notice of removal

Cal. Super. - 1st Dist.January 7, 2021

LITTLER MENDELSON, P .C. 3 3 3 B u sh S t r e e t 3 4 th F l o o r S a n F ra n c i s co , C A 9 4 1 0 4 4 1 5 .4 3 3 .1 9 40 1. DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC.’S NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY 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 ROD M. FLIEGEL, Bar No. 168289 rfliegel@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: 415.433.1940 Facsimile: 415.399.8490 Attorneys for Defendant CHECKR, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO BRIAN PATRICK LEMMINGS, as an individual, Plaintiff(s), v. CHECKR, INC., a California Corporation and DOES, 1-10 inclusive, Defendant(s). Case No. CGC-20-586357 DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC.’S NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT Complaint Filed: August 25, 2020 ELECTRONICALLY F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 10/01/2020 Clerk of the Court BY: EDWARD SANTOS Deputy Clerk LITTLER MENDELSON, P .C. 3 3 3 B u sh S t r e e t 3 4 t h F l o o r S a n F ra n c i s co , C A 9 4 1 0 4 4 1 5 . 4 3 3 . 1 9 40 2. DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC.’S NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY 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 TO THE CLERK OF THE SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PLAINTIFF BRIAN PATRICK LEMMINGS AND HIS COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on September 30, 2020, Defendant Checkr, Inc. filed a Notice of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1331, 1441(a) and 1446 (“Notice of Removal”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.1 A copy of the Notice of Removal as filed is attached as Exhibit 1 to this Notice. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, by the filing of said Notice of Removal in the United States District Court, and by the filing of this Notice to State Court and Adverse Party of Removal, the above-entitled action has been removed from this Court to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1331, 1441(a) and 1446, and this Court may proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded. Dated: September 30, 2020 ROD M. FLIEGEL LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant CHECKR, INC. 4813-9452-5132.1 091435.1085 1 By submitting this filing, Defendant does not concede this Court or the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant reserves all arguments, objections and defenses. EXHIBIT 1 LITTLER MENDELSON, P .C. 3 3 3 B u sh S t r e e t 3 4 th F l o o r S a n F ra n c i s co , C A 9 4 1 0 4 4 1 5 .4 3 3 .1 9 40 1. NOTICE OF REMOVAL BY DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC. 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 ROD M. FLIEGEL, Bar No. 168289 rfliegel@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: 415.433.1940 Facsimile: 415.399.8490 Attorneys for Defendant CHECKR, INC., et al. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRIAN PATRICK LEMINGS, as an individual, Plaintiff(s), v. CHECKR, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Defendant(s). Case No. ___________________________ NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION BY DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC. [28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441 & 1446] Complaint Filed: August 25, 2020 Summons/Complaint Served: September 17, 2020 Removal from Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco Case No. CGC-20- 586357 Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 1 of 4 LITTLER MENDELSON, P .C. 3 3 3 B u sh S t r e e t 3 4 th F l o o r S a n F ra n c i s co , C A 9 4 1 0 4 4 1 5 .4 3 3 .1 9 40 2. NOTICE OF REMOVAL BY DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC. 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 TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND TO PLAINTIFF BRIAN PATRICK LEMINGS AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Checkr, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Checkr”) hereby removes the above-entitled action, Case No. CGC-20-586357, from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This Removal is based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a) and 1446. This Notice is based upon the original jurisdiction of this Court over the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the existence of a federal question herein.1 In support of its Notice of Removal, Checkr states as follows: PLEADINGS, PROCESSES, AND ORDERS 1. On August 25, 2020, Plaintiff Brian Patrick Lemings (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Checkr in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, entitled Brian Patrick Lemings v. Checkr, Inc., Case No. CGC-20-586357. 2. Plaintiff’s Complaint purports to allege two causes of action for relief against Checkr under Sections 1681e(b) and 1681i of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq. Plaintiff’s Complaint does not assert any additional claims against Checkr. 3. On September 29, 2020, Checkr answered Plaintiff’s Complaint by filing a General Denial and Affirmative Defenses (“Answer”). As of the time of filing this document, Checkr has not yet received a file-stamped copy of its Answer from San Francisco Superior Court. 4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), all process, pleadings, notices, and orders served upon or by Checkr in this action are attached as Exhibit A. TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL 5. On September 17, 2020, Plaintiff purported to serve Checkr with a copy of the Complaint. 6. This Notice of Removal is timely as it is being filed within thirty (30) days after service of the Summons and Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 6(a)(1)(C); see 1 By submitting this filing, Defendant does not concede this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant reserves all arguments, objections and defenses. Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 2 of 4 LITTLER MENDELSON, P .C. 3 3 3 B u sh S t r e e t 3 4 th F l o o r S a n F ra n c i s co , C A 9 4 1 0 4 4 1 5 .4 3 3 .1 9 40 3. NOTICE OF REMOVAL BY DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC. 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 also Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 354-56 (1999) (30-day deadline to remove commences upon service of the summons and complaint). BASIS FOR REMOVAL FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION 7. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides that “the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 8. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over the instant action based on federal question jurisdiction in that Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts two claims under the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., a federal statute. 9. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts two claims against Checkr under the FCRA. His first claim is brought under Section 1681e(b) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). (Exhibit A, Complaint, ¶¶ 21-22.) His second claim is brought under Section 1681i of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i. (Id. at ¶¶ 23-30.) Accordingly, this action presents a federal question over which this Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and removal of Plaintiff’s Complaint is proper. VENUE 10. Venue lies in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 84(a), 1391, 1441(a) and 1446(a). This action was originally brought in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, and thus should be removed to the San Francisco or Oakland Division of this Court per Civil Local Rules 3-2(c) and (d). SERVICE OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL ON STATE COURT 11. A true and correct copy of this Notice of Removal will be promptly served on Plaintiff and filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Francisco as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). RESERVATION OF RIGHTS 12. By filing this Notice of Removal, Checkr does not concede nor waive any defense or motion relating to this action, including that (i) Plaintiff has agreed to arbitrate the claim asserted in the Complaint on an individual basis; and (ii) Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action. Checkr reserves all defenses relating to the Court’s jurisdiction and the justiciability of this action. Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 3 of 4 LITTLER MENDELSON, P .C. 3 3 3 B u sh S t r e e t 3 4 th F l o o r S a n F ra n c i s co , C A 9 4 1 0 4 4 1 5 .4 3 3 .1 9 40 4. NOTICE OF REMOVAL BY DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC. 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 WHEREFORE, Checkr prays that this civil action be removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco or Oakland Division. Dated: September 30, 2020 /s/ Rod M. Fliegel ROD M. FLIEGEL LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant CHECKR, INC. 4828-7137-3003.1 091435.1085 Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT A Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 1 of 30 NO SUMMONS (SSUiB ^ Superior (lit of fiorniP County of San Francisco Devin Fok (SBN #256599) devin@devinfoklaw.com AUG 25i^l|2 DHF Law, PC 1 6 N. Marengo Ave. Suite 403 Pasadena, CA 91 101 4 Ph: (888) 65 1-641 1 Fax: (818) 484-2023 CLERK OF THE COURT BY: prfdAi Deputy ClerkT ANG iUNGA 5 . Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY8 9 10 CGC-20-586357BRIAN PATRICK LEMINGS, as an CASE NO.:individual, 11 )Plaintiff(s), ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES12 vs. ) 13 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 14 CHECKR, INC., a California corporation; and j DOES 1-10 inclusive )15 )Defendants. )16 17 ) 18 ) BY FAX 19 ) ) 20 ) 21 22 23 COMPLAINT 24 The Plaintiff, Brian Patrick Lemings, hereby files this Complaint for Damages and 25 Demands a Jury Trial against Defendants Checkr, inc., (hereafter as "Defendant" or "Checkr"'); 26 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES and DEMAND FOR JURY TR1AI Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 2 of 30 1 and JOHN DOES 1-10 inclusive (hereinafter collectively as "Defendants"), and states as ~ follows: 3 PARTIES 4 I. The Plaintiff, Brian Patrick Lemings, is an adult resident of the State of Tennessee. The 5 Plaintiff is a "Consumer" under 15 USC § 1681a.(c) (Definition section). 6 2. The Defendant, Checkr, Inc., a corporation headquartered at One Montgomery St, San 7 Francisco, California, is a background check company and also a Consumer Reporting8 9 Agency ("CRA") as defined under 15 USC § 1681 (a)(1) of the FCRA because it is a 10 "person which, for monetary fees, dues... regularly engages in whole or in part in the 11 practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on 12 consumers for the purposes of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and which 13 uses any means or facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or 14 furnishing consumer reports." (Emphasis added). 15 3. The Plaintiff is ignorant of the Defendants sued herein as JOHN DOES 1-10, inclusive.16 .17 and therefore, sues those Defendants by such capacities when such information is 18 ascertained through discovery. 19 4. Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that each of the JOHN DOES 1-10 Defendants are 20 responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged and that Plaintiff s 21 damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by such occurrences. 22 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times herein mentioned,23 Defendants J'OHN DOES 1-10, were principals or agents of each other and of the named24 25 Defendants and in doing the things alleged in this complaint, were acting in the scope of 26 such agency and with the permission and consent of Defendants. 27 28 _ D _ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 3 of 30 1 2 3 FACTS 4 6. Background check companies like Checkr are in the business of accumulating and selling 5 data concerning a consumer's personal information such as credit history, criminal 6 records, tenancy records, past employment, driving records etc. to readily paying 7 subscribers such as landlords, lenders, potential employers and similar interested parties8 9 by furnishing the required consumer information through "consumer reports.7' 10 7. In order to regulate the functioning of these CRAs, the Congress enacted the Fair Credit 1 1 Reporting Act in 1970. Since then, the federal law has required CRAs to implement and 12 utilize reasonable procedures "to assure maximum possible accuracy7 of the personal, 13 private and financial information that they compile and sell about individual consumers. 14 8. The Plainti ff was working as a driver with Uber Technologies, Inc., commonly known as15 Uber, which is an American multinational ride-hailing company.16 .17 9. Uber conducts routine and periodic screening of their drivers' background including 18 driving records in order for the drivers to maintain eligibility to provide services to 19 consumers using the Uber platform. 20 10. On or about April 28, 2020, Uber procured a consumer report on Plaintiff from 21 Defendant and it was furnished by Defendant on the same day (hereinafter "the Report"). 22 11. As per the Report, the Plaintiff had two accidents on his record, dated November 7, 20 .1923 (Accident with property damage) and January 17, 2019 (Accident with fatality). A copy24 25 of the Report is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 26 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIM. Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 4 of 30 1 2 12. Whenever Checkr considers information to be adverse to the consumer such as the 3 existence of criminal records, Checkr will assign a red flag stating "consider" on its 4 report. 5 13. In this case, Checkr assigned a red flag on Plaintiffs driving record for "ACCIDENT 6 WITH FATALITY" indicating that Plaintiff was at fault for the serious accident. 7 14. In fact, the police report of the accident fully demonstrated that Plaintiff was not the8 9 driver who struck the victim and Plaintiff played no role whatsoever in causing the 10 accident. Plaintiff happened the be in the area at the time of the fatality and hit the 11 victim's foot after he was struck on a busy five-lane highway. The police absolved 12 Plaintiff of any responsibility whatsoever. 13 15. The report stated that: 14 "After being struck by vehicle #1 the pedestrian was thrown into the eastbound inside15 lane at which time driver #2 saw him and attempted to avoid him but ran over his foot."16 17 16. Plaintiff was driver #2. 18 17. However, Defendant simply disclosed this event as: 19 ACCIDENT WITH FATALITY Jan 17, 2019 20 Description ACCIDENT WITH FATALITY21 22 Accident Date Jan 1 7, 20 1 9 23 State TN 24 25 26 18. Recently, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Twumasi-Ankrah i>. Checkr. Inc., 954 F.3d 27 938 (6th Cir. 2020) held, in reversing the trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss, that 28 -4- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 5 of 30 the disclosure of an accident without delineating that it was not the consumer's fault to be 2 inaccurate and/or misleading for purposes of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA" 15 3 USC §1681 et seq.) §1681 e(b). 4 19. Plaintiff repeatedly disputed this report with Checkr informing it that Plaintiff was not at 5 fault. Even in light of the above precedent, Plaintiff has not - to date - received a new 6 updated report. 7 20. Consequently, Plaintiff was deactivated as an Uber driver despite Plaintiffs long and8 9 positive driving histoiy that he accumulated over many rides provided to Uber users. 10 FIRST CA USE OF ACTION 11 (Under FCRA 15 ll.S.C. S 1681e(b) against DOES 1-51 12 21. The Plaintiff hereby alleges that Checkr violated the FCRA 15 U.S.C. § 168'le(b)13 because it failed to "follow reasonable procedures to assure fthej maximum possible14 15 accuracy" of its reporting on him by failing to inform the reader that Plaintiff was not a 16 fault for the accident with fatality. 17 22. As a result of Defendant's violation of the FCRA, Plaintiff suffered actual damages 18 including loss of wages, emotional distress, damage to reputation, as well as 19 inconvenience and out-of-pocket expenses as a result of Defendant's violation. Plaintiff 20 also seeks statutory penalties, punitive damages, as well as attorney's fees and costs as2.1 22 allowed by §§168 In and o. 23 24 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 25 (Under FCRA 15 U.S.C. § 1681i against DOES 6-10126 27 28 -5- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 6 of 30 23. The FCRA mandates that a CRA conduct a re-investigation of the accuracy of1 2 information "if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a 3 consumer's file" is disputed by the consumer. 15 U.S.C. § 1 68 1 i(a)(l ). The Act imposes a 4 30-day time limitation for the completion of such an investigation. 5 24. The FCRA also provides that if a CRA conducts an investigation of disputed information 6 and confirms that the information is, in fact, inaccurate, or is unable to verily the 7 accuracy of the disputed information, the CRA is required to record the current status of8 9 the disputed information or delete that item of information from tire consumer's file. 15 10 U.S.C. § 16811(a)(5)(A). 11 25. Under 15 USC § 1 681 i (a) (4), in conducting any reinvestigation with respect to disputed 12 information in the file of any consumer, the consumer reporting agency shall review and 13 consider all relevant information submitted by the consumer with respect to such disputed 14 information.15 26. The Plaintiff disputed the information contained in the Report with Checkr and requested16 17 them to reinvestigate their findings regarding his driving records and accordingly to 18 supplement or amend the information in the Report that they submitted to Uber which 19 was patently inaccurate, misleading and highly damaging to him. 20 27. He also provided the necessary documentation in support of his request which is the 21 Tennessee Electronic Traffic Crash Report, the official crash report containing details of 22 the accident involving fatality. That report is annexed hereto as Exhibit 2.23 28. It can be clearly seen from the above report that the Plaintiff had NO FAULT in the24 25 accident involving fatality. 26 27 28 -6- COMPl.AINT FOR DAMAGES and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 7 of 30 29. By failing to conduct a reasonable re-investigation into Plaintiff s disputes in this regard,1 2 Checkr willfully violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(l) with respect to the dispute lodged by 3 Plaintiff. 4 30. As a result of Defendant's violation of the FCRA, Plaintiff suffered actual damages 5 including loss of wages, emotional distress, damage to reputation, as well as 6 inconvenience and out-of-pocket expenses as a result of Defendant's violation. Plaintiff 7 also seeks statutory penalties, punitive damages, as well as attorney's fees and costs as8 9 allowed by §§168 In and o. 10 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 11 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendan ts, and each of them, as follows: a. For a declaration that Defendants' background check Report violated the statutory provisions as specified above; b. For statutory, compensatoiv, special, general, and punitive damages according to proof and as applicable against all Defendants; c. For interest upon such damages as permitted by law; d. For an award of reasonable attorneys' fees provided by law under all applicable statutes; e. For the costs of suit; f. For injunctive relief as applicable; and g. For such other orders of the Court and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 12 13 14 15 16 .17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 25 Plaintiff hereby request and demand a jury trial on all issues triable by jury. 26 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 8 of 30 DATED: July 31st, 2020 ry DEYIN H. FOK, ESQ. DHF LAW, P.C 3 Attorney for Plaintiff4 5 6 1 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -8- COMPI.AJNT FOR DAMAGES and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 9 of 30 Checkr Report completed on Apr 28, 2020 10:53 PM UfC Consumer Report for Brian Patrick Lemings Requestor Company Uber Eats Status j California Candidates/Employees Only: The report does not guarantee the j i accuracy or truthfulness of the information as to the subject of the j ; investigation, but only that it is accurately copied from public records, and | information generated as a result of identity theft, including evidence of criminal activity, may be inaccurately associated with the consumer who I is the subject of the report. An investigative consumer reporting agency | shall provide a consumer seeking to obtain a copy of a report or making a : request to review a file, a written notice in simple, plain English and : Spanish setting forth the terms and conditions of his or her right to receive all disclosures, as provided in Section 1786.26. | : Solo para los Candidatos/Empleados de California: En el informe no se : | garantiza la exactitud o veracidad de la informacion en cuanto al tema de : : la investigacion, sino solo que se ha copiado exactamente de los registros ; publicos, y la informacion generada como resultado del robo de identidad, : : incluyendo las pruebas de una actividad delictiva, podrfa estar ! incorrectamente asociada con el consumidor que sea el sujeto del : informe. Una agencia investigadora de informes de credito debera suministrarle a un consumidor que trate de obtener una copia de un : informe o solicite revisar un archivo una notificacion por escrito en ingles y espanol lisos y llanos, en la que se establezcan los terminos y las : condiciones de su derecho a recibir toda la informacion, como se dispone . en la Seccion 1786.26. i Report Summary 3Motor Vehicle Report Apt ;•?. 28/0 J Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 10 of 30 Report information Date of birthMiddle name Patrick Last name Lemirigs First: name Brian i Social Security #"7l"codePhone Ema tri Driver license Previous driver licenses Custom ID 5c2d55a8-5e3a-4b07~ b88d-0869fac1 3b99 Geos ) i Completed at Apr 28, 2020 10:59 PM UTC Created at Apr 28, 2020 10:44 PM UTC Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 11 of 30 PoterVehidevi^pofl 070779196 (TN) License Status License Type VAL PASSENGER License Class License Expiration Date License Issued Date License First issued Date Oct 30, 2025 Oct 30, 2017 Dec 3, 1 996 s Restrictions CORRECTIVE LENSES Accidents ACCIDENT WITH PROPERTY DAMAGE Nov 7, 2019 Description ACCIDENT WITH PROPERTY DAMAGE Accident Date Nov 7, 2019 I State TN IACCIDENT WITH FATALITY Jan 17, 2019 Description ACCIDENT WITH FATALITY Jan 17, 2019I Accident Date I State TN Checkr One Montgomery Street. Suite 2400, San Francisco, CA 94104 candidate.checkr.com - (344) 324-3257 Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 12 of 30 rva^y^'-i: Accepted Date 1/19/2019 12:34 AM Generated Date 1/19/2019 12:34 AM Master Record Number 300508821 Type Of Crash Fatal iReport Form Level 3 Approved By R Bradley I Tennessee Electronic Traffic Crash Report Incident Information Date of Crash 1/17/2019 Day Of Crash Thursday Local Agency Number Reporting Agency Name Knoxville Police Dept Agency Tracking Number 19-0025510470100 Time of Crash 18:06 Time Notified 18:07 Time Arrived 18:18 County Knox City Knoxville Total Vehicles Total Occupants Total Non-Occupants Total Killed Total Injured Total Uninjured 3 3 1 1 0 3 Hit and Run Solved Police Pursuit School Bus Involved Photos Taken By Photographer Name Not No No No No No Applicable Area Business Interchange Related Intersection Type No Not at Intersection Block Number Roadway Number Roadway Name Kingston Suffix PIKE Mile Marker 0.00 Estimated Distance Distance Type Direction From Highway/Intersection Suffix Intersect Number 1000.00 Feet West Wesley RD Roadway Local Id Intersect Local Id Relation To Junction Non-Junction Relation to Roadway On Roadway Route Signing US Route Work Zone None Construction Zone Construction Location Workers Present No First Harmful Event Pedestrian Trafficway Type T rafficway-OPEN Weather Conditions Rain Light conditions Longitude -84.024594 Latitude 35.931499 Rail Crossing Id Dark-Lighted Manner of Collision Not Collision with Motor Vehicle in Transport 1st Collision Factor 2nd Collision Factor 3rd Collision Factor Incident Management Secondary Crash TypeSecondary Crash Blockage Occurred Roadway / Lanes Blocked Roadway Lanes' Cleared Lanes Blocked Incident ClearedIncident Started Investigating Officer Details Investigation Complete Yes Rank PO IV First Name Greg Middle Initial Last Name Worriac Suffix District/ZoneBadge Number 1715 Car Number Report Date 01/17/2019116 21194 SF- 1481 (Rev 7/15) 1 of 8 RDA 1348 Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 13 of 30 VeHicleJNjJriiMr Driver Presence Driver Operated Number cupants 11 Driver Information Date Of BirthMiddle Initial Suffix AgeLast Name Hicks First Name Howard EH 69K Zip CodeStateCityAddress Line 2Address Line 1 GenderEthnicityPhone 3 RacePhone 2Phone 1 I Ijjjjj ilSliiliBBllli Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmsk Drivers License Class Drivers License Status Valid Expiration DateDrivers License StateDrivers License Number D Airbag AirBag Available-No Deployment Safety Equipment Shoulder And Lap Belt Used Seat Position Front Seat-Left Side Complied WithEndorsement 3Endorsement 2 Complied WithComplied WithEndorsement 1 YesNone Complied With Complied WithRestriction 3Restriction 2Complied With Yes Restriction 1 None Trapped/Extricated Not Trapped Ejection Path Not Ejected/Not Applicable Ejected Not Ejected Ambulance/HospitalMedical Transport Not Transported Injury Code No Injury Driver Conditions and Actions DriverA/ehicle Maneuver Distraction None Hit and Run No Hit And Run Going Straight Driver's 3rd ConditionDriver's 2nd ConditionDriver's 1st Condition Appeared Normal Drivers 2nd ActionDriver's 1st Action None Driver's 4th ActionDriver's 3rd Action Alcohol and Drugs Alcohol Test Status Test Not Given Determination Method Observed Presence of Alcohol No 2nd Alcohol Test Result1st Alcohol Test Result None Given 2nd Alcohol Test Type1st Alcohol Test Type Not Tested Drug Test Status Test Not Given Determination Method Observed Presence of Drugs No 3rd Drug Test Result3rd Drug Test Type2nd Drug Test Type 2nd Drug Test Result1st Drug Test Type Not Tested For Drugs 1st Drug Test Result No Drug Reported Driver Violations 1 st Violation Statute1st Violation Category 1st Violation Description1st Violation 2nd Violation 2nd Violation Statute2nd Violation Category 2nd Violation Description 3rd Violation Statute3rd Violation Description3rd Violation Category3rd Violation 4th ViolationSiatute4th Violation Category 4th Violation Description4 th Violation 5th ViolationSiatute5th Violation Category 5lh Violation Description5th Violation RDA 1348SF- 1481 (Rev 7/15) 2 of 8 Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 14 of 30 Vehicle Information Owner Last Name Hicks Owner SuffixOwner First Name Howard Owner Middle NameOwner Same as Driver Yes K Zip Code Phone 1Address Line 2 City StateAddress Line 1 LIBBsfiS Vehicle Model mm ColorV| " Year Vehicle MakePhone 2 Phone 3 PI liration Body Style Two-Door Sedan Hardtop Coupe License Plate Number StateVIN .I Unit Type Motor Vehicle In-Transport FMCSA Reportable? Bus Use Not Used As School Bus HAZMAT? No No Vehicle ConfigurationGross Weight 10000 or Less-No Haz-8 Or Less Cargo Body TypeVehicle Operation Type Personally Owned/Used 2nd Factor 3rd Factor1st Factor NONE Override/Underride No Underride-Override Emergency UseVehicle Special Use No Special Use No Towed LocationTowed Driven From Scene 2nd Trailer 2nd Trailer License Information1st Trailer License Plate Information1st Trailer Insurance 1 Start Date Insurance 1 End DateInsurance 1 Type Owner Insurance 1 Carrierinsurance 1 Encompass Insurance 2 Start Date Insurance 2 End DateInsurance 2 TypeInsurance 2 Insurance 2 Carrier Insurance 3 Start Date Insurance 3 End DateInsurance 3 Typeinsurance 3 Insurance 3 Carrier Vehicle Damage and Roadway Characteristics Most Harmful Event Fire in Vehicle NoPedestrian Events 3Events 2Events 1 Pedestrian Events 6Events 5Events 4 Officer Damage Estimate Greater Than Threshold Point of First impact Front End Extent of Damage Functional Damage Areas of Vehicle Damage Top, Front End Travel Direction Traveling On Kingston PikeWest Roadway Surface Type Asphalt Number of Travel Lanes Five Lanes Trafficway Flow Two-Way Divided Without Traffic Barrier Trafficway Hazards Slippery Surface Traffic Control Device Functioning No Controls Roadway Route SigningTraffic Controi Devices US RouteNo Control Roadway Character Profile Level Roadway Surface Conditions Wet Roadway Character Alignment Straight Speed Limit Access control No Control45 Commercial Carrier Information TN DOSCarrier Type ICC MCUS DOT Carrier Name PhoneState Zip CodeAddress Line 1 Address Line 2 City Hazardous Materials Released1st Hazardous Materials HAZMAT Class Placard Placard # Released Hazardous Materials Released2nd Hazardous Materials HAZMAT Class Placard Placard # Released HAZMAT Class Placard ft Hazardous Materials Released3rd Hazardous Materials Placard Released RDA 1348SF- 1481 (Rev 7/15) 3 of 8 Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 15 of 30 V J Number xupan'.sVehicle Number Driver Presence Driver Operated2 1 Driver Information Date Of BirthSuffix AgeMiddle Initial Last Name Lemings First Name Brian 46P Zip Code Gender StateAddress Line 2 CityAddress Line 1 EthnicityPhone 2 Phone 3 RacePhom tm M Expiration Date Drivers License Class Drivers License Status Valid Drivers License StateDrivers License Number D Safely Equipment Shoulder And Lap Belt Used Airbag AirBag Available-No Deployment Seat Position Front Seat-Left Side Endorsement 2 Complied With Endorsement 3 Complied WithEndorsement 1 Complied With YesNone Restriction 1 None Restriction 3 Complied WithComplied With Yes Restriction 2 ; Complied With Trapped/Extricated Not Trapped Ejection Path Not Ejected/Not Applicable Ejected Not Ejected Injury Code Ambulance/HospitalMedical Transport Not TransportedNo Injury Driver Conditions and Actions DriverA/ehicle Maneuver Distraction None Hit and Run No Hit And Run Going Straight Driver's 3rd ConditionDriver's 1st Condition Driver's 2nd Condition Appeared Normal Driver's 1st Action None Drivers 2nd Action Driver's 3rd Action Driver's 4th Action Alcohol and Drugs Determination Method Observed Alcohol Test Status Test Not Given Presence of Alcohol No 2nd Alcohol Test Result1st Alcohol Test Type Not Tested 1 st Alcohol Test Result None Given 2nd Alcohol Test Type Determination Method Observed Drug Tes! StatusPresence ot Drugs Test Not GivenNo 3rd Drug Test Result1st Drug Test Type Not Tested For Drugs 1st Drug Test Result No Drug Reported 2nd Drug Test Type 2nd Drug Test Result 3rd Drug Test Type Driver Violations 1st Violation Statute1st Violation 1st Violation Category 1st Violation Description 2nd Violation Category 2nd Violation Description 2nd Violation Statute2nd Violation 3rd Violation Statute3rd Violation 3rd Violation Category 3rd Violation Description 4th ViolationStatute4th Violation 4th Violation Category 4th Violation Description 5th Violation 5th Violation Category 5th Violation Description 5th ViolationStatute RDA 1348SF- 1481 (Rev 71 15) ot4 8 Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 16 of 30 Vehicle Information Owner SuffixOwner Last Name Lemings Owner First Name Brian Owner Middle NameOwner Same as Driver Yes P Zip Code Phone 1nddress Line 2 City StateAddress Line 1 1 Phone 3 Vehicle Model ColorVehicle Year Vehicle MakePhone 2 I i rationLicense Plate Number State PteteExpi Body StyleVIN Four-Door Sedan Hardtop FMCSA Reportable? | Bus Use Not Used As School Bus HAZMAT? Unit Type Motor Vehicle In-TransportNo No Vehicle ConfigurationGross Weight 10000 or Less-No Haz-8 Or Less Cargo Body TypeVehicle Operation Type Personally Owned/Used 3rd Factor1st Factor NONE 2nd Factor Override/Underride No Underride-Override Emergency UseVehicle Special Use No Special Use No Towed LocationTowed Driven From Scene 2nd Trailer License Information1st Trailer License Plate Information 2nd Trailer1st Trailer Insurance 1 Insurance 1 Start Date Insurance 1 End DateInsurance 1 Type Owner insurance 1 Carrier Geico Insurance 2 Start Date Insurance 2 End DateInsurance 2 Type Insurance 2 CarrierInsurance Insurance 3 End DateInsurance 3 Carrier Insurance 3 Start DateInsurance 3 Insurance 3 Type Vehicle Damage and Roadway Characteristics Fire in VehicleMost Harmful Event Pedestrian No Events 3Events 2Events 1 Pedestrian Events 5 Events 6Events 4 Officer Damage Estimate No Damage/Not indicated Point of First Impact Undercarriage Extent of Damage No Damage Areas of Vehicle Damage Non-Collision Or None Travel Direction East Traveling On Kingston Pike Trafficway Flow Two-Way Divided Without Traffic Barrier Roadway Surface Type Asphalt Number of Travel Lanes Five Lanes Trafficway Hazards Slippery Surface Traffic Control Device Functioning No Controls Roadway Route SigningTraffic Control Devices US RouteNo Control Roadway Character Profile Level Roadway Surface Conditions Wet Roadway Character Alignment Straight Access control No Control Speed Limit 45 Commercial Carrier Information TN DOSICC MCUS DOT Carrier Name Carrier Type Address Line 1 Zip Code PhoneAddress Line 2 City State Hazardous Materials Released1st Hazardous Materials HAZMAT Class Placard Placard # Released Hazardous Materials Released2nd Hazardous Materials HAZMAT Class Placard Placard # Released Hazardous Materials Released3rd Hazardous Materials HAZMAT Class Placard Placard U Released SF- 1481 (Rev 7/15) RDA 13485 of 8 Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 17 of 30 Vehicle Number ' Number _jcupants Driver Presence Driver Operated3 1 Driver Information Date Of BirthMiddle Initial Last Name Suffix AgeFirst Name Marcus D Conley 31 Zip CodeAddress Line 1 ' -- '^3"' Address Line 2 City State " 'VT'V Phone 2 Phone 3 Race Ethnicity GenderPhone 1 M - ~ . -! t ' . ^ - Drivers License Class Drivers License Status Valid Drivers License Number Drivers License State Expiration Date m a m DB ii AirbagSafety Equipment Shoulder And Lap Belt Used Seat Position Front Seat-Left SideAirBag Available-No Deployment Complied WithEndorsement 1 None Endorsement 2 Complied With Endorsement 3 Complied With Yes Restriction 1 None Complied With Restriction 2 Complied With Complied WithRestriction 3 Yes Ejected Not Ejected Ejection Path Not Ejected/Not Applicable Trapped/Extricated Not Trapped injury Code No Injury Medical Transport Not Transported Ambulance/Hospital Driver Conditions and Actions Hit and Run No Hit And Run DriverA/ehicle Maneuver Going Straight Distraction None Driver's 1st Condition Appeared Normal Driver's 2nd Condition Driver's 3rd Condition Driver's 1st Action None Drivers 2nd Action Driver's 3rd Action Driver's 4th Action Alcohol and Drugs Determination Method Observed Presence of Alcohol Alcohol Test Status Test Not GivenNo 1st Alcohol Test Type Not Tested 1st Alcohol Test Result None Given 2nd Alcohol Test Type 2nd Alcohol Test Result Presence of Drugs Determination Method Observed Drug Test Status Test Not GivenNo 2nd Drug Test Type1st Drug Test Type Not Tested For Drugs 1st Drug test Result No Drug Reported 2nd Drug Test Result 3rd Drug Test Type 3rd Drug Test Result Driver Violations 1st Violation 1st Violation Category 1st Violation Description 1st Violation Statute 2nd Violation 2nd Violation Category 2nd Violation Description 2nd Violation Statute 3rd Violation Description3rd Violation 3rd Violation Category 3rd Violation Statute 4th Violation 4th Violation Category 4th Violation Description 4th ViolationStatute 5th Violation Description5th Violation 5th Violation Category 5th ViolationStatute SF- 1481 (Rev 7/15} of RDA 13486 8 Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 18 of 30 Vehicle Information Owner First Name Marcus Owner Middle Name Owner Last Name Con ley Owner SuffixOwner Same as Driyer Yes D Zip Code Phone 1Address Line 2 City StateAddress Line 1 Phone 2 " | Vehicle Model * i- Phone 3 Vehicle Year Vehicle Make Color Silver2008 BUIC LAX License Plate Number Plate Expiration Body Style Compact Utility VI N State m HAZMAT? FMCSA Reportable? Bus Use Not Used As School Bus Unit Type Motor Vehicle In-TransportNo No Vehicle ConfigurationGross Weight 10000 or Less-No Haz-8 Or Less Vehicle Operation Type Personally Owned/Used Cargo Body Type 2nd Factor 3rd Factor1st Factor NONE Vehicle Special Use No Special Use Emergency Use Override/Underride No Underride-OverrideNo Towed Towed Location Driven From Scene 1st Trailer 1st Trailer License Plate Information 2nd Trailer 2nd Trailer License Information Insurance 1 Insurance 1 Type Owner Insurance 1 Carrier Progressive Insurance 1 Start Date Insurance 1 End Date 000000000 Insurance 2 End DateInsurance 2 Insurance 2 Type Insurance 2 Carrier Insurance 2 Start Date Insurance 3 Type Insurance 3 End DateInsurance 3 Insurance 3 Carrier Insurance 3 Start Date Vehicle Damage and Roadway Characteristics Fire in VehicleMost Harmful Event Pedestrian No Events 1 Pedestrian Events 2 Events 3 Events 4 Events 5 Events 6 Point of First Impact Undercarriage Extent of Damage No Damage Officer Damage Estimate No Damage/Not Indicated Areas of Vehicle Damage Non-Collision Or None Travel Direction East Traveling On Kingston Pike Trafficway Flow Two-Way Divided Without Traffic Barrier Roadway Surface Type Asphalt Number of Travel Lanes Five Lanes Trafficway Hazards Slippery Surface Traffic Control Devices No Control Traffic Control Device Functioning No Controls Roadway Route Signing US Route Roadway Surface Conditions Roadway Character Alignment Roadway Character Profile LevelWet Straight Speed Limit Access control No Control45 Commercial Carrier Information US DOT Carrier Name Carrier Type ICC MC TN DOS CityAddress Line 1 Address Line 2 Zip CodeState Phone 1st Hazardous Materials Hazardous Materials ReleasedHAZMAT Class Placard Placard # Released 2nd Hazardous Materials HAZMAT Class Placard Placard # Released Hazardous Materials Released 3rd Hazardous Materials HAZMAT Class Placard Placard # Released Hazardous Materials Released SF- 1481 (Rev 7/15) ~? of RDA 13488 Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 19 of 30 !Non-Motorist Information Person Type Pedestrian Middle Name Last Name Davis Suffix Date Of BirthFirst Name Jamie Age 6111111p 42 StateAddress Line 2 City Zip CodeAddress Line 1 Pmt Seating PositionPhone 2 Phone 3 GenderPhone 1 M Safety Equipment Medical Transport Ambulance/Hospital UT Medical Center Injury Code Fatal EMS-Ground Alcohol and Drugs Presence of Alcohol Determination Method Alcohol Test Status Test Not GivenNo Other (Saliva) 1st Alcohol Test Type Not Tested 1st Alcohol Test Result None Given 2nd Alcohol Test Type 2nd Alcohol Test Result Presence Of Drugs Determination Method Other Drug Test Status Test Not GivenNo 1st Drug Test Type Not Tested For Drugs 1st Drug Test Result No Drug Reported 2nd Drug Test Type 2nd Drug Test Result 3rd Drug Test Type 3rd Drug Test Result Conditions and Actions Vehicle Striking Non-Motorist Non-Motorist Location Not Intersection-On Roadway Crosswalk not Available1 Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3 Action 1 Action 2 Action 3 Action 4 Narrative On 01/17/2019 at 18:18 hours, Officer Gwomac (1715) responded to a crash in the 7000 block of Kingston Pike. The Pedestrian was crossing Kingston P ke wearing dark clothes in a heavy rain and darted in front of vehicle #1 which was westbound in the center turn lane merging into the westbound lanes. After being struck by vehicle #1 the pedestrian was thrown into the eastbound inside lane at which time driver #2 saw him and attempted to avoid him but ran over his foot. Vehicle #3 which was behind vehicle #2 then struck the pedestrian. Driver #3 stated that he did not know what he had struck and by the time he was able to get back to the scene there was a lot of EMS and Police on scene so he called dispatch and they held the message. Driver #3 was contacted later by police and he was able to give his information for the report. SF- 1481 (Rev 7/15) 8 of RDA 13488 Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 20 of 30 7000 Block Kingston Pike ~ V Pedestrian Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 21 of 30 CM-010ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY fName, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT US£ ONLY Devin H. Fok (SBN # 256599) DHF Law, P.C. 16 N. Marengo Ave., Suite 403 Pasadena, CA 91 H 01 1 Superior Court of California County of San Francisco TELEPHONE NO.: (31 0) 430-9933 attorney for (Warn !;.- Brian Patrick Lemings FAX NO. (Optional): (81 8) 484-2023 AUG 2 5J$|f CLERK QETHE COURT SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO street address: 400 McAllister St. MAILING ADDRESS: 400 McAllister St. , city and zip code: San Francisco, CA 94102 branch name: civic Center Courthouse BY: t)NGADepul,CterkANGICASE NAME: Lemings v. Checkr, Inc. CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation | j Counter | | Joinder Filed with first appearance by defendant (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) CASE NUMBER: I x | Unlimited (Amount demanded exceeds $25, D00) I I Limited (Amount demanded is CGC-2Q-586357 $25,000) DEPT.: Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). 1 . Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: Contract I I Breach of contract/warranty (06) | | Rule 3.740 collections (09) | | Other collections (09) I I Insurance coverage (18) Auto Tort Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403) I | Antitrust/Trade regulation (03) | | Construction defect (10) | | Mass tort (40) | | Securities litigation (28) I | Environmental/Toxic tort (30) | | Insurance coverage claims arising from the above listed provisionally complex case types (4 1 ) Enforcement of Judgment | | Enforcement of judgment (20) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint I I Auto (22) | | Uninsured motorist (46) Other PI/PD/WD (Persona) Injury/Property Darnage/Wrongfu Death) Tort | | Asbestos (01) | | Product liability (24) | | Medical malpractice (45) | | Other contract (37) Real Property | | Eminent domain/Inverse condemnation (14) I | Wrongful eviction (33) | | Other PI/PD,WD (23) Non-PI/PD/WD (Other) Tort | | Business tor /unfair business practice (07) I I Other real property (26) I | Civil rights (C 8) | | Defamation ( 1 3) | | Fraud (16) I | Intellectual p 'operty (19) | | Professional negligence (25) | | Other non-PI 'PD/WD tort (35) Unlawful Detainer | | Commercial (31) I | Residential (32) I I Drugs (38) Judicial Review I | RICO (27) I | Other complaint (not specified above) (42) Miscellaneous Civil Petition | ~] Partnership and corporate governance (21) | | Other petition (not specified above) (43) I | Asset forfeiture (05) I | Petition re: arbitration award (11) I | Writ of mandate (02) | | Other judicial review (39) Employment | | Wrongful terriination (36) | X | Other employment (15) 2. This case I I is I x | is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark thefactors requiring exceptional judicial management: a. | | Large ni mber of separately represented parties b. I | Extensiv 3 motion practice raising difficult or novel issues that will be time-consuming to resolve c. | | Substantial amount of documentary evidence d. | | Large number of witnesses e. [ | Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court f. | | Substant3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a. I x 1 monetary b.| x | nonmonetai ion c. | x | punitive4. Number of causes; of action (specify): (2) 5. This case I I i 3 | * | is not a class action suit. 6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM-015.)Date: July 31, 2020 Devin H. Fok, Esq. QYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PAR' ATTORNEY FOR PARTY) NOTICE • Plaintiff must file th,s cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filedunder the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may resultin sanctions. • File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. • If this case is comp ex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on allother parties to the action or proceeding. • Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only. Page 1 of 2Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Judicial Council of California CM-010 (Rev. July 1,2007] Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.30, 3.220, 3.400-3.403, 3.740; Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, std. 3.10 - wwvj.courts.ca.gov CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 22 of 30 CM-010 INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEETTo Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a first paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you mustcomplete and file, along with your first paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1 . This information will be used to compilestatistics about the types and numbers of cases filed. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet, in item 1, you must checkone box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item 1 ,check the more specific one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action.To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A coversheet must be filed only with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party,its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court.To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A "collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money owedin a sum stated to tie certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in whichproperty, services, :>r money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1 ) tortdamages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ ofattachment. The identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the generaltime-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collectionscase will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740.To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether thecase is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated bycompleting the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with thecomplaint on all partes to the action. A defendant may file arid serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in theplaintiffs designatio i, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation thatthe case is complex. Auto Tort Auto (22}-Personu) Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the case involves e n uninsured motorist claim subject to arbitration, che rk this item instead ofAuto) Other PI/PD/'WD (Personal Injury! Property Damage/W "ongful Death) Tort CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Contract Breach of Contract/Warranty (06) Breach of Rental/Lease Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court Rules 3.400-3.403) Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03) Construction Defect (10) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) Securities Litigation (28) Environmental/Toxic Tort (30) Insurance Coverage Claims (arising from provisionally complex case type listed above) (41) Enforcement of Judgment Enforcement of Judgment (20) Abstract of Judgment (Out of County) Confession of Judgment (non- domestic relations) Sister State Judgment Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) Petition/Certification of Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Other Enforcement of Judgment Case Miscellaneous Civil Complaint Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) Contract/Warranly Breach-Seller Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) Negligent Breach of Contract/ Warranty Other Breach of Contract/Warranty Collections (e.g., money owed, open book accounts) (09) Collection Case-Seller Plaintiff Other Promissory Note/Collections Case Insurance Coverage (not provisionally complex) (18) Auto Subrogation Other Coverage Other Contract (37) Contractual Fraud Asbestos (04) Asbestos Property Damage Asbestos Personal Injury/ Wrongful Death Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental) (24) Medical Malpractice (45) Medical Malpractice- Physician 5 & Surgeons Other Professiona I Health Care Malpractice Other PI/PD/WD ( >3) Premises Liab lity (e.g., slip and fall) Intentional Bodily Injury/PD/WD (e.g., assault, vandalism) Intentional Infli ;tion of Emotional Distress Negligent lnflic;ion of Emotional Distress Other PI/PD/WD Other Contract Dispute Real Property Eminent Domain/inverse Condemnation (14) Wrongful Eviction (33) Other Real Property (e.g., quiet title) (26) Writ of Possession of Real Property Mortgage Foreclosure Quiet Title Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, or foreclosure) Unlawful Detainer Commercial (31) Residential (32) Drugs (38) (if the case involves illegal drugs, check this item; otherwise, report as Commercial or Residential) Judicial Review Asset Forfeiture (05) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11) Writ of Mandate (02) Writ-Adrninistrative Mandamus Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter Writ-Other Limited Court Case Review Other Judicial Review (39) Review of Health Officer Order Notice of Appeal-Labor Commissioner Appeals RICO (27) Other Complaint (not specified above) (42) Declaratory Relief Only Injunctive Relief Only (non- harassment) Mechanics Lien Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tort/non-complex) Other Civil Complaint (non-tort/non-complex) Miscellaneous Civil Petition Non-PI/PD/WD (Other Tort Business Tort/Unto ir Business Practice (07) Civil Rights (e.g., d scrimination, false arrest) (not civil harassment) (( 8) Defamation (e.g., s ander, libel) Partnership and Corporate Governance (21) Other Petition (not specified above) (43) (13) Civil Harassment Fraud (16) Intellectual Property (19) Professional Negligence (25) Legal Malpractice Other Professior ial Malpractice (not medical or legal) Other Non-PI/PD/WD Tort (35) Employment Wrongful Termination (36) . Other Employment 1 15) Workplace Violence Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Election Contest Petition for Name Change Petition for Relief From Late Claim Other Civil Petition Page 2 of 2 CM-010 (Rev. July 1.2007] For your protection and privacy, please press the Clear This Form button after you have printed the form. CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Clear this foim Save this formPrint this form Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 23 of 30 CASE NUMBER: CGC-20-586357 BRIAN PATRICK LEMINGS VS. CHECKR, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF A Case Management Conference is set for: DATE: JAN-27-2021 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 and served twenty-five 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-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 24 of 30 SUM-100 SUMMONS (CITACION JUDICIAL) FOR COURT USE ONLY (SOLO PARA VSO DE LA CORTE) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): CHECKR, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-10 inclusive, YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): BRIAN PATRICK LEMINGS, as an individual, NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the informationbelow. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copyserved on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear yourcase. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California CourtsOnline Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. if you cannot pay the filing fee, ask thecourt clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property maybe taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney' right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorneyreferral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locatethese nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center( www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees andcosts on any settlement or arbitration award of $1 0,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.iAVISO! Lo hart demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidiren su conira sin escuchar su version. Lea la information acontinuacidn. Tiene 30 DiAS DE CALENDARIO despues de que le entreguen esta citacidn y pape/es legales para presentar una respuesta por escrilo en estacorte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefdnica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estaren formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta.Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas information en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en labiblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentation, pida al secretario de la corte quele de un formulario de exencion de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por Incumplimiento y la corte le podraquitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia. Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendabie que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio deremision a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpia con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de unprograma de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services,(www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o poniendose en contacto con la corte o elcoiegio de abogados locales. A VISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobrecualquier recuperation de $10,000 o mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesion de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene quepagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso. The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y direccion de la corte es): Civic Center Courthouse 400 McAllister St. CASE NUN1SE& (Niwei >1 San Francisco, CA 94102 The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, ia direccion y el numerode tetefono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Devin Fok, Esq., DHF Law, P.C., 16 N. Marengo Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91101, 310-430-9933 yy , Deputy (Adjunto) TSb) Clerk of the Court Clerk, by(Secretario) ftfGEUCASUNQA(Forproof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).) '(Para pruebajde entrega de esta citatidn use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (P'dS-010).) NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1. I I as an individual defendant. 2. | | as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify)^/ 3. | x | on behalf of (specify): under: |~x~l CCP 416.10 (corporation) | | CCP 41 6.20 (defunct corporation) | | CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) | | other (specify): 4. | | by personal delivery on (date) 0.id# «5>Q 25O -M" ft 5 | | CCP 416.60 (minor) | | CCP 416.70 (conservatee) [ [ CCP 416.90 (authorized person) WO<9. .CO *'/i Page 1 of 1Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Judicial Council of California SUM-100 [Rev. July 1 , 2003] For your protection and privacy, please press the Clear This Form button after you have printed the form. SUMMONS Code of Civil Procedure §§ 412.20. 465 Mvw.courTs.ca.gov Print this form | Save this form Clear this form Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 25 of 30 LITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 3 3 3 B u s h S t r e e t 3 4 t h F l o o r S a n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 4 4 1 5 . 4 3 3 . 1 9 4 0 1. Case No. CGC-20-586357 DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC.’S ANSWER TO 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 ROD M. FLIEGEL, Bar No. 168289 rfliegel@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: 415.433.1940 Facsimile: 415.399.8490 Attorneys for Defendant CHECKR, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO BRIAN PATRICK LEMINGS, as an individual, Plaintiff(s), v. CHECKR, INC., a California Corporation and JOHN DOES, 1-10 inclusive, Defendant(s). Case No. CGC-20-586357 DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Complaint Filed: August 25, 2020 Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 26 of 30 LITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 3 3 3 B u s h S t r e e t 3 4 t h F l o o r S a n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 4 4 1 5 . 4 3 3 . 1 9 4 0 2. Case No. CGC-20-586357 DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC.’S ANSWER TO 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 Defendant Checkr, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Checkr”), through its undersigned counsel, answers the unverified Complaint of Plaintiff Brian Patrick Lemmings (“Plaintiff”).1 GENERAL DENIAL 1. Pursuant to section 431.30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant hereby answers Plaintiff’s unverified Complaint by generally denying each and every allegation contained therein, by denying that Plaintiff has been damaged or has sustained any damages as a result of the conduct alleged therein, and by asserting the following separate and distinct additional defenses. ADDITIONAL DEFENSES Without admitting any of the allegations of the Complaint and without admitting or acknowledging that Defendant bears any burden of proof as to any of them, Defendant asserts the following additional defenses. Defendant intends to rely upon any additional defenses that become available or apparent during pretrial proceedings and discovery in this action, and hereby reserves the right to amend this Answer to assert all such further defenses. FIRST DEFENSE 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. SECOND DEFENSE 2. Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each and every cause of action contained therein, are barred in whole or in part because, at all material times, Defendant acted reasonably, in good faith and without malice based upon all relevant facts and circumstances known by Defendant at the time, and did not at any time willfully or negligently fail to comply with the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). THIRD DEFENSE 3. Plaintiff's claims for statutory damages and punitive damages violate the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the corresponding provisions of state law because: (a) the punitive damages claimed are vastly 1 By submitting this filing, Defendant does not concede this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant reserves all arguments, objections and defenses. Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 27 of 30 LITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 3 3 3 B u s h S t r e e t 3 4 t h F l o o r S a n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 4 4 1 5 . 4 3 3 . 1 9 4 0 3. Case No. CGC-20-586357 DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC.’S ANSWER TO 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 disproportionate to the statutory and/or actual damages claimed or available; (b) the award of punitive and/or statutory damages would constitute an arbitrary and capricious taking of Defendant’s property which is unjustified by any rational governmental interest; and/or (c) the award of punitive damages with wholly standardless discretion is inconsistent with due process. FOURTH DEFENSE 4. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff did not suffer any cognizable injury or other harm as a proximate result of any alleged act or omission of Defendant or its agents or employees. FIFTH DEFENSE 5. Defendant alleges that Section 616 of the FCRA (15 U.S.C. § 1681n) is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous and unjustifiably arbitrary. SIXTH DEFENSE 6. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, if any, to the extent he has in any way agreed to submit his disputes to arbitration. SEVENTH DEFENSE 7. Defendant alleges that it has maintained reasonable procedures to comply with applicable law at all times relevant to Plaintiff’s Complaint, it complied with the FCRA in the handling of Plaintiff’s reports and disputes, and is therefore entitled to each and every defense stated in and available under the FCRA and to all limitations of liability. EIGHTH DEFENSE 8. Plaintiff’s claims are excluded from coverage by Section 607 of the FCRA (15 U.S.C. § 1681e) to the extent that Defendant prepared any background reports in connection with an investigation of compliance with federal, state or local laws and regulations or any of Defendant’s customers’ pre-existing policies (15 U.S.C. § 1681a(y)). NINTH DEFENSE 9. Assuming Plaintiff suffered or sustained any loss, damage or injury, which Defendant specifically denies, such loss, damage or injury was proximately caused or contributed to by the negligence or wrongful conduct of other parties, persons or entities, and that their negligence or Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 28 of 30 LITTLER MENDELSON, P .C . 3 3 3 B u s h S t r e e t 3 4 t h F l o o r S a n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 4 4 1 5 . 4 3 3 . 1 9 4 0 4. Case No. CGC-20-586357 DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC.’S ANSWER TO 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 wrongful conduct was an intervening and superseding cause of the purported loss, damage or injury of which Plaintiff complains. Plaintiff’s damages, if any, as against Defendant, must therefore be reduced by the proportion of fault attributable to such third parties, and to the extent that this is necessary, Defendant may be entitled to partial indemnity from such third parties on a comparative fault basis. TENTH DEFENSE 10. All of the damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff could have been avoided by the principles of mitigation and the doctrine of avoidable consequences and all similar and equivalent doctrines. ELEVENTH DEFENSE 11. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred in whole or in part to the extent Plaintiff failed to comply fully or at all with procedures available and/or required under the FCRA to address Plaintiff’s concerns and/or otherwise failed to take reasonable steps to avoid harm. TWELFTH DEFENSE 12. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole, or in part, by the equitable theories of estoppel, waiver, and laches. Defendant’s investigation is continuing, and it reserves the right to amend its Answer and to raise additional defenses that may arise during the course of the litigation. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff as follows: 1. That the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice; 2. That Plaintiff takes nothing by way of the Complaint; 3. That Defendant recover its attorney’s fees, costs and disbursements in this action; and 4. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: September 29, 2020 ROD M. FLIEGEL LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant CHECKR, INC. 4811-9001-5948.1 091435.1068 Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 29 of 30 American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com Page 1 of 1 Form Approved for Optional Use Judicial Council of California POS-050/EFS-050 [Rev. February 1, 2017] PROOF OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE (Proof of Service/Electronic Filing and Service) Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251 www.courts.ca.gov POS-050/EFS-050 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY: STATE BAR NO: FOR COURT USE ONLY NAME ROD M. FLIEGEL, Bar No. 168289 FIRM NAME: LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. STREET ADDRESS: 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor CITY: San Francisco STATE: CA ZIP CODE:94104 TELEPHONE NO.: 415.433.1940 FAX NO.: 415.399.8490 E-MAIL ADDRESS: rfliegel@littler.com ATTORNEY FOR (name): Defendant CHECKR, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO STREET ADDRESS: MAILING ADDRESS: 400 McAllister CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Francisco, CA 94102 BRANCH NAME: CASE NUMBER: CGC-20-586357 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: BRIAN PATRICK LEMINGS DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: CHECKR, INC. JUDICIAL OFFICER: PROOF OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE DEPARTMENT: 1. I am at least 18 years old. a. My residence or business address is (specify): 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104 b. My electronic service address is (specify): akawase@littler.com 2. I electronically served the following documents (exact titles): DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT The documents served are listed in an attachment. (Form POS-050(D)/EFS-050(D) may be used for this purpose.) 3. I electronically served the documents listed in 2 as follows: a. Name of person served: Devin H. Fok On behalf of (name or names of parties represented, if person served is an attorney): Plaintiff b. Electronic service address of person served : devin@devinfoklaw.com c. On (date): September 29, 2020 The documents listed in item 2 were served electronically on the persons and in the manner described in an attachment. (Form POS-050(P)/EFS-050(P) may be used for this purpose.) Date: September 29, 2020 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Anne Kawase  (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT) 4830-1664-0461.1 091435.1068 Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/20 Page 30 of 30 (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) (If Known) (Place an “X” in One Box Only) (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) or and (Place an “X” in One Box Only) (Place an “X” in One Box Only) (specify) (See instructions): Lemings, Brian Patrick Checkr, Inc. TN SF, CA (PPB) Devin Fok, 16 North Marengo Avenue Suite 403, Pasadena, CA (888) 651-6411 Rod M. Fliegel, 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor, San Francisco, CA (415) 433-1940 (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity) 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq. Fair Credit Reporting Act Claims 09/30/2020 /s/ Rod M. Fliegel Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-2 Filed 09/30/20 Page 1 of 2 Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 1-2 Filed 09/30/20 Page 2 of 2 LITTLER MENDELSON, P .C. 3 3 3 B u sh S t r e e t 3 4 th F l o o r S a n F ra n c i s co , C A 9 4 1 0 4 4 1 5 .4 3 3 .1 9 40 1. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF ROD M. FLIEGEL AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC. 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 ROD M. FLIEGEL, Bar No. 168289 rfliegel@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: 415.433.1940 Facsimile: 415.399.8490 Attorneys for Defendant CHECKR, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRIAN PATRICK LEMINGS, as an individual, Plaintiff(s), v. CHECKR, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Defendant(s). Case No. 3:20-cv-06849 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF ROD M. FLIEGEL AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC. Complaint Filed: August 25, 2020 Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 2 Filed 09/30/20 Page 1 of 2 LITTLER MENDELSON, P .C. 3 3 3 B u sh S t r e e t 3 4 th F l o o r S a n F ra n c i s co , C A 9 4 1 0 4 4 1 5 .4 3 3 .1 9 40 2. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF ROD M. FLIEGEL AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC. 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 TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Rod M. Fliegel of the Law Firm of Littler Mendelson, P.C., 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor, San Francisco, California 94104; telephone (415) 433-1940, hereby enters his appearance as one of the attorneys of record for Defendant CHECKR, INC. in the above- captioned matter. 1 The filing of this form constitutes the first appearance in this case of the attorney listed above. Please send copies of all future pleadings and correspondence and all communications to and from the Court concerning this matter to the undersigned at 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor, San Francisco, California 94104 or e-mail address rfliegel@littler.com. Dated: September 30, 2020 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. /s/ Rod M. Fliegel ROD M. FLIEGEL LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant CHECKR, INC. 4814-6399-3804.1 091435.1085 1 By submitting this filing, Defendant does not concede this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant reserves all arguments, objections and defenses. Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 2 Filed 09/30/20 Page 2 of 2 LITTLER MENDELSON, P .C. 3 3 3 B u sh S t r e e t 3 4 th F l o o r S a n F ra n c i s co , C A 9 4 1 0 4 4 1 5 .4 3 3 .1 9 40 1. DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC.’S CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 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 ROD M. FLIEGEL, Bar No. 168289 rfliegel@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: 415.433.1940 Facsimile: 415.399.8490 Attorneys for Defendant CHECKR, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRIAN PATRICK LEMINGS, as an individual, Plaintiff(s), v. CHECKR, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Defendant(s). Case No. 3:20-cv-06849 DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC.’S CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Complaint Filed: August 25, 2020 Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 3 Filed 09/30/20 Page 1 of 2 LITTLER MENDELSON, P .C. 3 3 3 B u sh S t r e e t 3 4 th F l o o r S a n F ra n c i s co , C A 9 4 1 0 4 4 1 5 .4 3 3 .1 9 40 2. DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC.’S CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 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 TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND TO PLAINTIFF AND HIS OR HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and to enable Judges and Magistrate Judges of the Court to evaluate possible disqualification or recusal, the undersigned counsel of record for Defendant Checkr, Inc., a Delaware corporation, (“Defendant” or “Checkr”) certifies that Checkr has no parent corporation, and no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock.1 Dated: September 30, 2020 /s/ Rod M. Fliegel ROD M. FLIEGEL LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant CHECKR, INC. 4817-5670-7532.1 091435.1085 1 By submitting this filing, Defendant does not concede this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant reserves all arguments, objections and defenses. Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 3 Filed 09/30/20 Page 2 of 2 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 3 3 3 B u sh S t r e e t 3 4 th F l o o r S a n F ra n c i s co , C A 9 4 1 0 4 4 1 5 .4 3 3 .1 9 40 1. DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC.’S CERTIFICATION OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS 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 ROD M. FLIEGEL, Bar No. 168289 rfliegel@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: 415.433.1940 Facsimile: 415.399.8490 Attorneys for Defendant CHECKR, INC., et al. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRIAN PATRICK LEMINGS, as an individual, Plaintiff(s), v. CHECKR, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Defendant(s). Case No. 3:20-cv-06849 DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC.’S CERTIFICATION OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS Complaint Filed: August 25, 2020 Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 4 Filed 09/30/20 Page 1 of 2 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 3 3 3 B u sh S t r e e t 3 4 th F l o o r S a n F ra n c i s co , C A 9 4 1 0 4 4 1 5 .4 3 3 .1 9 40 2. DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC.’S CERTIFICATION OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS 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 TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND TO PLAINTIFF AND HIS OR HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-15, the undersigned counsel of record for Defendant Checkr, Inc., a Delaware corporation, hereby certifies that, as of this date, other than the named parties, there are no non-party interested entities or persons to report.1 Dated: September 30, 2020 /s/ Rod M. Fliegel ROD M. FLIEGEL LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant CHECKR, INC. 4813-1765-1404.1 091435.1085 1 By submitting this filing, Defendant does not concede this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant reserves all arguments, objections and defenses. Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 4 Filed 09/30/20 Page 2 of 2 LITTLER MENDELSON, P .C. 3 3 3 B u sh S t r e e t 3 4 th F l o o r S a n F ra n c i s co , C A 9 4 1 0 4 4 1 5 .4 3 3 .1 9 40 1. PROOF OF SERVICE 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 ROD M. FLIEGEL, Bar No. 168289 rfliegel@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: 415.433.1940 Facsimile: 415.399.8490 Attorneys for Defendant CHECKR, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRIAN PATRICK LEMINGS, as an individual, Plaintiff(s), v. CHECKR, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Defendant(s). Case No. 3:20-cv-06849 DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC.’S PROOF OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 5 Filed 09/30/20 Page 1 of 3 LITTLER MENDELSON, P .C. 3 3 3 B u sh S t r e e t 3 4 th F l o o r S a n F ra n c i s co , C A 9 4 1 0 4 4 1 5 .4 3 3 .1 9 40 2. PROOF OF SERVICE 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, the undersigned, state: I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104. On September 30, 2020, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: 1. ECF 1 - DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION 2. ECF 1-1 - EXHIBIT A TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL 3. ECF 1-2 - CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET 4. ECF 2 - NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF ROD M. FLIEGEL AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC. 5. ECF 3 - CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 6. ECF 4 - DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC.’S CERTIFICATION OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS on the interested parties by enclosing a true copy in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Devin Fok DHF Law PC 16 N. Marengo Avenue, Suite 408 Pasadena, CA 91101 Attorneys for Plaintiff devin@devinfoklaw.com  VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) listed above. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier.  VIA U.S. MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) listed above and placed the envelope(s) for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with Littler Mendelson, P.C.’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.  VIA FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed above. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used.  VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept electronic service, I caused the document(s) to be sent to the persons at the electronic service addresses listed above. Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 5 Filed 09/30/20 Page 2 of 3 LITTLER MENDELSON, P .C. 3 3 3 B u sh S t r e e t 3 4 t h F l o o r S a n F ra n c i s co , C A 9 4 1 0 4 4 1 5 . 4 3 3 . 1 9 40 3. PROOF OF SERVICE 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  VIA MESSENGER SERVICE: I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed above and providing them to a professional messenger service for service. DECLARATION OF MESSENGER: I personally delivered the envelope or package received from the declarant above to the persons at the addresses listed above. For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorney’s office by leaving the documents in an envelope or package, which was clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening; for a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party’s residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening. At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age. I am not a party to the above- referenced legal proceeding. I served the envelope or package, as stated above on September 30, 2020. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: _________________________ _________________________________ Signature of Declarant/Messenger I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 30, 2020, at San Francisco, California. MARI ADRIANO 4849-9575-7260.1 091435.1085 Case 3:20-cv-06849 Document 5 Filed 09/30/20 Page 3 of 3