’s Employee Rights Ordinances, such as predictive scheduling, fair work week and equal treatment, as well as illegally time- shaving employee ’ s work hours. 10. Asa result of Plaintiff “running [her] mouth... about some labor law violations,” Plaintiffs supervisor began retaliating against Plaintiff by, among other things, cutting Plaintiffs hours and unfairly pimishing Plaintiff for conduct other similarly situated employees were not punished for engaging in. 11. On or about June 28, 2018, Plaintiff complained about her supervisor’s illegal retaliation to Defendant via Defendant’s Ethics Hotline. 12. A few days later, on or about July 9, 2018, Defendant suspended Plaintiff, after Plaintiffs supervisor reported to Defendant that Plaintiff had made a threat about her to another employee. Shortly thereafter. Defendant terminated Plaintiffs employment for making a threat. 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant’s termination reason is false and/or pretext. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant terminated Plaintiffs employment in retaliation for Plaintiffs complaints of Labor Law violations and/or of her supervisor’s illegal retaliation. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 QdO coe) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 FAILURE TO PAY WAGES24 In Violation of California Labor Code §§ 204 & 210 (Against ALL Defendants) 14. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by this reference as if fully set forth herein paragraphs 1 through 13 of this Complaint. 25 26 27 28 3 COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 13 of 34 15. California Labor Code § 204 provides in part that “all wages... earned by any person in any employment are due and payable twice during each calendar month, on days designated in advance by the employer as the regular paydays. 16. Defendant did not pay Plaintiff for wages lost due time-shaving. Consequently, Plaintiff was not paid for all hours he worked. 17. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct in violation of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff has suffered, and continue to suffer, losses related to the use and enjoyment of wages and lost interest on such wages all to his damage in amounts according to proof at trial. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18. Asa result of the acts of Defendant, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of said suit as specifically provided in California Labor Code § 218.5. 10 11 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION12 j WAITING TIME PENALTIES(J< 13 Oz; 14 crO CQO 15 In Violation of California Labor Code §§ 201, 202 & 203 (Against ALL Defendants) 19. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by this reference as if fully set forth herein paragraphs 1 through 18 of this Complaint. 20. Defendant has willfully failed to pay Plaintiff all the compensation he earned. 21. California Labor Code §§201 and 202 require employers to pay all compensation due and owing immediately at the time of discharge, layoff, or resignation made with at least 72 hours’ notice, or within 72 hours of resignation made without 72 hours’ notice. 22. Labor Code § 203 provides for a civil penalty against any employer who willfully violates Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 in the amount up to 30 days of an employee’s wages THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 (Against ALL Defendants) 23. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 22 of this Complaint as though set forth in full herein. 25 26 27 28 4 COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 14 of 34 24. California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. prohibits unfair business practices by employers including, but not limited to, 1) failure to pay wages; and 2) failure to pay wages upon discharge. 25. Asa result of the unfair acts of Defendants, and each of them, as alleged herein. Plaintiff is entitled to multiple damages as specifically provided in California Business and Professions Code §17200 et seq. 1 2 3 4 5 6 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION7 VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 1102.5 (Against ALL Defendants) 26. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 25, inclusive, of this Complaint as if fully set forth at this place. 27. At all times mentioned herein California Labor Code § 1102.5 was in full force and effect, and were binding on Defendants, and each of them. 28. California Labor Code § 1102.5(b) prohibits an employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, from retaliating against an employee for disclosing information, or because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or may disclose information, to a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or for providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee's job duties. 29. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that a substantial factor, if not the sole factor, in Defendants’ decision to terminate Plaintiffs employment was because she disclosed unlawful information to a government or law enforcement agency and/or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover and/or correct the violation and/or Defendants believed he may disclose unlawful information to a government agency and/or 8 9 10 11 12 1 13 Oz 14crO cno 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 15 of 34 because he refused to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation. 30. Asa proximate result of the aforesaid acts of Defendants and each of them. Plaintiff has lost, and will continue to lose, earnings and fringe benefits and has suffered and/or will suffer other actual, consequential and incidental financial losses, in an amount to be proven at trial in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this court. Plaintiff claims such amounts as damages together with prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code section 3287 and/or section 3288 and/or any other provision of law providing for prejudgment interest. 31. Asa proximate result of the aforesaid acts of Defendants and each of them. Plaintiff has become mentally upset, distressed, embarrassed, humiliated, and aggravated. Plaintiff claims general damages for such mental and physical distress and aggravation in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this court. 32. Because the acts taken toward Plaintiff were carried out by Plaintiffs supervisors, who was a managerial employee acting in a deliberate, cold, callous, cruel and intentional manner, in conscious disregard of Plaintiff s rights and in order to injure and damage her. Plaintiff requests that punitive damages be levied against Defendants and each of them, in sums in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this court. 33. Asa result of the acts of Defendants, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of said suit as specifically provided in California Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5. 34. In addition. Defendant is liable for a civil penalty of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), pursuant to California Labor Code § 1102(f). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 i (J< 13 Oz: 14 crO CQO 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION22 VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 98.6 (Against ALL Defendants) 35. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 34, inclusive, of this Complaint as if fully set forth at this place. 36. At all times mentioned herein California Labor Code § 98.6 was in full force and effect, and were binding on Defendants, and each of them. 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 16 of 34 37. California Labor Code § 98.6(a) prohibits and employer from discharging or in any manner discriminate^ retaliate* or take any adverse action against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant engaged in any conduct delineated in certain sections of the Labor Code, including California Labor Code § 1102.5, or because the employee or applicant for employment has filed a bona fide complaint or claim or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or relating to his or her rights that are under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner. 38. Defendant violated California Labor Code § 98.6. 39. As a result, Plaintiff entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused Defendant, pursuant to California Labor Code § 98.6(b)(1). 40. In addition. Defendant is liable for a civil penalty of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), pursuant to California Labor Code § 98.6(b)(3). 41. Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of said suit as specifically provided in California Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 (J< 13 O2: 14 crO CQO 15 WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY16 (Against ALL Defendants) 42. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by this reference as if fully set forth herein paragraphs 1 through 41 of this Complaint. 43. The public policies of the State of California as reflected in Labor Code §§ 1102.5 and 98 are designed to protect all employees and to promote the welfare and well-being of the commimity at large. Accordingly, the actions of Defendants, and each of them, in terminating Plaintiffs employment on the groimds alleged and described herein were wrongful and in contravention of the express public policy of the State of California. 44. As a proximate result of the aforesaid acts of Defendants, and each of them. Plaintiff has suffered actual, consequential and incidental financial losses, including without limitation, loss of salary and benefits, and the intangible loss of employment related opportunities in her field and damage to her professional reputation, all in an amount subject to proof at the time of 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 17 of 34 trial. Plaintiff claims such amounts as damages pursuant to Civil Code § 3287 and/or § 3288 and/or any other provision of law providing for prejudgment interest. 45. The actions taken against Plaintiff were carried out and ratified by officers and managers of Defendants. Each Defendant aided, abetted, participated in, authorized, ratified, and/or conspired to engage in the wrongful conduct alleged above. Plaintiff should, therefore, be awarded exemplary and punitive damages against each Defendant in an amount to be established that is appropriate to punish each Defendant and deter others from engaging in such conduct in the future. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: 1. For special damages, according to proof; 2. For general damages, according to proof; 3. For attorneys’ fees, according to proof; 4. For prejudgment interest, according to proof; 5. For reinstatement; 6. For penalties; 7. For costs of suit incurred herein; and 8. For such other relief and the Court may deem just and proper. 9 10 11 12 n< 13 14 crO cQCD 15 16 17 18 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL19 Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.20 21 BROCK & GONZALES, LLP22 DATED: July 8, 2020 23 By:24 TIMOTHY J. GONZALES25 D. AARON BROCK26 Attorneys for Plaintiff27 28 8 COMPLAINT Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 18 of 34 Exhibit B Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 19 of 34 L ITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 5 2 0 0 N o r t h P a l m A v e n u e S u i t e 3 0 2 F r e s n o , C A 9 3 7 0 4 . 2 2 2 5 5 5 9 . 2 4 4 . 7 5 0 0 Defendants Greyhound Lines, Inc.’s General Denial and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Unverified Complaint 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 RYAN L. EDDINGS, Bar No. 256519 JULIA REMER, Bar No. 330559 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 5200 North Palm Avenue, Suite 302 Fresno, California 93704.2225 Telephone: 559.244.7500 Facsimile.: 559.244.7525 reddings@littler.com jremer@littler.com Attorneys for Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION MARY DOMINGUEZ, an individual, Plaintiff, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. CGC-20-585376 DEFENDANTS GREYHOUND LINES, INC.’S GENERAL DENIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT Trial: TBD Complaint Filed: July 10, 2020 Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC. (“Defendant”) and answering the Complaint of Plaintiff MARY DOMINGUEZ (“Plaintiff”) for itself alone and for no other Defendants, hereby answer Plaintiff’s unverified Complaint as follows: GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant to the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in the Complaint. In addition, Defendant denies that Plaintiff has sustained, or will sustain, any loss or damage in the manner or amount alleged, or otherwise, by reason of any act or omission, or any other conduct or absence thereof on the part of said Defendant. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Without waiving or excusing the burden of proof of Plaintiff, or admitting that Defendant has any burden of proof, Defendant asserts the following affirmative defenses: Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 20 of 34 L ITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 5 2 0 0 N o r t h P a l m A v e n u e S u i t e 3 0 2 F r e s n o , C A 9 3 7 0 4 . 2 2 2 5 5 5 9 . 2 4 4 . 7 5 0 0 2. Defendants Greyhound Lines, Inc.’s General Denial and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Unverified Complaint 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 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause of action therein fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or set forth a claim upon which relief may be granted against Defendant. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the Complaint is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the Complaint is barred by the doctrine of waiver. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the Complaint is barred by the doctrine of estoppel. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the Complaint is barred by the doctrine of laches. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause of action set forth therein is barred by the doctrine of consent. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that to the extent that Defendants have discovered or will discover relevant evidence, Plaintiff is barred from recovering damages or any other remedy by reason of such after-acquired evidence. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s claims for damages are barred by the doctrine of avoidable consequences. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to state a claim for punitive and/or exemplary damages. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that Plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable and ordinary care, caution or prudence and that the alleged injuries and damages, if any, were proximately caused and/or Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 21 of 34 L ITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 5 2 0 0 N o r t h P a l m A v e n u e S u i t e 3 0 2 F r e s n o , C A 9 3 7 0 4 . 2 2 2 5 5 5 9 . 2 4 4 . 7 5 0 0 3. Defendants Greyhound Lines, Inc.’s General Denial and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Unverified Complaint 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 contributed to by Plaintiff’s own negligence and/or intentional conduct and therefore, any recovery to which Plaintiff might otherwise be entitled must be reduced by reason of Plaintiff’s contributory or comparative negligence and/or intentional conduct. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that Plaintiff failed to take reasonable affirmative action to mitigate her damages as they are alleged in the Complaint and, therefore, are barred from any recovery against Defendant to the extent Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s exclusive remedy for her alleged physical, mental and/or emotional injuries, including claims for emotional distress injury, to the extent such injuries are alleged to have arisen out of the parties’ employment relationship, is under California Workers’ Compensation Act, Labor Code section 3600, et seq., and this Court is divested of jurisdiction inasmuch as an employer/employee relationship existed subject to workers’ compensation coverage, Plaintiff’s conduct was within the course and scope of her employment, and the alleged injury, if any injury exists, was proximately caused by the employment. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, including but not limited to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 335.1, 338(a), 339(1), and 340(a), California Labor Code section 98.7, and California Business and Professions Code section 17208. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the entire Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, is barred by Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is not entitled to recover punitive, exemplary, or emotional distress damages on the grounds that any award of punitive, exemplary, or emotional distress damages under California law in general, and/or as applied to the facts of this specific action, violates Defendant’s constitutional rights under provisions of the United States and California Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 22 of 34 L ITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 5 2 0 0 N o r t h P a l m A v e n u e S u i t e 3 0 2 F r e s n o , C A 9 3 7 0 4 . 2 2 2 5 5 5 9 . 2 4 4 . 7 5 0 0 4. Defendants Greyhound Lines, Inc.’s General Denial and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Unverified Complaint 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 Constitutions, including but not limited to the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment clauses of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Article I, Sections 7 and 17 and Article IV, Section 16 of the California Constitution. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause of action set forth therein cannot be maintained against Defendant because Defendant’s conduct was protected by the managerial privilege in that all actions taken with respect to Plaintiff’s employment were undertaken and exercised with proper managerial discretion in good faith, and for proper, lawful reasons. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, is barred by Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust all internal grievance and/or complaint procedures. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause of action set forth therein cannot be maintained against Defendant because Defendant (a) maintained anti-harassment and anti- discrimination policies and/or open door policies with a Complaint procedure; and (b) Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by Defendant or to avoid harm otherwise. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that any recovery to which Plaintiff might otherwise allegedly be entitled must be offset by any benefits and/or other monies and/or benefits that Plaintiff has received or will receive, whether through subsequent employment, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation or otherwise. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that with respect to the Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein, any damages incurred by Plaintiff were directly and proximately caused and contributed to by the acts, conduct and/or omissions of third parties and/or entities. / / / Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 23 of 34 L ITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 5 2 0 0 N o r t h P a l m A v e n u e S u i t e 3 0 2 F r e s n o , C A 9 3 7 0 4 . 2 2 2 5 5 5 9 . 2 4 4 . 7 5 0 0 5. Defendants Greyhound Lines, Inc.’s General Denial and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Unverified Complaint 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 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that some or all of Plaintiff’s claims for damages are barred by the doctrine of set-off. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, which relief includes, inter alia, recovery of costs and attorney’s fees, penalties, compensatory damages, punitive damages, restitution and reinstatement of employment, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that any unlawful or other wrongful acts, if any, taken by Defendant’s officers, directors or employees were outside the scope of their authority and such acts, if any, were not authorized, ratified by or condoned by Defendant, and Defendant did not know and/or should not have known of such conduct. TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that all actions taken with respect to Plaintiff were taken, and would also have been taken, for legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons even if some unlawful motivation otherwise were to have existed. TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that Plaintiff was not terminated in violation of any fundamental, well-established public policy. TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that any employment practice maintained by Defendant, to the extent such practice may have impacted Plaintiff with respect to any alleged protected status, is justified either as a bona fide occupational qualification, by business necessity (including undue hardship), by job relatedness, by security regulations, by non-discrimination or affirmative action plans and/or by requirement of law. / / / / / / Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 24 of 34 L ITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 5 2 0 0 N o r t h P a l m A v e n u e S u i t e 3 0 2 F r e s n o , C A 9 3 7 0 4 . 2 2 2 5 5 5 9 . 2 4 4 . 7 5 0 0 6. Defendants Greyhound Lines, Inc.’s General Denial and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Unverified Complaint 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 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant is informed and believes that a reasonable opportunity for investigation and discovery will reveal, and on that basis allege, the claims of Plaintiff is barred by his own breach of the duties owed to Defendant under all applicable state and federal laws including, but not limited to, California Labor Code sections 2854, 2856, 2857, 2858 and/or 2859. TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that any violation of the Labor Code or an Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission was not willful, and was an act or omission made in good faith and Defendant had reasonable grounds for believing that the wage payment practices complied with applicable laws and that any such act or omission was not a violation of the Labor Code or any Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission such that Plaintiff is not entitled to any penalties or damages in excess of any wages which might be found to be due. TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges that the Complaint, and each cause of action therein, or some of them, are barred because the applicable wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission are unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous and violate Defendant’s rights under the United States Constitution and the California Constitution as to, among other things, due process of law. RESERVATION OF ADDITIONAL DEFENSES Defendant alleges that because Plaintiff’s Complaint is couched in conclusory terms, all affirmative defenses that may be applicable cannot be fully anticipated at this time. Accordingly, the right to assert additional affirmative defenses, if and to the extent that such affirmative defenses are applicable, is reserved. Additionally, Defendant reserves the right to amend this Answer should Defendant later discover facts demonstrating the existence of new and/or additional affirmative defenses, and/or should a change in the law support the inclusion of new and/or additional affirmative defenses. / / / Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 25 of 34 L ITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 5 2 0 0 N o r t h P a l m A v e n u e S u i t e 3 0 2 F r e s n o , C A 9 3 7 0 4 . 2 2 2 5 5 5 9 . 2 4 4 . 7 5 0 0 7. Defendants Greyhound Lines, Inc.’s General Denial and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Unverified Complaint 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 JURY DEMAND Defendant requests trial by jury on all causes of action triable to a jury. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Defendant prays as follows: 1. That Plaintiff takes nothing by way of the Complaint on file herein; 2. That judgment be awarded in favor of Defendant; 3. That Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed in its entirety; 4. That Defendant be awarded all costs of suit incurred by it in this action; 5. That Defendant be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees; and 6. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: August 21, 2020 RYAN L. EDDINGS JULIA REMER LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC. Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 26 of 34 L ITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 5 2 0 0 N o r t h P a l m A v e n u e S u i t e 3 0 2 F r e s n o , C A 9 3 7 0 4 . 2 2 2 5 5 5 9 . 2 4 4 . 7 5 0 0 8. Defendants Greyhound Lines, Inc.’s General Denial and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Unverified Complaint 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 am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 5200 North Palm Avenue, Suite 302, Fresno, California 93704.2225. On August 21, 2020, I served the within document(s): DEFENDANTS GREYHOUND LINES, INC.’S GENERAL DENIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT  By electronic service. Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept electronic service, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic service addresses listed below. Timothy J. Gonzales D. Aaron Brock BROCK & GONZALES 6701 Center Drive West, Ste. 610 Los Angeles, California 90045 310.294.9595; Fax 310.961.3673 tg@brockgonzales.com ab@brockgonzales.com I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on August 21, 2020, at Fresno, California. /s/ Camile Manning Camile Manning 4824-4605-3575.1 070992.1090 Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 27 of 34 Exhibit C Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 28 of 34 CASE NUMBER: CGC-20-585376 MARY DOMINGUEZ VS. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION ET AL NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF A Case Management Conference is set for: DATE: DEC-09-2020 TIME: 10:30AM PLACE: Department 610 400 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102-3680 All parties must appear and comply with Local Rule 3. CRC 3.725 requires the filing and service of a case management statement form CM-110 no later than 15 days before the case management conference. However, it would facilitate the issuance of a case management order without an appearance at the case management conference if the case management statement is filed, served and lodged in Department 610 twenty-five (25) days before the case management conference. Plaintiff must serve a copy of this notice upon each party to this action with the summons and complaint. Proof of service subsequently filed with this court shall so state. This case is eligible for electronic filing and service per Local Rule 2.11. For more information, please visit the Court's website at www.sfsuperiorcourt.org under Online Services. [DEFENDANTS: Attending the Case Management Conference does not take the place of filing a written response to the complaint. You must file a written response with the court within the time limit required by law. See Summons.] ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS IT IS THE POLICY OF THE SUPERIOR COURT THAT EVERY CIVIL CASE SHOULD PARTICIPATE IN MEDIATION, ARBITRATION, NEUTRAL EVALUATION, AN EARLY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE FORM OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PRIOR TO A TRIAL. (SEE LOCAL RULE 4) Plaintiff must serve a copy of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Information Package on each defendant along with the complaint. (CRC 3.221.) The ADR package may be accessed at www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/divisions/civil/dispute-resolution or you may request a paper copy from the filing clerk. All counsel must discuss ADR with clients and opposing counsel and provide clients with a copy of the ADR Information Package prior to filing the Case Management Statement. Superior Court Alternative Dispute Resolution Administrator 400 McAllister Street, Room 103-A San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 551-3869 See Local Rules 3.3, 6.0 C and 10 B re stipulation to judge pro tem. Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 29 of 34 Exhibit D Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 30 of 34 L ITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 5 2 0 0 N o r t h P a l m A v e n u e S u i t e 3 0 2 F r e s n o , C A 9 3 7 0 4 . 2 2 2 5 5 5 9 . 2 4 4 . 7 5 0 0 Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc.’s Notice to Plaintiff of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court 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 RYAN L. EDDINGS, Bar No. 256519 JULIA G. REMER, Bar No. 330559 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 5200 North Palm Avenue, Suite 302 Fresno, California 93704.2225 Telephone: 559.244.7500 Facsimile.: 559.244.7525 reddings@littler.com jremer@littler.com Attorneys for Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION MARY DOMINGUEZ, an individual, Plaintiff, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. CGC-20-585376 DEFENDANT GREYHOUND LINES, INC.’S NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO JUDGE Trial: TBD Complaint Filed: July 10, 2020 TO PLAINTIFF AND TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 31, 2020, Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC. (“Defendant”), filed a Notice of Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A true and correct copy of Defendant’s Notice of Removal is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Dated: August 31, 2020 RYAN L. EDDINGS JULIA G. REMER LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC. 4846-6143-8663.1 070992.1090 Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 31 of 34 Exhibit E Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 32 of 34 L ITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 5 2 0 0 N o r t h P a l m A v e n u e S u i t e 3 0 2 F r e s n o , C A 9 3 7 0 4 . 2 2 2 5 5 5 9 . 2 4 4 . 7 5 0 0 Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc.’s Notice to State Court of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court 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 RYAN L. EDDINGS, Bar No. 256519 JULIA G. REMER, Bar No. 330559 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 5200 North Palm Avenue, Suite 302 Fresno, California 93704.2225 Telephone: 559.244.7500 Facsimile.: 559.244.7525 reddings@littler.com jremer@littler.com Attorneys for Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION MARY DOMINGUEZ, an individual, Plaintiff, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. CGC-20-585376 DEFENDANT GREYHOUND LINES, INC.’S NOTICE TO STATE COURT OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO JUDGE Trial: TBD Complaint Filed: July 10, 2020 TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-TITLED COURT: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 31, 2020, the above-captioned matter was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, where it was previously pending, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446. A copy of the Notice of Removal filed by Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC. is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.1 PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), the filing of a Notice of Removal in the United States District Court, together with the filing of a copy of a Notice of Filing Notice of Removal with this Court, effects the removal of this action, and this Court may proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded. 1 So as to avoid duplicative filing, the attachments to Exhibits D and E thereto are excerpted. Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 33 of 34 L ITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 5 2 0 0 N o r t h P a l m A v e n u e S u i t e 3 0 2 F r e s n o , C A 9 3 7 0 4 . 2 2 2 5 5 5 9 . 2 4 4 . 7 5 0 0 2. Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc.’s Notice to State Court of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court 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 Dated: August 31, 2020 RYAN L. EDDINGS JULIA G. REMER LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC. 4846-8942-2279.1 070992.1090 Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 34 of 34 L ITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 5 2 0 0 N o r t h P a l m A v e n u e S u i t e 3 0 2 F r e s n o , C A 9 3 7 0 4 . 2 2 2 5 5 5 9 . 2 4 4 . 7 5 0 0 Declaration of Ryan L. Eddings iso Defendant’s Notice of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court 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 RYAN L. EDDINGS, Bar No. 256519 reddings@littler.com JULIA G. REMER, Bar No. 330559 jremer@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 5200 North Palm Avenue, Suite 302 Fresno, California 93704.2225 Telephone: 559.244.7500 Facsimile: 559.244.7525 Attorneys for Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARY DOMINGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC.., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant. Case No. CGC-20-585376 DECLARATION OF RYAN L. EDDINGS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GREYHOUND LINES, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT Trial: TBD Complaint Filed: July 10, 2020 I, Ryan L. Eddings, hereby declare and state as follows: 1. I am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice in the State of California and before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. I am a Shareholder with the law firm of Littler Mendelson, P.C., counsel of record for Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC. (“Greyhound” or “Defendant”) in this action, and make this declaration in support of Defendant’s concurrently-filed Notice of Removal. All of the information set forth herein is based on my personal knowledge and, if called as a witness, I could competently testify thereto. 2. On July 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed the above-referenced action in San Francisco County Superior Court, titled Mary Dominguez v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Civil Action No. CGC-20-585376 (the “Complaint”). A true and accurate Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1-1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 1 of 3 L ITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 5 2 0 0 N o r t h P a l m A v e n u e S u i t e 3 0 2 F r e s n o , C A 9 3 7 0 4 . 2 2 2 5 5 5 9 . 2 4 4 . 7 5 0 0 Declaration of Ryan L. Eddings iso Defendant’s Notice of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court 2. 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 copy of Plaintiff’s Complaint is attached to Defendant’s concurrently-filed Notice of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court (the “Notice of Removal”) as Exhibit A. This action was served on Defendant on July 31, 2020. 3. Plaintiff’s Complaint purports to assert six causes of action for: failure to pay wages; waiting time penalties; violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200; violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; violation of Labor Code § 98.6; and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. 4. Plaintiff’s Complaint represents that Plaintiff, at all times relevant, was an individual residing in the State of California. (Exhibit A to Notice of Removal, ¶ 1.) 5. At all times relevant to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Texas. (Notice of Removal at ¶ 12; see also concurrently-filed Declaration of Thy Kim Dang in Support of Defendant’s Notice of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court [“Dang Decl.”], at ¶ 2.) 6. Removal jurisdiction exists because this Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff’s Complaint may now be removed to this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446, because it is a civil action in which Plaintiff is not a citizen of the same state as any Defendant, and in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, as is discussed in more detail in Defendant’s concurrently- filed Notice of Removal. Briefly here, while Defendant's position is that Plaintiff is not entitled to recover any damages in conjunction with this action, for the purposes of analysis of the amount in controversy only, Defendant notes that Plaintiff could potentially recover at least $167,129.50 - well over $75,000 as of the date of this Notice of Removal. This sum is reflective of a potential amount in controversy of at least: (1) 48,784.50 in damages in the form of lost income as of the date of this filing, with damages continuing into the future through trial at approximately the rate of $439.50 per week; (2) an unspecified amount of unpaid wages; (3) $45,708 for two years’ of front pay; (4) $2,637 in waiting time penalties; (5) $25,000 in emotional distress damages; (6) $20,000 in applicable statutory damages as requested; and (7) $25,000 in attorney’s fees. Moreover, Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages adds to this amount. In light of the foregoing, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1-1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 2 of 3 L ITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 5 2 0 0 N o r t h P a l m A v e n u e S u i t e 3 0 2 F r e s n o , C A 9 3 7 0 4 . 2 2 2 5 5 5 9 . 2 4 4 . 7 5 0 0 Declaration of Ryan L. Eddings iso Defendant’s Notice of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court 3. 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 7. On August 21, 2020, Defendant filed its Answer to the Complaint in State Court, a true and correct copy of which is attached to the Notice of Removal as Exhibit B. As of the time of filing this document, Defendant had not yet received a file-stamped copy of its Answer from the Court. 8. True and correct copies of the remaining submissions in this action on file with the San Francisco County Superior Court are attached to the Notice of Removal as Exhibit C. 9. On August 31, 2020, Defendant provided written notice of the filing of this Notice of Removal to Plaintiff. A true and correct copy of Defendant’s Notice to Plaintiff of Removal to Federal Court is attached to the Notice of Removal as Exhibit D. 10. On August 31, 2020, Defendant filed with the Clerk for the State Court a Notice to State Court of Removal to Federal Court in this action, together with a copy of Defendant’s Notice to Federal Court of Removal. A true and correct copy of the Notice to State Court of Removal to Federal Court is attached to the Notice of Removal as Exhibit E. 11. This declaration sets forth all the process, pleadings, and orders filed or to be filed (to Defendant’s current knowledge) in this action to the present date. I certify and declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 31, 2020, at Fresno, California. RYAN L. EDDINGS 4833-2463-5335.1 070992.1090 Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1-1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 3 of 3 1 RYAN L. EDDINGS, Bar No. 256519 reddi ngs@littler. com JULIA G. REMER, Bar No. 3305592 j remer@l ittler. com 3 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 5200 North Palm Avenue, Suite 302 Fresno, California 93704.2225 Telephone: 559.244.7500 Facsimile: 559.244.7525 4 5 6 Attorneys for Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC. 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 II 12 MARY DOMINGUEZ, Plaintiff, Case No. CGC-20-585376 13 DECLARATION OF THY KIM DANG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GREYHOUND LINES, INC.'S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT 14 v. 15 GREYHOUND LINES, INC.., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 16 Action filed in State Court: July 10, 2020 San Francisco County Superior Court Case No:Defendant. 17 CGC-20-585376 18 I, Thy Kim Dang, hereby declare and state as follows:19 I am the Area Manager for GREYHOUND LINES, INC. ("Greyhound" or1.20 "Defendant"). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration, or I have knowledge of such facts based on my review and knowledge of the business records and files of Defendant, and could testify to the same if called as a witness in this matter. 2. 1 am informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant is corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Cincinnati, 21 22 23 24 25 Ohio.26 By virtue of my job duties, I have access to, and am familiar with, records of 28 Defendant's California employees. I have reviewed the information, including certain personnel and littler menoelson, p.c. Declaration of Thy Kim Dang iso Defendant's Notice of .Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court 3.27 $200 F ittito, CA OJ'C.1//} Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1-2 Filed 08/31/20 Page 1 of 2 1 payroll records, for Plaintiff MARY DOMINGUEZ ("Plaintiff'). Defendant employed Plaintiff as a 2 CSA Ticket Agent. Plaintiff s last rate of pay as a CS A Ticket Agent was $1 5.00 per hour. Based on 3 my review of the records, Plaintiff worked an average of 29.3 hours per week. I certify and declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of orrect. , 2020, at San Francisco, California. 4 5 California that the foregoing is true and^< 6 Executed on August 7 8 f£i>9 THY KIM DANG 10 ii 4849-8078-1512.1 070992.1090 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 littler mendelson, p.c. Declaration of Thy Kim Dang iso Defendant's Notice ofRemoval of Civil Action to Federal Court $300 Ava-j« 2.Fmno. C 5SC A 24*. Case 3:20-cv-06130 Document 1-2 Filed 08/31/20 Page 2 of 2 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 5200 North Palm Avenue Suite 302 Fresno, CA 93704.2225 559.244.7500 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 4823-6008-3657.1 070992.1090 PROOF OF SERVICE PROOF OF SERVICE I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 5200 North Palm Avenue, Suite 302, Fresno, California 93704.2225. On August 31, 2020, I served the within document(s): DEFENDANT GREYHOUND LINES, INC.’S NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT  By electronic service. Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept electronic service, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic service addresses listed below. D. Aaron Brock Alma Martinez Christopher Brandes Lindsay Bowden Jeisel Morales BROCK & GONZALES 6701 Center Drive West, Ste. 610 Los Angeles, California 90045 310.294.9595; Fax 310.961.3673 ab@brockgonzales.com am@brockgonzales.com cb@brockgonzales.com lb@brockgonzales.com jm@brockgonzales.com I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on August 31, 2020, at Fresno, California. /s/ Camile Manning Camile Manning