EARL RITTER v. COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA Et Al Notice of Removal

Case 2:12-cv-05785-MWF-SH Document 1
Filed 07/05/12 Page 1 of 42 Page ID #:3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
DENNIS M. BROWN, Bar No. 126575 dmbrown@littler.cora ERICA H7XELLEY, Bar No. 221702 ekelley@littler.com NATHALIE A. LE NGOC, Bar No. 254376 nlengoc(aJlittler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 50 W. San Fernando, 15th Floor San Jose, California 95113.2303 Telephone: 408.998.4150 Facsimile: 408.288.5686 Attorneys for Defendant COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 12 13
EARL RITTER, Plaintiff,
CV12-Q 3
Case No?
r*
n^ VJ
WiMFktte
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
LITTLER MENOaSOU PC. 0 W. San Fernando, 15i f kxx San Joss, Cft 35113.2303
v.
NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)
COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA; and DOES 1.50, Inclusive, Defendants. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Combined Insurance Company of America hereby removes the above-captioned action from Los Angeles County Superior Court in the State of California to the United States District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), 1441 (b), and 1446(b) on the following grounds: I. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION This Court has original jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a) because this matter is between citizens of different states within the meaning of that provision and the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.
INSERT (NO.
II.
2
3
4
VENUE 1. The action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles. Venue properly lies in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 84(c)(2), 1391(a), and 1441(a). III. PLEADINGS, PROCESS AND ORDERS 2. On or about April 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior
5 6
7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 0 W.San Fernando, 15lh Floor San Jose, CA 95113.2303 408.998.4150
Court for the County of Los Angeles, entitled Earl Ritter v. Combined Insurance Company of America; and DOES 1-50, Case No. BC 483291 (herein referred to as the "Complaint"). According to the Complaint, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant. (Compl. at If 6.) A true and correct copy of the Summons and Complaint filed on April 23, 2012 is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. The body of the Complaint contains six different causes of action for the following: (1) retaliation in violation of California Fair Employment and Housing Act; (2) retaliation and termination in violation of public policy; (3) disability discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act; (4) hostile work environment in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act; (5) failure to prevent harassment or discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act; (6) wage and hour and waiting time penalties. 4. Plaintiff served the Complaint on Defendant on June 6, 2012. A true and correct copy of the proof of service of the Summons and Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 5. On July 2, 2012, Defendant filed a general denial and affirmative defenses to the Complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court. A true and correct copy of Defendant's general denial and affirmative defenses is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 6. To Defendant's knowledge, no further process, pleadings, or orders related to this case have been filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
INSERT (NO.
2.
IV.
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1332(A) 7. Under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), federal courts have original jurisdiction over
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25
actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states. A. 8. AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(c), the Defendant need only establish by a
preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement, or $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(a) and 1446(c). 9. To measure the amount in controversy, courts first consider whether it is "facially apparent from the complaint that the jurisdictional amount has been satisfied." Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997). In measuring the amount in controversy, the Court "must assume that the allegations of the complaint are true and assume that a jury will return a verdict for the plaintiff on all claims made in the complaint." Kenneth Rothschild Trust v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 199 F. Supp. 2d 993, 1001 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (internal quotations omitted). 10. If the complaint does not clearly establish the jurisdictional amount, then the Court may consider facts in the removal petition. Singer, 116 F.3d at 377; see also Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) ("[W]e reiterate that the amount-in-controversy inquiry in the removal context is not confined to the face of the complaint."). 11. In this case, the allegations of the Complaint make clear that the damages Plaintiff seeks exceed $75,000. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, unpaid wages, prejudgment interest, exemplary and punitive damages, waiting time penalties, costs of suit, and "any other damages that the court deems just and proper." (Compl. at pg. 19-20, Prayer.)
26 27 28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 0 W.San Fernando, 15lh Floor San Jose, CA 95113.2303 408.998.4150
INSERT (NO.
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
12.
Plaintiff alleges that he has suffered and continues to suffer damages in
the form of lost wages and other employment benefits, and severe emotional distress and psychological and emotional discomfort, pain and suffering. (Compl. at Tf 40-41.) 13. The last date that Plaintiff worked for Combined Insurance was May 15, 2010. (Complaint, f 29.) At the time of his alleged termination, Plaintiff was earning approximately $85,000 per year, exclusive of commissions and bonuses and exclusive of benefits. (See Declaration of Libbie S. Kurtz in Support of Defendant's Removal Petition, f4.) Assuming that Plaintiff is currently unemployed and can establish that despite attempts to mitigate his damages, he is entitled to his full loss of wages from the date of the end of employment to the present (over two years), Defendant presumes Plaintiff will seek to recover over $170,000 ($85,000 x 2 years) to date, plus future wage loss. Plaintiff also seeks the value of lost benefits through this period, all of which would meet the jurisdictional requirement without considering any other damages and does not account for the additional wage loss accrued in the time before trial. 14. Plaintiff alleges that he "has sustained and will sustain general damages in the future for past, present and future physical, psychological and emotional discomfort, pain and suffering and severe emotional distress." (Compl. at 1HJ40, 50, 60, 68 and 78.) These allegations may be considered in determining the amount in controversy. Richmond v. All State Ins. Co., 897 F. Supp. 447, 450 (S.D. Cal. 1995) (emotional distress damages may be considered in the amount in controversy); Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 171 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1999) (plaintiffs claims for pain and suffering and humiliation may properly be factored into the jurisdictional analysis for purposes of removal). 16. As of the date of this Notice, more than two years have passed since Plaintiffs termination. Assuming, as we must, that Plaintiff proves the allegation in his complaint, i.e., that Defendant caused him continuous severe emotional and physical distress for a period of more than two years, he likely would be awarded
INSERT (NO. ) 4.
26 27 28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.O. 0 W. San Fernando, 15th Floor San Jose, CA 95113.2303 408.998.4150
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
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 0 W. San Fernando, 15lh Floor San Jose, CA 95113.2303 408.998.4160
substantial emotional distress damages, which, by themselves, would exceed the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement. 17. Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages, which must be considered in determining whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See, e.g., Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 945 (9th Cir. 2001) ("It is well established that punitive damages are part of the amount in controversy in a civil action."). Of course, if Plaintiff were to establish liability for punitive damages, the award of such damages could easily exceed $75,000. 18. Defendant does not concede Plaintiffs allegations are true, that his claims have any merit, that all of the above categories of damages are available, or that the foregoing represents an appropriate method for calculating damages. Defendant provides the foregoing only to demonstrate that the amount in controversy, based on the relief sought by Plaintiff, plainly exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional requirement. B. 19. COMPLETE DIVERSITY OF THE PARTIES For diversity purposes, a person is a "citizen" of the state in which he or
she is domiciled. See Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1983); LeBlanc v. Cleveland, 248 F.3d 95, 100 (2d Cir. 2001) A person's domicile is the place he or she resides with the intention to remain or to which he or she intends to return. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California. (Compl. at ^f 1.) 20. For diversity purposes, a corporation "shall be deemed a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business." 28 U.S.C. 1332(c)(l). 21. To determine a corporation's principal place of business, courts apply the "nerve center" test, which deems the principal place of business to be the state in which the corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's
INSERT (NO.
5.
activities. The Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 1192 (2010). A corporation's principal place of business will usually be its main headquarters. Id. 22. Defendant was, at the time of the filing of this action, and remains, a (Declaration of Rebecca citizen of the State of Illinois. Defendant is incorporated in Illinois and has its main headquarters and principal place of business in Illinois. Collins in Support of Defendant Removal Petition, 11J4-5.) 23.
at 16.)
2 3 4 5 6
7
Defendant is not a state, state official or other governmental entity. (Id.
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20
V.
TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL 23. Under 28 U.S.C. 1446(b), the notice of removal of a civil action must
be filed within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint. Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 354 (1999) (holding that the 30day removal period runs from the service of the summons and complaint; receipt of summons and complaint is insufficient to trigger removal period). 24. Plaintiff filed his Complaint with the Los Angeles County Superior Court
on April 23, 2012. Defendant was served with the Summons and Complaint on June 6, 2012. (Exh. B.) Defendant therefore filed this Notice of Removal within 30 days of service of the Summons and Complaint and this Notice of Removal is timely. VI. NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF AND STATE COURT Contemporaneously with the filing of this Notice of Removal in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, written notice of such filing will be given by the undersigned to Plaintiffs Counsel of Record and a copy of the Notice of Removal, with supporting declarations, will be filed with the Clerk of the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 0 W. San Fernando, 15lh Floor San Jose, CA 95113.2303 408.998.4160
INSERT (NO.
6.
Dated:
July 3, 2012
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
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 0 W. San Fernando, 15tn Floor San Jose, CA 95113.2303 408.998.4150
DENNIS ERICA H. KELLEY NATHALIE A. LE NGOC LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
Firmwide: 112698326.1 035894.1067
INSERT (NO.
7.
EXHIBIT A

'f2>
2-:-S~
SUMMONS (CITACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: Combined Insurance Company of (AVISOALDeUANDADO^'MltXteni and foOES i>30, UlLJAisive CONFORMED COPY SUM-100
ixnjopMvmsooetAcoxTf)
FOR COURT IBS OM.Y
APR 2 3 2017.
YOU ARE BBNG SUED BY PLAINTIFF: Earl Fitter, an (LOESTADEMANDANDOELDEMANDANTE): Individual
SY
lono A. Clarke. EtecoBve OfficeoClcric >?/*^ ^^
NOTICE! You have bean sued. The court my deads against you without your befog heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the Information below. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after'thb summons and legal papers are ssivcd on you to file a written response .at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone cad wifl not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. 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 Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gav/feHtKilp), your county law Sbraiy. or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay iha fitng fee, ask the court dark for a fee waiver farm. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property mey be taten vnthout further warning from the court . ' There are other fegaf requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal" services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at (he CaBfomto Legal Services Web site (MWMr.tewnaficeJ8bi7iia.C4B), the CaBfomta Courts Online Setf-Heto Center (www.cowtlnfo.ca.gov/sal1helff), or by contacting your tocaTcourt or county bar association. NOTE: The court has. a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more hi a dvn case. The court's Den must be paid before the court wM dismiss the case. lAVtSW LoJian demandado. St no responds dentrodt 30 dies, to corte pudo OecMr on su contra sin ascucfmr su vtrstOn. Lea la Intomadon a continuation TlBiw30OlASDECAL&DAlVOdaspu6sdoquler>tregwstecftM^ypapto corf? ykactrque soentrague una copfe a! demandant*. Una carts o unaOamada lalefonlca no fepnjtegen. ScnNpoecnporMcrito (ten* qtw ester en formato legal comcto si oasM qua proctsan su caso en t corte. Ea posibla quv hey* on formulario qua uslad puoda user port su nsptusta, Puede ancontnrestos formularies o* b corte y rriSs MonMteton en el Centre cfrAyvda d lea Cortes oe CMHomla (Www.sucorte.ca.gov), en to bjbltofeca de.teyas de so condadb o en la corte qua fe qiiede mis ceree. SI no pueife pag&lacuott&pmiantacton, pidaatstcretaria&lecorta qua le da un forrnuiariofrexBnctertilipagodecvola*. SI no presents surespuasia a t*mpo, puattopenJarelcasoporlncumpBinlentoy la corte 10 podr6quitarsuswldo,tSneroybienasslnm^3adveftena'a. Hy oJros requisites teoajes. Es c*mefld8tA cue Same a on abogado InmecMamente.Slnoconocfaunabogaao.pugdeaarnarauntarvicloda remision a abogados. Si m puede pagar a w abogado. as pos&a e^ cumpla con los nijuisltos par* obtenef servicJos legsha grsfultot de un programades&vh&sligalessmffaitolucro.PuedaencorrtoestegrJposstofa (wwvv.lawhetocallfomla.OFg;, en e/ Cantro do Ayvtto da las Cortes de California, (Vww.sucorte.ca.govJ o poniendosa en contacto con la corte o el co^/odsa/Kâobsfoc<^s./W7SO:/^tey,facorfeff9n<rctere(to cualquiefncupf radon def 10.000 orntede vaforrewWaa medSanr* un aomrdo o una concision d*. arbltraj* en urt casodederochodvil. Tieneque at gravamen de to corte ante* de qua fe corte pueda dasocharelcaso. . The hams and address o( me court is: ~(& nombre y difeccldnde.la corte e$): ' ;
SS?iC4832n
Los Angeles Superior Court -111 North Hill Street Los Angeles, California 90017
The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre. la direction y el numaro ere tel&fono del abogado del demandanto, o del domandanto qw no tiene aboyado, es):
John A. Girardi, Esquire' GirardiIKeese M 1.126 Wilshire Boulevar " Los Angeles, Califbrni
213/977-0211.
213/481-1554
DATE: .. . J JJvf<&- (Secntai fIFeehaJ ^.fv'lont? (ForprtiiKytls&Vice of Otis summons, use Proof of Servic&otânnW95.rJor77i POS-010).) (Para prueba de entraga de esta citation use el formularioProof $1 Service elfeSummons, (P i de entrega de esta qtation use el formulario Proof $1 Sereics ei^Summons, (PQS-010)). NT*?-, TO THE PERSON SERVED? You are served ISEALJ 1.~_j as an indhridual defendant 2./l_N>sjne person sued under JheficBBousname of (specify);
^-rMtou,. %*
. Deputy , (Adjunto)
' .. "".
under
'
on behalf.of
rj. dr^wg?\N^P 2^MWe*s CevifAW *- &*&&% (specify):
| CCP 416.10 (corporation)
CCP 416.60 (minor)
| CCP 41650 (defunct corporation) CCP 416.70 (eonservafee) I CCP 418.40 (association or partnership) fl CQP 415.90 (authorized person) , , lotherr;ê(Âiuf*^tev>'lJ ^T^lV 4. r^J by personal deBveryon fdatb): / r**i*\
Fam MopUdtorManMivy Us* Judicial Ccundl of Olilbmia
SUMMONS
CafcorCMProo^rtfSîzaOi 4SS

.
.
JOHN A. GIRARDI, SBN 54917 1 GIRARDI I KEESE 2 1 126 Wilshire Boulevard ( $M 3 Los Angeles, California 90017 A A (2 13) 977-02 11 Telephone 4 \A /1D V (213) 481-1554 Facsimile ' fl\ m 5 LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN, SBN 134108 LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN 7 11 26 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 900 17 8 (3 10) 795-63 17 Telephone (9 13) 402-4699 Facsimile
"
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
FILED
APR 2 3 2012
Joh A Clar cc Executive RV
J ' AAJ^^ * Mary Rorcs
Officer/Clerk .Deputy
v3
^X$
in Attorneys for Plaintiff J5>10 EARL RITTER

^-^r^^v
11
-kiis
rX "
" 18
\ 3 i
. f^vJ
U12 13 X14
16
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
>o V
EARL RJTTER, an individual Plaintiff,
) CASE NO: 6 4 8 3 2 ^
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 7 ) ) ) ) )
^,9
21
vs.
' 20 COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive
22 23 24 25 26
si 07 t* 2.1 '1\
H
H 1.)
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF EARL RITTER' S COMPLAINT FOR: ( 1 ) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE -CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT; (2) RETALIATION AND . TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; (3) DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION 0 -< t O 1 IN VIOLATION OF!f!|E;; ~ g CALIFORNIA E;AIR? ? ^ g? EMPLOYMENf JND?HOUS1NG m <? o -c*
A OT* ACT; "* dl -C> O OO o ^ S fS
\ 28
(4) HOSTILE WORK-JENVlK(|MENl IN VIOLATION @F THE^ | | CALIFORNIA FAIR fTi tf* %% EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING 0 -0
<-4 O
>-. -o
3K
COMPLAINT
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
ACT;
(5) FAILURE TO PREVENT HARASSMENT OR DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT; AND (6) WAGE & HOUR & WAITING TIME PENALTIES
Plaintiff Earl "Duke" Ritter ("RITTER" or "Plaintiff), with knowledge as to his own acts and based upon information and belief with regard to all other matters, by and through his
12 attorneys of record, alleges as follows: 13

14
1.
Plaintiff is an individual who, at all times relevant herein, resided within the County
15
of Los Angeles, State of California and was employed by Defendant Combined Insurance
16 Company of America ("COMBINED" or "Defendant") at Defendant's business office(s) located

17 in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 18
2.
Plaintiff alleges that COMBINED is an entity of unknown origin, doing business in
19
20 the County of Los Angeles, State of California.

3. Defendants COMBINED and DOE Defendants 1 through 50 are hereinafter .21 22 sometimes collectively referred to as "Defendants". 23
24
4.
Plaintiff is presently not aware of the true names and/or capacities of defendants
25 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names.
26 Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon such information and belief alleges that said fictitiously
(!) 77 >(t Z/ named defendants are directly and proximately responsible for the injuries and damages alleged '' '
tf 28 H M.
COMPLAINT
I herein. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of said fictitiously named defendants when, and if, ascertained. 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon such information and belief alleges that at
all relevant times each and every Defendant was a principle, agent, employer, employee, manager, supervisor, officer, shareholder and/or owner of each and every other Defendant, and each and
7 8
every act and/or omission of each and every Defendant occurred by and through the owner of the Defendant and within the course and scope of such agency and/or employment and/or was
10 approved and/or ratified by the acts and/or omissions of each and every other Defendant. 11 12
13
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 6. In sum, while Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, Plaintiff protested the
14
termination of an employee who had a medical condition (who had been diagnosed with cancer).
15 Plaintiff was ordered to terminate the employee or Plaintiff would be terminated. This process
caused Plaintiff to develop a serious physical and emotional condition and Plaintiff was harassed,
17
retaliated and discriminated against because of Plaintiff s protesting Defendant's treatment of this
1o
19 employee. Then, additionally, as a result of Plaintiff s own medical condition, Plaintiff had to mis: 20 work and was further harassed by Defendant, retaliated and discriminated against and was 21 eventually terminated. The main reason for Plaintiffs termination was a result of the actions anc 22 23 consequences pertaining to Plaintiff and not the result of any business and/or economic reason(s). 24 25
7.
More specifically, in approximately early 2005, Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as a
Field Agent/Account Executive, being paid on a commission only basis.
26
li) *'
T7 27
:>;!
% 28 H'
w
COMPLAINT
8.
In approximately mid-2007, Plaintiff took over the responsibilities and duties of the
Area Director position and, thereafter in January of 2008, was officially promoted to Area Director
3
4
and was paid a salary in addition to bonuses and reimbursement of expenses. 9. Sometime before October of 2009, an employee (for confidentiality reasons, this
employee will be referred to herein as "Employee") confided to Plaintiff that she had breast cancer and was just finishing her treatments which explained the reason that Employee's production
8 9
numbers were low. Employee stated that she had already notified: (1) her immediate supervisor,
10 Bob Fonfara; (2) another co-worker, Gwen Campbell; and (3) a senior executive, Sheila Precious 11 and asked Plaintiff to keep the information otherwise confidential. Plaintiff stated that he needed
12
to inform National Sales Manager, Fran Mitchell, so that Mr. Mitchell would understand why Employee's numbers were low. 10. Plaintiff called Mr. Mitchell and told him about Employee's medical condition. Mr.
13
14 15
Mitchell seemed more concerned about the Employee meeting her numbers than about her illness
17
18 19
90 zu
and wanted to know how soon Employee was "going to be back in the field and writing business". 11. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Mitchell stated to Plaintiff that Mr. Mitchell wanted Plaintifi
to terminate Employee because of her low production numbers. 12. In October of 2009, Plaintiff appealed to Mr. Mitchell not to terminate Employee due
21 22
23 to her medical condition but, again, all Mr. Mitchell seemed to care about were Employee's 24 production numbers. Mr, Mitchell, once again, told Plaintiff that if Employee's numbers did not 25 26
tj it
i'i
M
97
2.1
improve, Plaintiff must terminate Employee.
% 28 K
COMPLAINT
1
3 4 5
13.
Again, in November of 2009, Mr. Mitchell told Plaintiff that if Employee's numbers By this time, Plaintiff was becoming so
2 did not improve, Plaintiff must terminate Employee.
emotionally distressed that he began to see a therapist. 14. In early December of 2009, Mr. Mitchell called Plaintiff and told him to terminate
6 Employee. Plaintiff informed Mr. Mitchell that Plaintiff could not terminate Employee as it was 7
morally, ethically and legally the wrong thing to do, knowing that she had an ongoing, medica condition and that she needed to have medical insurance. 15. On Monday, December 7, 2009, Plaintiff called Mr. Mitchell one more time and told
8 9 10
11 him that he could not terminate Employee due to her medical condition. Plaintiff asked Mr. 12 Mitchell one last time to reconsider his decision. Mr. Mitchell's reply was words to the effect of: 13 14 "Maybe you're just not cut out to be a manager if you can't terminate someone I tell you to 15 terminate". Mr. Mitchell then told Plaintiff to terminate Employee on Friday and that he did not 16 17 18
want to discuss the issue any further. 16. Plaintiff continued to have tremendous anxiety over this entire situation as he hung
19 up the telephone with Mr. Mitchell because Plaintiff was being forced to do something that he 20 knew was improper. Plaintiff then contacted Employee and informed her that Defendant was 21 terminating her based upon her lack of production. Plaintiff told Employee that this decision was 22 23 made at the Senior Management level and that Plaintiff did not agree with Defendant's decision 24 and that Plaintiff had attempted on numerous occasions to save her job. Employee told Plaintiff 25 26
f 27 >,
i<:>
HI
that she understood what Plaintiff was telling her.

//
!;! 28 //
w
COMPLAINT
17.
The next day, on December 8, 2009, Plaintiff began developing more severe anxiety,
2 panic attacks and had difficulty breathing. That evening, Plaintiff passed out and was rushed to the 3
hospital where he was admitted with Atrial Fibrillation. 18.
4 5
On the morning of December 9, 2009, Plaintiffs wife contacted Mr. Mitchell to
6 inform him that Plaintiff had been admitted to the hospital. Once again, Mr. Mitchell seemed more 7 concerned with Plaintiffs business appointments and interview schedules than with ah employee's 8 9
medical condition. Mr. Mitchell wanted to speak with Plaintiff so that Mr. Mitchell could get a list
10 of Plaintiff s appointments but Plaintiff was sedated and unable to speak with anyone regarding 11 business issues. Mr. Mitchell then asked Plaintiffs wife to go home and get Plaintiffs list of 12
appointments from Plaintiffs computer which Plaintiffs wife did. 19.
13 14 16 17 18
Defendant regarding the "extenuating circumstances surrounding [her] battle with cancer this year" Plaintiff was then placed on disability for six weeks due to the overwhelming stress
15 of the situation.
20. Meanwhile, immediately following her termination, Employee sent an e-mail to
19 and asking that Defendant "reconsider" its decision to terminate her. Amazingly, Defendant 20 responded as if it had no idea whatsoever that Employee had been battling cancer for an year , 21 22 24 25 26
although, as set forth above, Employee, herself, had informed three people of her breast cancer,
23 including Employee's direct supervisor.
21.
It appeared from that first moment that Defendant was going to attempt to blame
Plaintiff for Employee's termination. In fact, Defendant's forwarding of Employee's e-mai
v 27 inquiring of her "extenuating circumstances" states: "Did [Plaintiff] inform us of any of this? Wh;
28 wasn't any of this brought up in our discussions? We certainly could not expect her to have
COMPLAINT
robust pipeline if she was getting treatment for cancer. Why wasn't she on Disability and why wasn't any of this relevant information brought up?" 22. However, not only did Plaintiff inform Mr. Mitchell of Employee's medical
4 5
condition (and not only did Employee herself inform not one - not two - but three persons), but, as
6 stated above, rather than request Employee be terminated, Plaintiff specifically and repeatedly
voiced his objections to Employee's termination on at least three different occasions during
8
conversations with Mr. Mitchell. In Plaintiffs final discussion with Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Mitchell
10 informed Plaintiff that Employee was being terminated because of a decision made by "upper
11 management".
12 13
23.
Nevertheless, on or about February 8, 2010 (after Plaintiff had only returned to
14 work for two weeks from his own disability leave), Plaintiff received a Formal Written Warning 15 Letter from Defendant with regard to Plaintiffs Performance and Conduct. A specific cited issue 16 17 18
19 ^ 21
22
was:
"You failed to inform us that [employee] had gone through cancer treatments twice during the last year, with extensive treatment during the fourth quarter. You did mention early in the year she was having some medical problems, but never informed me of the extent of the illness. [Employee] was subsequently sent a termination letter for unacceptable production, though once we learned about her treatments, we immediately reversed the termination. As has been explained to all managers you are required to contact Dennis Ontaneda immediately upon being made aware that an individual has a serious health condition or that a member of their immediate family has a serious health condition which may require them to miss work. This is so that Dennis can contact the benefits department to ensure that
23 24 25 26
'
j>
T7
27
l<> w
1:* li>
28
COMPLAINT
1
2 3 4 5
FMLA paperwork is sent out in a timely manner and the employee can treat their illness without worrying about their position. [Employee] should have been able to go on FMLA leave while she [sic] battling her illness and not [sic] been subject to a termination notice." 24. This Formal Written Warning Letter admits, in writing, that one of Defendant's
6 actions towards Plaintiff was a "motivating reason" (i.e., "a reason that contributed to the decision 7
to take certain action, even though other reasons also may have contributed to the decision") for Plaintiffs eventual termination. CACI 2507. 25. On March 2, 2010, Plaintiff sent a written response to Defendant's Formal Written
8 9 10
11 Warning Letter, addressing all aspects of the Letter and, in particular, setting forth the true nature 12 of the facts surrounding the issue of Employee's termination of Defendant's knowledge of 13 14 Employee's battle with cancer.
15
26.
Plaintiff was told by Jennifer Bloom, Human Resource Specialist, that she would
16 17 18
review Plaintiffs Rebuttal and get back to Plaintiff. On a subsequent conference call with Ms. Bloom, Mr. Mitchell and Dennis Ontenada, Plaintiff stated that he was being treated as Mr.
19 Mitchell's "scapegoat" and that he was being harassed, retaliated and discriminated against due to 20 the Employee incident and because of his own medical problems that were a result of this incident 21 and that caused him to miss work. Despite the fact that Ms. Bloom had told Plaintiff that she 22 23 would review Plaintiffs information in his Rebuttal and "get back" to him (and despite her legal 24 duty to so investigate), Plaintiff never heard back from Ms. Bloom regarding this issue. 25 26 ? 27
!>>
27.
The harassment and retaliation continued. Again, despite the fact that Plaintiff had
recently returned from disability leave, Mr, Mitchell followed up with an additional March 10,
28 2010 "write up" and, in fact, increased Plaintiffs production requirements to assure that Plaintiff I-'' M
COMPLAINT
would fail. Mr, Mitchell was well aware that Plaintiffs counterparts had established territories and 2 Plaintiffs territory was a new territory. Furthermore, when Plaintiff returned from disability leave, various of his team members had either been fired or coerced into "quitting", making it even 4 ,, more difficult for Plaintiff and his team to meet his/their goal(s) or increased goal(s). 6 28. Plaintiff was held to higher standards and to rules that were never applied to others
similarly situated.
8 9
29.
Eventually, on or about May 15, 2010, Defendants terminated Plaintiff from his
10 employment as an Area Director. Defendants' decision to terminate Plaintiff was because of 11 Plaintiffs protesting Defendant's treatment of Employee and as a result of Plaintiff s own medical 12 13 14 reason(s). 15
condition that caused Plaintiff to miss work and not the result of any business and/or economic
30.
Further, at or about the time of Plaintiff s termination, Defendants failed to provide
Plaintiff will money due and owing Plaintiff for bonuses earned in violation of specific provisions
17 18
of the Labor Code which entitles Plaintiff to recover continuing penalties and interest for every day
19 this final payment is not received, as well as for reasonable attorneys' fees related to all efforts 20 associated with same. 21 31. On April 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed the requisite Complaint with the Department of Fair 22 23 Employment & Housing against Defendants and, thereafter, received his Right-to-Sue Notice. 24
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA
26
$ 28
M
K 27 \ w
w
FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT (Against AH Defendants)
COMPLAINT
1
2 3 4 5
33. . Section 12940 of the California Government Code provides that it is an unlawful 32. Plaintiff realleges Paragraphs 1 through 31 above and incorporates same as though fully set forth herein.
6 employment practice "[fjor any employer, labor organization, employment agency, or person to 7 discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any 8 9
practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted
10 in any proceeding under this part." 11 12

34. Additionally, the Fair Employment and Housing Commission's regulations provide:
"It is unlawful for an employer or other covered entity to demote, suspend, reduce, fail to hire or
13 14 consider for hire, fail to give equal consideration in making employment decisions, fail to treat
15 impartially in the context of any recommendations for subsequent employment which the employer 16 17
or other covered entity may make, adversely affect working conditions or otherwise deny any employment benefit to an individual because that individual has opposed practices prohibited by
18
19 the Act or has filed a complaint, testified, assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation, 20 proceeding, or hearing conducted by the Commission or Department or their staffs." 21 22
35. As stated in detail herein, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for Plaintiff
23 opposing of practices forbidden under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. These acts by 24 Plaintiff were motivating reason(s) for Defendants' decision to terminate Plaintiff. 25
36.
As stated above, Plaintiff repeatedly opposed Defendants treatment of Employee
26 27 (and this treatment was unlawful under the FEHA) and Plaintiff informed Defendants that said 28 treatment of Employee was improper. Plaintiffs opposition to practices forbidden under the
10
COMPLAINT
1
3 4 5 7 8
FEHA and/or Plaintiffs filing or making of a complaint, or testifying in and/or assisting in
2 proceeding(s) related to the FEHA was a motivating factor for DEFENDANTS' unlawful conduct
37.
Additionally, as an employee of Defendants, Plaintiff made written and oral
complaints to Defendants regarding Defendants' acts and/or omissions contrary to the FEHA and
6 Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for such conduct.
38.
As a result of Plaintiff s opposing of Defendants' practices forbidden under the
FEHA and as a result of Plaintiff s complaining to Defendants re same, and in retaliation for and in
10 reaction to same, Defendants terminated Plaintiff. Plaintiffs opposing of Defendants' practices 11 forbidden under the FEHA was a motivating factor for Defendants' unlawful conduct. 12 39. The aforementioned acts of retaliation were perpetrated by Defendants' agents and/or 13 supervisors. Furthermore, Defendants' agents and/or supervisors knew or should have known of 14
15
the wrongful conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. Defendants failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent this discrimination and retaliation from occurring.
17 18
40.
As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts and/or omissions of Defendants,
19 and each of them, as stated herein, Plaintiff has sustained and will sustain general damages in the 20 future for past, present and future physical, psychological and emotional discomfort, pain and
21 22
suffering and severe emotional distress, in amounts according to proof at Trial. 41. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts and/or omissions of Defendants,
23
25
24 and each of them, Plaintiff sustained and will continue to sustain significant pecuniary damage for
the loss of past and future earnings, and earning capacity, and loss of benefits in amounts presently 26 M _ unascertained and according to proof at Trial. .i> f-l
w
S? 28 //
K
11
COMPLAINT
42.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 12965 and any and all other
21 applicable sections and codes, Plaintiff is entitled to an award against Defendants, and each oi 3;
them, of attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action. 43.
4 5
In committing the wrongful acts, Defendants, and each of them, acted intentionally
6 and with malice to retaliate against Plaintiff, entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages 7 | against Defendants.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
45. though fully set forth herein. As alleged in detail above, Defendants retaliated against and terminated Plaintiff for 44. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION RETALIATION AND TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY (Against All Defendants) Plaintiff realleges Paragraphs 1 through 43 above and incorporates same as
16 reasons that violate a public policy. 17 18 19

46. As alleged above, Plaintiff was employed by Defendants. As alleged in detail above, while Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, Plaintiff protested
20 the termination of an employee who had a medical condition (who had been diagnosed with 21
cancer). Plaintiff was ordered to terminate the employee or Plaintiff would be terminated. Thi
22 23 process caused Plaintiff to develop a serious physical and emotional condition and Plaintiff was 24 harassed, retaliated and discriminated against because of Plaintiffs protesting Defendant'; 25
treatment of this employee. Then, additionally, as a result of Plaintiffs own medical condition
26
ii) 07 ,\ <i/ !
M
Plaintiff had to miss work and was further harassed by Defendant, retaliated and discriminated
^ 28 against and was eventually terminated. The main reason for Plaintiffs termination was a result o: iM 12
COMPLAINT
1 the actions and consequences pertaining to Plaintiff and not the result of any business and/or 2 economic reason(s). Government Code, 12940, et seq. 47.
4 5
As alleged in detail above, while Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, Plaintiff
protested the termination of an employee who had a medical condition (who had been diagnosed
6 with cancer). Plaintiff was ordered to terminate the employee or Plaintiff would be terminated.
This process caused Plaintiff to develop a serious physical and emotional condition and Plaintiff
8
was harassed, retaliated and discriminated against because of Plaintiffs protesting Defendant's
10 treatment of this employee. Then, additionally, as a result of Plaintiffs own medical condition, 11 Plaintiff had to miss work and was further harassed by Defendant, retaliated and discriminated 12 against and was eventually terminated. The main reason for Plaintiffs termination was a result ol 13 14 the actions and consequences pertaining to Plaintiff and not the result of any business and/or 15 economic reason(s). Government Code, 12940, et seq. 16 17 18
48.
The aforementioned acts of retaliation and termination were perpetrated by
Defendants' agents and/or supervisors. Furthermore, Defendants' agents'and/or supervisors knew
19 or should have known of the wrongful conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate
9fi
^ corrective action. Defendants failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent this discrimination an< 21 retaliation from occurring. 22 49. In committing the wrongful acts, Defendants, and each of them, acted intentionally 23
24 and with malice to retaliate against Plaintiff.
25
50.
3* *'
111
('!
26 ,, -_ and each of them, as stated herein, Plaintiff has sustained and will sustain general damages in the 28
!'?
13
COMPLAINT
1
3 4
future for past, present and future physical, psychological and emotional discomfort, pain and
2 suffering and severe emotional distress, in amounts according to proof at Trial.
51.
and each of them, Plaintiff sustained and will continue to sustain significant pecuniary damage for
6 the loss of past and future earnings, and earning capacity, and loss of benefits in amounts presently
7 8 9
unascertained and according to proof at Trial. 52. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 12965 and any and all other
10 applicable sections and codes, Plaintiff is entitled to an award against Defendants, and each o 11 them, of attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action. 12 13 14 15 16 17
18
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT (Against All Defendants) 53. Plaintiff realleges Paragraphs 1 through 52 above and incorporates same as though
19 fully set forth herein.

20
54. 55.
As set forth above, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants. Defendant knew that Plaintiff had a physical condition that limited his ability to
21
22
23 work. Indeed, Plaintiff was placed on disability leave for a six week period of time. 24 25 26
56.
As set forth herein, Plaintiff was able to perform the essential job duties with
reasonable accommodation for his physical condition yet Defendant terminated Plaintiff and Plaintiffs physical condition was a motivating reason for the termination.
//
I 27
iU I-*
!>;>
14
COMPLAINT
57.
As a result of Defendant's actions, Plaintiff was harmed and Defendant's conduct
2 and/or decision was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm. 3 4 5
58.
applicable sections and codes, Plaintiff is entitled to an award against Defendants, and each of
6 them, of attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action.

7 8 9
59.
and with malice to retaliate against Plaintiff, entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages
10 against Defendants. 11
60.
12 13
14
and each of them, as stated herein, Plaintiff has sustained and will sustain general damages in the future for past, present and future physical, psychological and emotional discomfort., pain and
15 suffering and severe emotional distress, in amounts according to proof at Trial. 16 17 18
61.
As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts and/or omissions of Defendants
and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained and will continue to sustain significant pecuniary damage
19 for the loss of past and future earnings, and earning capacity, and loss of benefits in amounts 20 presently unascertained and according to proof at Trial. 21 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 22 HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA 23 24 25 26 K 27 ^ 28 i);!* w
FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT (Against AH Defendants) 62. Plaintiff realleges Paragraphs 1 through 61 above and incorporates same as though
fully set forth herein.
15
COMPLAINT
1
3 4
5
63.
Section 12940 of the California Government Code provides that it is an unlawful
2 employment practice for "an employer . . . or any other person, because of race, religious creed,
color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, age, or sexual orientation, to harass an employee, an applicant, or a person providing
6 services pursuant to a contract. Harassment of an employee, an applicant, or a person providing 7 services pursuant to a contract by an employee other than an agent or supervisor shall be unlawful
8 9
if the entity, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of this conduct and fails to
10 take immediate and appropriate corrective action. An entity shall take all reasonable steps to 11 prevent harassment from occurring. Loss of tangible job benefits shall not be necessary in order to
12 13 14
64. Plaintiff was subjected to harassment based on his disability and because he protested establish harassment."
15 the harassment of another on the basis of her disability.
16
17 18
65.
The harassing conduct was so severe, widespread and/or persistent that a reasonable
person in Plaintiffs circumstances would have considered the work environment to be hostile or
19 abusive and Plaintiff considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive. 20

66. The above-described conduct was engaged in by various supervisors and Defendants'
21 22 24 25 26 27
68. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts and/or omissions of Defendants, other supervisors or agents knew or should have known of the conduct and failed to take
23 immediate and appropriate corrective action.

67. In committing the wrongful acts, Defendants, and each of them, acted intentionally
and with malice to retaliate against Plaintiff.
28 and each of them, as stated herein, Plaintiff has sustained and will sustain general damages in the
16
COMPLAINT
1
3 4 5
future for past, present and future physical, psychological and emotional discomfort, pain and
2 suffering and severe emotional distress, in amounts according to proof at Trial.

69. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts and/or omissions of Defendants,
and each of them, Plaintiff has sustained and will continue to sustain significant pecuniary damage
6 for the loss of past and future earnings, and earning capacity, and loss of benefits in amounts 7 presently unascertained and according to proof at Trial. 8 70. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 12965 and any and all other applicable 9 10 sections and codes, Plaintiff is entitled to an award against Defendants, and each of them, of 11 attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action.
12
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PREVENT HARASSMENT OR DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT (Against All Defendants)
13 !4
15
17
18
71.
Plaintiff realleges Paragraphs 1 through 70 above and incorporates same as though
19 fully set forth herein. 29 72. Section 12940 of the California Government Code provides that it is an unlawful
21 22
employment practice for "an employer, labor organization, employment agency, apprenticeship
23 training program, or any training program leading to employment, to fail to take all reasonable 24 steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring." This duty to prevent 25 26
li) 97 ^'
A
*'
harassment and discrimination is "affirmative and mandatory".
28
H W
li
17
COMPLAINT
73.
Plaintiff claims that Defendants failed to prevent harassment and discrimination
based upon Plaintiffs disability and because he protested the harassment of another on the basis of her disability.
4 .
74.
As alleged in detail herein, Plaintiff was subjected to both harassing conduct and
6 discrimination because of his disability and because he protested the harassment of another on the
7 8
basis of her disability. 75. Defendants failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the harassment and
10 discrimination that occurred. Defendants' failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the 11 harassment and discrimination was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff harm.
76.
13
The above-described conduct was engaged in by various supervisors and Defendants'
14 other supervisors or agents knew or should have known of the conduct and failed to take 15 immediate and appropriate corrective action.
77.
17
and with malice to retaliate against Plaintiff.
1o
19
78.
20 and each of them, as stated herein, Plaintiff has sustained and will sustain general damages in the 21 future for past, present and future physical, psychological and emotional discomfort, pain and 22 23 suffering and severe emotional distress, in amounts according to proof at Trial. 24 25
79.
and each of them, Plaintiff sustained and will continue to sustain significant pecuniary damage for the loss of past and future earnings, and earning capacity, and loss of benefits in amounts presently
26
j>
H W
27
28 unascertained and according to proof at Trial. \
18
COMPLAINT
80.
2 applicable sections and codes, Plaintiff is entitled to an award against Defendants, and each of 3 4 5 6 7
them, of attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION WAGE & HOUR & WAITING TIME PENALTIES (Against All Defendants) 81. Plaintiff realleges Paragraphs 1 through 80 above and incorporates same as though
8 9 11
12 13 14 Labor Code 203 in an amount equal to thirty days of Plaintiff s per diem wage rate, plus interest, 15 pursuant to Labor Code Section 218.6 of the California Labor Code and Code of Civil Procedure
10 fully set forth herein.

82. By willfully failing to pay Plaintiffs amounts owed in a timely manner as required
by Labor Code 201, 202 and 203, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for penalties pursuant to
16
17 18
Section 3289(b). 83. Plaintiff has retained the services of legal counsel in order to enforce his rights to
19 receive his pay and, as such, requests an award of attorneys' fees, costs and interest pursuant to 20 Labor Code l\94(z). 21 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as 22 23 follows: 24 25 26
1.
For compensatory damages, including loss of earnings, deferred compensation,
bonuses, and other employment perquisites and other special and general damages according to proof; 2. For punitive and exemplary damages;
fo w
lf
27 28
lit M
l.
19
COMPLAINT
1
2 3 4 5
6
3. 4. 5.
Damages for pain and suffering and severe emotional distress; Interest, including pre-judgment interest, at the prevailing legal rate; For all applicable wage, hour and waiting time penalties pursuant to the California
Labor Code and California law; 6. 7. Attorneys' fees and costs incurred herein; and Costs of suit and such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
7
8
9
10
11 12 13 14 DATED: April 19,2012 15 16

17
GIRARDI/KEESE
18 19
20
(^Ju^qsJi By: JOHN A. GIRARDI Attorneys for Plaintiff, EARL RJTTER
21 22 23 24 25 26 | 27
(0
$ 28 iw> 20
COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT B
^ CT Corporation
TOt Gary Schuman, Senior LIUgatfon Counsel Combined Insurance Company of America 1000 N Milwaukee Are, 6th ROOT Glenvfew, IL 60025
Service of Process Transmlttel

06/06/2012
CT Log Number 520640316
RE:
poib
Proc**a 8rv*d In California

Combined Insurance Company of America (Domestic State: !L)
ENCUMED MB COMES OF UEML PmCKW HBCBVEB BY THE rrATURMV AOCNT Of TUB MOVECOMMMY AS roUjOWai
TnuoriumoNi
DOCUMBITp) SENVEfe COUaTUUMNCVl MWniUOFACTIOH:
Earl Wtter, etc., tttf. vs. Combined Insurance Company of America, el aL, Dfts. Summons, Complaint, Cover Sheet Addendum, ADR Packets
Los Case
County - Superior Court - Central District, CA
Employee Litigation - Wrongful Termination - May 15,2010 C T Corporation System, Los Angeles, CA By Process Server on 06/06/2012 at 16:50 California Within 30 days after service
OH WHOM raoceuarM arv

OATI AND HOUR OF BHWlOfc
rtO/MMHHKBI:
JohnA.Glrardi Gfrardf/Keese 1126 WllsMre Boulevard

LosAnrafcs, CA 90017 213-977<J211
CT has retained the current log, Retain Date: 06/06/2012, Expected Purge Date: 06/11/2012 Image SOP EmaH Notification, Gary Sdiuman nary.schumancombined.com Email Notification. David Goldberg davld.goldbergcornblned.com C T Corporation System Nancy Floras 818 West Seventh Street Los Angeles. CA 90017 213-33%46l[5
Page 1 of 1 / RH
Mountain dfcpttyM tn U* tranamtaa <c lor CT (MpontM't ncari Utpttf punxan only d b pnldd to * i4ptant tor quickreference.TWs UrfwrnUan 4aec n caacMute k|l npWon to ttw rature of Ktton, the wnauit of <hn|H. UOMU <tM. or >ny lirtormaaop otte< >> U HooiUMrtt ttMHMlvtSw McîlMit If iviponlMc Mr McfpivCfeis nW doeuncMs wd fer UWm >H)(>riite cttov Slfrwtirei on OftHM na rewlpQ anflmi raalpc or padafli only, not
EXHIBIT C

PLD-050
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name. Slate Bar number, and address}:
FCW? COURT use ONLY
Dennis M. Brown, SB# 126575 Erica H. Keliey, SB# 221702 Littler Mendelson, P.C. 50 W. San Fernando Street, 15m Floor San Jose, CA 85113-2431 TELEPHONE no- 408.998.4150 FAx.Ho.(Cpi*oi):4Q8.2SB.5Q&6 E-MAII ADDRESS (Optional); dbrown@Iittler.com eke!ley@littler.com ATTORNEY FOR mama): Defendant combined insurance Company of America SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Los Angeles STREET ADDRESS: 111 North Hill Street
MAILING ADDRESS:
to*
JJL 3 * k '.**%$& t~'? &-&-T^

A
CITY AND ZIP cooe-. Los Angeles, C A 90017 BRANCH NAME: Central District PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: EARL RITTER DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
GENERAL DENIAL
CASE NUMBER:
BC 483291
If you want to file a general denial, you MUST use this form if the amount asked for in the complaint or the value of the property involved is $1,000 or less. You MAY use this form for a general denial if: 1. The complaint is not verified; or 2. The complaint is verified and the case is a limited civil case (the amount in controversy is $25,000 or less), BUT NOT if the complaint Involves a claim for more than $1,000 that has been assigned to a third party for collection. (See Code of Civil Procedure sections 85-86, 90-100,431.30, and 431.40.) 1. DEFENDANT (name): Combined Insurance Company of America generally denies each and every allegation of plaintiffs complaint. 2. ^ DEFENDANT states the following FACTS as separate affirmative defenses to plaintiffs complaint (attach additional pages if necessary): See attached Affirmative Defenses.
Date: JulyS, 2012 Erica H. Keliey

(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)
JS^^
^ --' ~^*^~~(SIQI>lATURl^FlS6FENnANT<
If you have a claim for damages or other relief against the plaintiff, the law may require you to state your claim in/a special pleading called a cross-complaint or you may lose your right to bring the claim. (See Code of Civil Procedure sections 42SnO-426.40.) The original of this General Denial must be filed with the clerk of this court with proof that a copy was served on each plaintiffs attorney and on each plaintiff not represented by an attorney. There are two main ways to serve this Genera/ Denial: by personal delivery or by mail. It may be served by anyone at least 18 years of age EXCEPT you or any other party to this legal action. Be sure that whoever serves the General Denial fills out and signs a proof of service. You may use the applicable Judicial Council form (such as form POS-020, POS-030, or POS-040) for the proof of service.
Pag 1 of 1 Torni Adopted for Mandstofy Uss Ji^kial Council of Cs^crnia PtD-060 |Rv, January t J009I CffCte of Civil F'roeadyre, 431.30, 431.40 www,cxJW("ffnft>,9 gw
GENERAL DENIAL
R1TTER V. COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, ei aL Los Angeles County Superior Court, Central District Case No. BC 483291 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendant COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA (hereinafter "Defendant") states the following facts as separate affirmative defenses to each of the allegations of Plaintiff EARL RTTTER (hereinafter "Plaintiff) Complaint: AS AND FOR A FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH AND EVERY CAUSE OF ACTION SET FORTH IN THE COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFF EARL RITTER ("PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT"), Defendant alleges: That Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state any claim upon which relief can be granted. AS AND FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH AND EVERY CAUSE OF ACTION SET FORTH IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, Defendant alleges: That based on information and belief, the Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein is barred by the applicable statues of limitations, including but not limited to, California Government Code sections 12960 and 12965, and California Code of Civil Procedure sections 335.1
and 338.
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
LITTLSH MENOELSON SO W S f*t#r***. Hl> fW Sac j*t* e* 'Sjo Jjfri tiliJJ UW
AS AND FOR A THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH AND EVERY CAUSE OF ACTION SET FORTH IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, Defendant alleges: That each and every act done by Defendant with regard to. or in any way related to, Plaintiffs employment with Defendant was privileged, justified, and consented to by Plaintiff as a good faith assertion of Defendant' legal and contractual rights. AS AND FOR A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH AND EVERY CAUSE OF ACTION SET FORTH IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, Defendant alleges: That Plaintiffs Complaint and each of its causes of action are barred because all acts
Case No. 30-2012-00556954-CU-OE-CXC AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1 2
of Defendant affecting the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs employment were done in good faith and motivated by legitimate, non-discriminatory/non-retaliatory reasons and/or as a result of business necessity. AS AND FOR A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH AND EVERY CAUSE OF ACTION SET FORTH IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, Defendant alleges: That Plaintiff, by his own acts and omissions, including, but not limited to, his failure to complain or otherwise take advantage of Defendant' policies prohibiting workplace discrimination and retaliation, has waived any claims and purported claims for relief contained in the Complaint, AS AND FOR A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH AND EVERY CAUSE OF ACTION SET FORTH IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, Defendant alleges: That Plaintiff could have, through diligence, found other employment and taken other action which would have mitigated his damages, and he had an affirmative duty to do so, which was breached by his failure to find other employment and take other action upon the cessation of his employment with Defendant. AS AND FOR A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION SET FORTH IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, Defendant alleges: That at all times mentioned herein, all injuries and damages allegedly caused by Defendant, if any, were incurred and/or exacerbated as a direct and proximate result of Plaintiffs own actions or inactions, or the actions of other parties, not the answering Defendant. AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH AND EVERY CAUSE OF ACTION SET FORTH IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, to the extent that Plaintiff claims that he has suffered emotional distress damages due to Defendant's alleged conduct, Defendant alleges: That the Court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of the causes of action is preempted by the exclusive remedy provisions of the California Workers' Compensation Act,
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
UTT'.CR MtWtUOfi W S*(t fausf^ tSHtf
ft* *j| it K
California Labor Code section 3200, et seq., because Plaintiffs alleged injuries arose as a result of his alleged employment. AS AND FOR AN NINTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH AND EVERY CAUSE OF ACTION SET FORTH IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, Defendant alleges: That any recovery on Plaintiffs Complaint is barred to the extent that Plaintiff failed to exhaust any applicable administrative remedies or contractual remedies or otherwise properly perfect a right of action against Defendant. AS AND FOR A TENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH AND EVERY CAUSE OF ACTION SET FORTH IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, Defendant alleges: That at all times relevant, Defendant promulgated an anti-discrimination policy and complaint procedure which was communicated to Plaintiff and Defendant exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any inappropriate conduct. Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the established complaint procedures, failed to take advantage of other preventative or corrective opportunities provided by Defendant and otherwise failed to avoid harm. AS AND FOR A ELEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH AND EVERY CAUSE OF ACTION SET FORTH IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, Defendant alleges: Assuming, arguendo, that any of Defendant's agents or employees engaged in any wrongful conduct as set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint, such conduct was beyond the course and scope of such agent's employment and occurred without the involvement, knowledge, consent, or ratification of Defendant, AS AND FOR A TWELFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH AND EVERY CAUSE OF ACTION SET FORTH IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, Defendant alleges: That, even assuming arguendo that Plaintiff was not provided payment within the required time, Plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages because Defendant's alleged failure to
" AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Case No. 30-2012-Q0556954-CU-OE-CXC
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
UniERMENQELSON 53 ft S fnn-.mjo, !5|(; fwt
San J<> CA 5.SM3 S3 <06.S :&<!
comply with California Labor Code section 203 was not a willful failure. As of the filing of this Answer, Defendant have no independent knowledge nor have yet completed a thorough investigation or discovery of all facts allegedly constituting the causes of action in the Complaint, and, based thereon, hereby respectfully request leave of Court to amend this Answer to include those affirmative defenses that are revealed during the course of Defendant' discovery.
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
Li! llfc MgNOGlSDN SO* S Tetraiito tSln FUM S.* Ji CA * 6 l i 4 V 3 0 3 *OS'**tii ilSO
Dated: My 3, 2012 ERICA H. KELLEY LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation Attorneys for Defendant COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
Finnwide; 112767066.1 035894.1067
^&>fcêj?
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 50 W. San Fernando, 15th Floor, San Jose, California 95113.2303. On July 3, 2012,1 served the within document(s): GENERAL DENIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
WHS! MHCfi-SGN, P.C 50 W Soft 1'virt^Kfc, L5<h ftr Sôos, Cft S'j1U'<:3C;i W8W8J1M
on that date. This document by facsimile transmission at or about was transmitted by using a facsimile machine that complies with California Rules of Court Rule 2003(3), telephone number 408.288.5686. The transmission was reported as complete and without error. A copy of the transmission report, properly issued by the transmitting machine, is attached. The names and facsimile numbers of the person(s) served are as set forth below. by placing a true copy of the document(s) listed above for collection and mailing following the firm's ordinary business practice in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid for deposit in the United States mail at San Jose, California addressed as set forth below. by depositing a true copy of the same enclosed in a sealed envelope, with delivery fees provided for, in an overnight delivery service pick up box or office designated for overnight delivery, and addressed as set forth below. by personally delivering a copy of the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-rnail or electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the e-mail addresses on the attached service list on the dates and at the times stated thereon. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. The electronic notification address of the person making the service is @lhtler.com.
[XJ
[""] [~|
John A. Girardi Girardi Keese 1126WilshireBlvd. Los Angeles, CA 90017 I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing and for shipping via overnight delivery service. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service or if an overnight delivery service shipment,
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
deposited in an overnight delivery service pick-up box or office on the same day with postage or fees thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on July 3, 2012, at San Jose, California.
/^ /}
fi
*^
/}
fl
^^ /
fll Hizabetn E. Joond ^^^^^^f^T1v ^
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
IITTlfiRUSMntt)jOtkC. 50V).$anFnt>.1Slt Fioa Sen Jo,CA 96113 2303 40a.9M.f1SO
2.
PROOF OF SERVICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL COVER SHEET I (a) PLAINTIFFS (Check box if you are representing yourself D) EARL RITTER DEFENDANTS COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
(b) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number If you are representing yourself, provide same) John A, Girardi, Bar No 54917 Girardi Keese i 126 Wilshirc Blvd, L.A CA 90017; Ph:(2l3) 977-02] I II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in one box only) D 1 U S, Government Plaintiff D 3 Federal Question (U.S Government Not a Party)
Attorneys (If Known) Dennis M, Brown, Bar No 126S75; Erica Kelley, Bar No, 22)702 Littler Mehdelson, P.C 50 W, San Fernando St., 15th Floor San Jose, CA 95113; Ph: (408)998^150
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES - For Diversity Cases Only (Place an X in one box for plaintiff and one for defendant.) Citizen of This State
PTF DEF ffll D 1 Incorporated or Principal Place of Business in this State

D2 D2 D3
PTF DEF d 4 D4
H5
D 2 U.S, Government Defendant
Of 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship Citizen of Another State of Parties in Item III)
Incorporated and Principal Place D 5 of Business in Another State Foreign Nation
Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country D 3 IV. ORIGIN (Place an X in one box only.) O l Original Proceeding i^2 Removed from State Court D 3 Remanded from Appellate Court D 4 Reinstated or Reopened
D6
D6
D 5 Transferred!from another district (specify):
D 6 MultiD 7 Appeal to District District Judge from Litigation Magistrate Judge
V. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:
JURY DEMAND: D Yes J^lo (Check 'Yes' only if demanded in complaint.) D MONEY DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT: S
CLASS ACTION under F.R.C.P. 23: DYes (/No
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity.) Diversity Jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. I332(a) there is diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. VII. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in one box only )
,: !p;pffiK STATUTES;
Q 400 D4IO D 430 O450 D 460 D470 D480 D490 O810 D 850 D875 D 890 D 891 D 892 D 893 D 894 O 895 D 900 D 950 State Reapportionment Antitrust Banks and Banking Commerce/ICC Rates/etc. Deportation Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Consumer Credit Cable/Sat TV Selective Service Securities/Commodities/ Exchange Customer Challenge 12 USC 3410 Other Statutory Actions Agricultural Act Economic Stabilization Act Environmental Matters Energy Allocation Act Freedom of Info. Act Appeal of Fee Determination Under Equal Access to Justice Constitutionality of State Statutes
CONTRACT; , : ....;, TORTS PERSONAL INJURY Insurance D310 Airplane Marine D315 Airplane Product Miller Act Liability Negotiable Instrument D.320 Assault, Libel & Recovery of Slander Overpayment & Z) 330 Fed. Employers' Enforcement of Liability Judgment D 340 Marine D 1 5 1 Medicare Act LJ 345 Marine Product D 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability Student Loan (Exd. 3 350 Motor Vehicle Veterans) D 355 Motor Vehicle D 1 53 Recovery of Product Liability Overpayment of D 360 Other Personal Veteran's Benefits Injury D 160 Stockholders' Suits 3 362 Personal InjuryD 190 Other Contract Med Malpractice D 195 Contract Product D 365 Personal InjuryLiability Product Liability D 196 Franchise 3368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product REALHROHERjIr; - r ^ Liability D 2 1 0 Land Condemnation 1 D220 Foreclosure O 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment fl 462 Naturalization Application D240 Torts to Land D463 Habeas CorpusD 245 Tort Product Liability Alien Detainee Q290 All Other Real Property D 465 Other Immigration Actions t n D Q ID D 1 10 120 130 1 40 1 50
fiaj/uefeVHOtT
!J ,? / o *? :vi2-
D710 Fair Labor Standards DS10 Motions to Act PROPER FY Vacate Sentence Q720 Labor/Mgmt. D370 Other Fraud Habeas Corpus Relations O371 Truth in .Lending O730 Labor/Mgmt D380 Other Personal O 530 General Reporting & Property Damage D535 Death Penalty Disclosure Act Q385 ft-operiy Damage Q 540 Mandamus/ Other D 740 Railway Labor Act Product Liability D550 Civil Rights D790 Other Labor BANKRUPTCY D422 Appeal 28 USC D555 Prison Condition Litigation 158 FORFEITURE-/ : Q 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. D423 Withdrawal 28 Security Act . .PENALTY ' I] 6 10 Agriculture USC 157 'fi&flL RIGHTS V D620 Other Food* D820 Copyrights 0,441 Voting Drug D830 Patent D625 Drug Related 3840 Trademark H 442 Employment Seizure of D443 Housing/AccoProperty 21 USC D 861 HIA(l395ff) mmodations D862 Black Lung (923) D444 Welfare 881 D630 Liquor Laws D445 American with D863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g Cisabilities D640 R.R.& Truck 3650 Airline Regs Employment D864 SSID Title XVI D 660 Occupational D446 American with DS65 RSI(40S(g)J Disabilities Safety /Health FEDERAL TiXSOlJSD690 Other O 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Other D440 Other Civil or Defendant) lights /* f"** O871 IRS-Thivd Party 26 USC 7609
tORTS PERSONAL
' KRJSOWgR t EBTraONS,"
LABOR.-,,
r'-
ysofBKCsmaars
:T"sc^sp(Smiw'. >
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
Case Number:
AFTER COMPLETING THE FRONT SIDE OF FORM CV-71, COMPLETE THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW. CV-71 (05/08) CIVIL COVER SHEET Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL COVER SHEET VIH(a). IDENTICAL CASES: Has this action been previously filed in this court and dismissed, remanded or closed? ^No If yes, list case number(s): VHI(b). RELATED CASES: Have any cases been previously filed in this court that are related to the present case? I^No If yes, list case number(s): Civil cases are deemed related if a previously filed case and the present case: (Check all boxes that apply) D A. Arise from the same or closely related transactions, happenings, or events; or D B. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or D C. For other reasons would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges; or D D. Involve the same patent, trademark or copyright, and one of the factors identified above in a, b or c also is present. IX. VENUE: (When completing the following information, use an additional sheet if necessary.) (a) D List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State if other than Califpmia; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named plaintiff resides. Check here if the government, its agencies or employees is a named plaintiff. If this box is checked, go to item (b). California County outside of this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign Country D Yes
D Yes
County in this District:*
County of Los Angeles
(b) List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named defendant resides. D Check here if the government, its agencies or employees is a named defendant. If this box is checlked, go to item (c). County in this District:* California County outside of this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign Country Illinois
(c)
List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH claim arose. Note: In land condemnation cases, use the location of the tract of land involved. California County outside of this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign Country
County in this District:*
Los Angeles County
* Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo Counties Note: In land condemnation cases, use the location of the tract of laod involve X. SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PRO PER):.
^nr,_DateJ"iy3,2oi2
Notice to Counsel/Parties: The CV-71 (JS-44) Civil Cover Sheet and the information contained! hereiajwither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings reiajwither or other papers as required by law. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required pursuant to Local Rule 3-1 is not filed but is used by the Clerk of the Court for the purpose of statistics, venue and initiating the civil docket sheet. (For more detailed instructions, see separate instructions sheet.) ^ . . _ _ ^ _ . . _ ^ ^ _ _ ^ _ _ Key to Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases: Nature of Suit Code Abbreviation Substantive Statement of Cause of Action
^^
861
HIA
All claims for health insurance benefits (Medicare) under Title 18, Part A, of the Social Security Act, as amended. Also, include claims by hospitals, skilled nilrsing facilities, etc., for certification as providers of services under the program. (42 U.S.C. 1935FF(b)) All claims for "Black Lung" benefits underjTitle 4, Part B, of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. (30 U.S.C. 923) All claims filed by insured workers for disability insurance benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended; plus all claims filed for child's insurance benefits based on disability. (42 U.S.C. 405(g)) All claims filed for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 405(g))
862 863 863 864 865
BL
DIWC
DIWW
SSID
RSI
All claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed under Title 16 of the Social Security
Act, as amended. All claims for retirement (old age) and surv vors benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. (g))
CV-71 (05/08)
CIVIL COVER SHEET
Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY This case has been assigned to District Judge Michael Fitzgerald and the assigned discovery Magistrate Judge is Stephen J. Hillrnan. The case number on all documents filed with the Court should read as follows:
CV12- 5785 kWF (SHx)

Pursuant to General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the Magistrate Judge has been designated to hear discovery related motions.
All discovery related motions should be noticed on the calendar of the Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL A copy of this notice must be served with the summons and complaint on all defendants (if a removal action is filed, a copy of this notice must be served on all plaintiffs). Subsequent documents must be filed at the following location: [X] Western Division 312 N. Spring St., Rm. G-8 Los Angeles, CA 90012 [_] Southern Division 411 West Fourth St., Rm. 1-053 Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516 [_] Eastern Division 3470 Twelfth St., Rm. 134 Riverside, CA 92501
Failure to file at the proper location will result In your documents being returned to you.
CV-18 (03/06)
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY

EARL RITTER v. COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA Et Al Notice of Removal

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

EARL RITTER v. COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA Et Al Notice of Removal

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 2:12-cv-05785-MWF-SH Document 1

Filed 07/05/12 Page 1 of 42 Page ID #:3

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARL RITTER, Plaintiff,

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)

Case 2:12-cv-05785-MWF-SH Document 1

Filed 07/05/12 Page 2 of 42 Page ID #:4

Case 2:12-cv-05785-MWF-SH Document 1

Filed 07/05/12 Page 3 of 42 Page ID #:5

Case 2:12-cv-05785-MWF-SH Document 1

Filed 07/05/12 Page 4 of 42 Page ID #:6

Plaintiff alleges that he has suffered and continues to suffer damages in

Case 2:12-cv-05785-MWF-SH Document 1

Filed 07/05/12 Page 5 of 42 Page ID #:7

Case 2:12-cv-05785-MWF-SH Document 1

Filed 07/05/12 Page 6 of 42 Page ID #:8

Defendant is not a state, state official or other governmental entity. (Id.

Case 2:12-cv-05785-MWF-SH Document 1

Filed 07/05/12 Page 7 of 42 Page ID #:9

Case 2:12-cv-05785-MWF-SH Document 1

Filed 07/05/12 Page 8 of 42 Page ID #:10

Case 2:12-cv-05785-MWF-SH Document 1

Filed 07/05/12 Page 9 of 42 Page ID #:11

lono A. Clarke. EtecoBve OfficeoClcric >?/*^ ^^

rj. dr^wg?\N^P 2^MWe*s CevifAW *- &*&&% (specify):

| CCP 416.10 (corporation)

CCP 416.60 (minor)

Case 2:12-cv-05785-MWF-SH Document 1

Filed 07/05/12 Page 10 of 42 Page ID #:12

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

J ' AAJ^^ * Mary Rorcs

in Attorneys for Plaintiff J5>10 EARL RITTER

EARL RJTTER, an individual Plaintiff,

' 20 COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive

Case 2:12-cv-05785-MWF-SH Document 1

Filed 07/05/12 Page 11 of 42 Page ID #:13

12 attorneys of record, alleges as follows: 13

16 Company of America ("COMBINED" or "Defendant") at Defendant's business office(s) located

Plaintiff alleges that COMBINED is an entity of unknown origin, doing business in

20 the County of Los Angeles, State of California.

Case 2:12-cv-05785-MWF-SH Document 1

Filed 07/05/12 Page 12 of 42 Page ID #:14

More specifically, in approximately early 2005, Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as a

Field Agent/Account Executive, being paid on a commission only basis.

Case 2:12-cv-05785-MWF-SH Document 1

Filed 07/05/12 Page 13 of 42 Page ID #:15

improve, Plaintiff must terminate Employee.

Case 2:12-cv-05785-MWF-SH Document 1

Filed 07/05/12 Page 14 of 42 Page ID #:16

2 did not improve, Plaintiff must terminate Employee.

that she understood what Plaintiff was telling her.

Case 2:12-cv-05785-MWF-SH Document 1

Filed 07/05/12 Page 15 of 42 Page ID #:17

23 including Employee's direct supervisor.

Plaintiff for Employee's termination. In fact, Defendant's forwarding of Employee's e-mai

Case 2:12-cv-05785-MWF-SH Document 1

Filed 07/05/12 Page 16 of 42 Page ID #:18

Nevertheless, on or about February 8, 2010 (after Plaintiff had only returned to

Case 2:12-cv-05785-MWF-SH Document 1

Filed 07/05/12 Page 17 of 42 Page ID #:19

Case 2:12-cv-05785-MWF-SH Document 1

Filed 07/05/12 Page 18 of 42 Page ID #:20

rj. dr^wg?\N^P 2^MWes CevifAW - &*&&% (specify):