11 Plaintiffs - FindForms.com
Transcription
11 Plaintiffs - FindForms.com
Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6 1 John Swenson (SBN 224110) 2 2121 Avenue of the Stars Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.734.3200 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 1 of 2 STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 3 4 Fax: 310.734.3300 Email: jswenson(£steptoe.com 5 Attorneys for Defendant Red Door Salons, Inc. 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 LISA KNIGHT and MARCIE DAVE, on ) of themselves and all others similarly ) 10behalfsituated, ) Case No. 3:08-cv-01520-SC 11 Plaintiffs,) 12 vs. ) ) (San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-08-471683) ) CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL ON PARTIES IN STATE COURT ) 13 RED DOOR SALONS, INC., an Arzona ) Corporation and DOES 1 through 25, ) 14 inclusive, ) 15 Defendants.)) Action Filed: January 31, 2008 ) 16 I, Maria Rodriguez, hereby certify and declare as follows: 17 18 19 I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action. 2. My business address is 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800, Los Angeles, California 90067. 20 21 1. 3. On March 20, 2008, I caused to be personally served upon Plaintiffs' counsel in this case, Gary E. Moss of the Law Offices of Moss & Hough, and Michael Von Loewenfeldt of the 22 Law Offices of 23 United States Distrct Cour for the Northern District of 24 Notice of 25 of California, which was filed with the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of 26 San Francisco on March 20,2008; and (c) the Notice of Assignent to United States Magistrate, 27 the Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR deadlines, Standing Order for 28 CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL ON PARTIES IN STATE COURT Removal, which was filed with the Kerr & Wagstaffe, LLP: (a) the Notice of filing of California on March 19,2008; (b) the Removal of Action to the United States District Cour for the Northern District 1 (No.3:08-cv-01520-SC) 553413 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 All Judges of Document 6 the Northern District of Filed 03/31/2008 Page 2 of 2 California re: Contents of Joint Case Management Statement, and form allowing a party to consent to assignent of the case to a Magistrate Judge. True and correct copies of the Notice of Filing Notice of Removal, Notice of Removal, the Court's Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines, along with all Court-issued documents served on counsel is attached hereto as Exhibit" 1." I certify and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. l' 8 9 DATED: March 31,2008 By: Maria Rodriguez 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 28 CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL ON PARTIES IN STATE COURT (No.3:08-cv-01520-SC) 553413 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 03/20/200 Filed 03/31/2008 FIRST LEGAL Page 1 of 74 4')61331 ,À ~ 'o/~,~ 'l JoJi Swenson (SBN 224 i i 0) STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP o /i~':'í;;';:-C~' e the Sta, 28th Floor 2 2121 Avenue of ~.Jj~ .OJ: '):'1/r:; D .t.:';.. 'or. 'rI) .Y. G ',0n '" n. '- VA, ." ?"'f.r .l.r,.. Los Angeles, Calforna 9007 3 Telephone: 310.734.3200 --'-:" ~ V ,Q . 0;.. '0,. Facsimile: 310.732.3300 "-;: ='l-) ,. () Coi: "'4,. /'.....-, ....1..:. .1'/1 4 Email: jswenson(gsteptoe.com '1.. ~ :;¡', 'r¿ 5 Attorneys for Defendant Red Door Salons, Inc. ~v. " -Ì'lf 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 ~Cl~. I.r.\ IN AND FOR TIE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 8 (UNLIMITED JURISDICTION) 9 LISA KNIGHT and MARCIE DAVE, on ) situated, ) CLS ACTION ;..,\ "fI.X i 0 behalf of themselves and all other similarly ) 11 12 13 Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) ) RED DOOR SALONS, INC., an Arzona ) . 14 Corpration and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, 15 Defendants. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 17 Case No. CGC-08-47l683 DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF FILING NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case Mangement Conference Set Date: July 3,2008 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: 212 Action Filed: Januay 31, 2008 Trial Date: Not Set 18 TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TIE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN 19 FRANCISCO, AND TO THE PLAINIFFS LISA KNIGHT AND MARCIE DAVE AND 20 THEIR COUNSELS OR RECORD: 21 PLEASE TAK NOTICE that Notice of Removal in this action has been filed in the 22 United States Distrct Cowt for the Nortern Distrct of California, on or about March i 9, 2008, 23 beang United States Distrct Cour Case No. CV 08-1520 puruant to U.S.C. Section 1332 and this removal is hereby provided puruant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(d). A 1441, and notice of 24 25 tre copy of the Notice of Removal, includin attached Exhibits A through F, Corporate Interested Pares, are attched hereto as Exhibit "1." 26 Disclosure Statement and Certification of 27 28 DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF FILING NOTICE OF REMOVAL EXHIBIT 1. 552036 Exhbit "1" Page 3 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03/20/200' Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 FIRST LEGAL Page 2 of 74 4' '161331 DATED: March 20, 2008. 2 3 4 5 By Jo Alto RED so or Defendant RS SALONS, INC. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF FD.ING NOTICE OF REMOVAL 552036 Exhbit "1" Page 4 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03/201200f Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 3 of 74 41 ~6133l FIRST LEGAL °8 i ./ ¡:~'¥'!l. ~Olli!;;ù~ CL1~'w.9lAb /008 I1A/t J John Swenson (SBN 224110) STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 2 the Sta 2121 Avenue of "" D/, .1: r¡~$oAl_ ~iè;'llc1' Çö Qc CAi Ji~" Suite 2800 3 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.734.3200 4 Fax: 310.734.3300 i. ..ruFlNl EmaiJ: jswenson~steptoe.com 5 I Attorneys for Defendant Rec Door Salons, Inc. 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 l2'fi/íJ)9 situted, ) v- . . i ~ 1446 ~ LISA KNIGHT and MARCIE DAVE, on ). b.ehalfofthemselves and all others similarly ) _NO. n 0 15 Q '0 ) (San Francisco County Superor Court ' 11 Plaintiff, ) Case No. CGC..8-471683) ) 12 vs. ) ) 13 RED DOOR SALONS, INC., an Arzona ) Corpraon and DOES 1 thugh 25, ) 14 inclusive, ) ) . (DIVRSITY & CLASS ACTION .15 Defendants. 16 NOTICE OF REOVAL PURSUA T ~r. TO 28 U.S.C. §§'1332(a), (d), 1441 d l- ~~ tJ\¡ r~ ) FAISS ACT) I)) ) F?.1 ~ Action Filed:' Janua 31,2008 ~ 17 TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE~ENTITLED COURT AN PLAIIFFS AND THEIR 18 A TIORNYS OF RECORD: . '19 21 'I! ' 20 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendat Red Door Salons, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Red. Door") hereby removes ths action frm the Supor Court of the State of Californa for the 22 County of San Fracisco to the United States Distct Court for the Northern Distrct 'of Californa, pursuant to 28 V.S.C. §§ I 332(a), (d), 1441 and 144. A short plain statement of 23 24 the grounds for removal follows: STATEMENT OF JUSDICTION 25 26 27 28 . 1. This Cour has original jursdiction over ths action under: 1) 28 V.S.C. § 1332(a) (diversity jursdiction); and 2) 28 V.S.C. § 1332(d) (The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ~o. ) . NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERA COURT 552038 Exhbit" 1 " Page 5 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03/201200f Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 4 of 74 FIRST LEGAL 4' "'61331 1 ("CAP A")). 28 U .S.C. § 1332(a) grts distrct courts original jurisdiction over civil actions 2 between citizens of different sttes and the amount in contrvery exceeds the sum of $75,000, 3 exclusive of interest and costs. The CAFA grants distrct courts original jurisdiction over civil 4 class actions filed under feder or state law in which any member of a class of plaintiffs is a 5 citizen of a state different from any defendat and where the amount in contrvery for the 6 putative class members in the aggregate exce the sum or value of $5,00,00, exclusive of 7 interests and costs. As set forth below, this cae meets all of the requirement for removal under this 8 both 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and the CAPA and is timely and propely removed by the filing of 9 Notice. 10 INISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 2. 11 Assigrent to the San Francisco division of the United States Distrct Cour for the 12 Nortern Distrct of Californa is appropriate becuse ths is a civil action which arses in the San Francisco, Cafornia. See Civil L.R. 3~2(d); 3~5(b). 13 County of 14 PLEADINGS. PROCESS. AN ORDERS On or about Janua 31, 2008, Plaintiffs fied a Class Action Complaint against 3. 15 i 6 Defendant in the Supeor Cour of the State of Californa for the County of San Fracisco, 17 entitled Lisa Knight. et at. v. Red Doors Salons. Inc.. et al., Cae No. CGC-08-471683 18 ("Complaint"). 4. 19 Plaintiff' Complaint assers eleven (11) cause of action: (1) unlawful wage 20 deductions; (2) compelled patroniztion; (3) failure to reimbure business expenses; (4) failur to 21 pay overtme compesation; (5) payment of secret wages; (6) failure to provide accurate wage 22 statements; (7) failur to pay wages for break periods; (8) failure to pay wages for mea periods; 23 (9) waiting time penalties; (10) ilegal non-competition agreements; and (11) unair and uiawful 24 business practices. 5. 25 A copy of the Sumons, Civil Case Cover Sheet, Complaint, Notice of Case 26 Mangement Conference and Civil ADR Program Packet were sered on Red Door via its Agent 28 2 (No. ) 27 for Service of Process, CT Corpration Sysems, on Februar 19, 2008. This is the first date upon NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERA COURT 552038 Exhbit "1" Page 6 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03/201200f Document 6-2 FIRST LEGAL Filed 03/31/2008 Page 5 of 74 41 '1)1331 1 which Defendants received a copy of the Complaint. True and correct copies of the documents 2 sered on Defendants are attached hereto as Exhibits A though E. 6. 3 Because Red Door is the only named Defendant and the only Defendant served 4 there are no other consents required for removaL. 5 7. No furter related proceedngs have been hear in San Francisco Supeor Cour. 6 8. Ths Notice is timely in that it has bee filed within thirty (30) days of Plaintiffs' 7 serice of the Complaint. 8 JUSDICTION PURSUAN TO TRAITIONAL DIVRSITY OF CITIZENSIDP 9. 9 This action is a civil action over which this Cour has origial jursdiction under 28 10 V.S.C. § 1332, and is one which may be removed to ths Cour by Defendat puruat to the 11 provisions of28 D.S.C. § 1441 (a) in that it is a civil action betwee citizens of different states and 12 the amount in controvery exceeds the sum of 10. 13 $75,00, exclusive of interest and costs. During the entire coure of their employment with Defendant, Plaintiffs were 14 employed in the State of Californa. Declaration of Susan Haas ("Haa Declaration") at , 4, 15 attached hereto as Exhbit F. Plaintiff Lisa Knght provided Red Door with addreses located in 16 Concord and San Fracisco, Californa as the location at which she elected to recve Marcie Dave provided Red 17 communications from Red Door durng her employment. ld. Plaintiff 18 Door with an addres locted in Milbrae, California as the location at which she elected to receive 19 communcations from Red Dor during her employment. ld. Plaintiffs are therefore citizens of 20 the State ofCaIifomia. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (an individua is a citize of the state in wmch 21 he or she is domicied). i 1. 22 Red Dor was at the time of the fiing of this action, and remains, a citizen of the 23 State of Arzona, in tht it was and continues to be a corporation incorprated under the laws of 24 the State of Arzona with its principal place of busines in Arzona. Haas Declaration at' 3. Red 25 Door is a citizen of the State of Arizona for diversity purposes. Red Door is not a citizen of the 26 State of California. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). 28 3 (No. ) 27 NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERA COURT 552038 Exhbit" 1 " Page 7 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03/20/2oof Document 6-2 FIRST LEGAL Filed 03/31/2008 41 ''i1331 Page 6 of 74 1 2. Defendats Does 1 through 25, inclusive, are fictitious. The Complaint does not 2 set fort the identity or status of any said fictitious defendants. The citizenship of defendants sued 3 under fictitious names should be disregarded for puises of detennining diversity jursdiction 4 and canot destroy the diversity of citizehip between the paries in ths action. Newcombe v. 5 Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686, 690-91 (9t Cir. 1998). 6 13. Plaintiffs' Complaint is silent as to the total amount in controversy. As such, 7 Defendant nees only to establish by a preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy 8 in Plaintiffs' Complaint exce the jursdictional minimum. See e.g., Sanchez v. Monumental 9 Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). 10 14: Defendant denes Plaintiffs' claims of wrongdoing and denes their requests for 11 relief thereon. However, the amount in controvery in Plaintiffs' Complait, including the total i 2 amount of wages, penalties, interes, attorneys' fees, injunctive relief and other monetar relief, is 13 more likely than not in exce of$75,00.00, caculated as follows: i 4 a. Plaintiff Lisa Knght ("Knght") was employed as an aesthetcian with Red 15 Door at its saon locaed at 126 Post Street in the City and County of San 16 Francisco, Californa ("San Fracisco Salon") from Februar 1999, until July 17 2007. Complaint at 1M1, 2. 18 b. In 2004, Knght's grss income was approximately $21,557.38. In 2005, 19 Knight's gross incoe was approximately $21,054.56. In 2006, Knght's gross 20 income was approximately $24,940.45. Haa Declartion at ,¡ 5. This equates 21 to an average annual gross income of approxiately $22,517.46 ($21,557.38 + 22 $21,054.56 + $24,940.45/3 = $22,517.46). This equates to an average weekly 23 wage of approximately $433.03 ($22,517.46/52 = $433.03). Ths equates to 24 an average daily wage of approximately $86.61 ($433.03 /5 == $86.61). This 25 equates to an average hourly wage of approximately $10.82 ($86.61 / 8 = 26 $10.82). 28 4 (No. ) 27 NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERA COURT 552038 Exhbit" 1 " Page 8 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 03/20/200f Filed 03/31/2008 FIRST LEGAL Page 7 of 74 4" '1)1331 c. In Counts One, Two, Thee and Eleven of the Complaint, Knght alleges that 2 Defendants "regularly deducted" amounts from her wages violation of 3 Californa Labor Code §§ 221, 450, 2802, and California Business and 4 Professions Code § 17200. Knight will likely claim that these claims ar 5 governed by a four-year statute of limitations. See CaL. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6 17208.1 Defendant denies Plaintiffs' claims. Neverteless, assuming the 7 validity of Plaintiffs' allegations, and assung that $50 was improperly 8 deduct from each week of 9 claims is approximately $10,400 ($50.00 x 208 weeks = $10,400). Knghts pay, the amount in controvery for these 10 d. In Count Four of the Complaint, Knght seeks reimbursement for wages and 11 overme allegedly worked but not recorded or paid by Defendant. Knght 12 claims tht "by failng to compenate Plaintiffs and the Clas at a rate of one- 13 and"one-half (1 Yi) times the reguar rate of 14 (8) hour in a workday or above forty (40) hour in a workweek, Defendants 15 violated Californa law,'" Complaint at ir 46. This claim is governed by a thee 16 year statute of limtations. See Ca. Labor Code §§ 338(a), 1194. Defendant 17 denies Plaintiffs' claims. Nevereles, assuming the validity of Plaintiffs' 18 allegations, and assumng Knght clais she was not compesated for five (5) 19 overtme hour each week, the amount in contrvery for this claim is 20 approxiately $12,659.40 ($16.23 x 5 hour x 156 weeks = $12,659.40). pay for work peronned above eight 21 e. In Count Six of the Complaint, Knght alleges entitlement to penalties for 22 violations of Californa Labor Code § 226(a) perainng to Defendant's alleged 23 failure to provide correct and accurate itemized wages statements. Complaint 24 25 1 In Coi.t Five of th Complaint, Plaitiffs claim that Defendant "reresented to Plaintiffs and each member of the Class tht they were payig prope overte to the Plaitiffs and members of the Class, 26 while actuly payig Plaintiff and mebers of ~(No. 5) the Class less th the rate that was owed." Complaint at this alleged conduct. As a result, this claim the amount in controversy. 11 SO. Plaintiffs do not allege any distinct injur as the result of 27 is not consider in Defendant's calculation of NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERA COURT 552038 Exhbit" 1 " Page 9 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 03/20/200P Filed 03/31/2008 FIRST LEGAL Page 8 of 74 4'--'61331 employer "who violates subdivision at ~ 55. The Labor Code provides that any 2 (a) of Section 226 shall be subject to a civil penlty in the amount of two 3 hundred fifty dollar ($250) per employee per violation in an initial citation and 4 one thousand dollar ($1,00) per employee,for each violation in a subsequent - 5 citation." Cat. Laor Code §226.3. This claim is governed by a one-yea 6 statute of limitations and a $4,00 ca on damages, per employee. See 7 Blackwell v. Skyest Airlines, Inc., 245 F.R.D. 453,462 (S.D. CaL. 2007); CaL. 8 Labor Code § 226(e). Durng her employment at Red Door, Knight was paid 9 bi~weekly. Haas Declartion at' 5. Defendant denies Plaintiffs' allegations. 10 Neverteless, assumng the validity of Plaintiffs' allegatons, the amount in 11 controvery for this claim exce the $4,000 statutory cap (24 payments x 12 $250 = $6,000). 13 f. In Count Seven of the Complaint, Knight alleges daages for missed rest 14 perods pursuant to Californa Labor Code § 226.7 and Wage Order 2-2001. 15 Complait ii 60. The Labor Coe provides for one hour of additional pay, as a 16 penalty, for each workday that a rest perod is not peitted. Plaintiff will 17 likely argue that this clai is govered by a theeyea statute of limitations. 18 See White v. Starbucks Corp., 497 F.Supp.2d 1080, 1085 (N.D. Cal. 2007). 19 Defendant denies Plaintiffs' claims. Nevereless, assuming the validity of 20 Plaintiffs' allegations, and asswning the alleged conduct occued on thee (3) 21 workdays in each work week, the amount in controversy for ths claim is 22 approximately $5,063.76 ($10.82 x. 3 hours x 156 weeks = $5,063.76). 23 g. In Count Eight of the Complaint, Knght alleges claims for missed meal perods 24 pursuant to Californa Labor Code § 226.7 and Wage Order 2-2001. The Labor 25 Code provides for one hour of additional pay, as a penalty, for each workday 26 that a meal perod is not provided. Plaintiffs willikely argue that this claim is 27 governed by a thee-year statute of limitations. See White v. Starbucks Corp., 28 (No. ) NOTICE OF REMOV AI TO FEDERA COURT 6 552038 Exhbit" 1 " Page 1 0 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03120/200P Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 9 of 74 FIRST LEGAL 4 J" ~61331 497 F.Supp.2d 1080, 1085 (N.D. Cal. 2007). Defendant denies Plaintiffs 2 claims. Nevereless, assuming the validity of Plaintiffs' allegations, and 3 assuming the alleged conduct occured on thee (3) workdays in each work 4 wee, the amount in contrversy for this claim is approximately $5,063.76 5 ($10.82 x 3 hour x 156 weeks = $5,063.76). 6 h. In Count Nine of the Complaint, Knght seeks waiting time penalties under 7 California Labor Code § 203, which provides that wages contiue at an 8 employee's daily rate of pay until the final wages are paid, or an action to 9 recver them is commence, up to a maximum of 30 days. See Mamika v. 10 Barca, 68 Cal. App. 4th 487,493 (1998) (providing pealty under § 203 as the 11 "calculaton of a daily wage rate, which ca then be multiplied by the number 12 of days of nonpayment, up to 30 days."). Defendant denies Plaitiff' clais. 13 Neverteles, assumng the validity of Plaintiffs' allegations, and assuming 14 Plaintiffs prevai on ths claim, the amount of controvery for this claim is 15 approximately $2,589.30 ($86.61 x 30 days = $2,589.30). 16 1. In Count Ten of the Complaint, Knight alleges that she signed a written 17 agreeent with Defendat statig: "For six (6) months afer the terination of 18 your employment with the Company for whatever reaon, you shall not directly 19 or indirecly render hair, beauty, nail, or other servces ordinarly provided by a 20 Company Spa/salon, to or for any peon, fi, corpration (including self- 21 employment) directly or indiretly involv~ in the provision of such serices 22 within a 5 mile radius from the home spa where you were employed, unless 23 wrttn consent by the Company is granted." Complaint at , 72. Knight 24 alleges that ths agreement violates Californa Business and Professions Code § 25 16600, and requests declaratory and injunctive relief. Complaint at W 73-74. 26 When plaintiffs sue for declaratory ,and injunctive relief based upon the 27 existence of a non-competition agreement, cour consider the amount of 28 (No. ) NOTICE OF REOV AL TO FEDERA COURT 7 552038 Exhbit "I" Page 11 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 03/20/200F Filed 03/31/2008 Page 10 of 74 41 '''61331 FIRST LEGAL revenue generated by the affected employee in determining whether the 2 "amount in controversy" exces the relevant jurisdictional minimum. See 3 e.g., Mahoney v. DePuy, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85856, *12~ 13 (RD. CaL. Nov. 4 8, 2007). The amount of revenue Knight generated in 2007 was approximately 5 $44,250.47. Haas Declaration at 'f 5. Defendant denes Plaintiffs' claims. 6 Nevertheles, assuming the validity of Plaintiffs' allegations, and assuming 7 Plaintiff prevail on tls clai, the amount of controversy for this claim is 8 approximately $44,250.47. 9 J. Based on the amounts in contrversy for Counts One, Two, Thee and Eleven 10 ($10,40.00); Four ($12,659.00); Six ($4,000.00); Seven ($5,063.76); Eight 11 ($5,063.76); Nine ($2,598.30); and Ten ($44,250.47), the amount in 12 controvery for Knght's claim is approximately $84,035.29, which is over the 13 jursdictional amount require for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 14 k. Knight also seeks to recver her reasonable attorneys' fee. Complaint at ir 80. 15 lt is well-setled that, in detennning whether a complaint meets the amount in 16 contrversy requirement, the Cour should consider the aggegate value of 17 claims for damages as well as attorneys' fees. See e.g., Galt GIS v. JSS 18 Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1155-56 (9th Crr. 1998). Assumg tht Knight's 19 attorneys' fees will constitute 25% of 20 that amount would equa approximately $21,000, fuer exceeding the $75,00 21 theshold set fort in 28 V.S.C. § 1332(a). the amount in controvery for her claims, 22 15. The preponderace of the evdence is that the amount in controversy sought by the 23 facial allegations of Plaintiffs' Complaint is greater than the jursdictional amount of $75,000.00. 24 Thus, removal of this action is appropriate. 25 / / / 26 / / / 28 8 (No. ) 27 / / / NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT 552038 I Exhbit" 1 " Page 12 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03/201200F DocumentFIRST 6-2LEGALFiled 03/31/2008 Page 11 of 74 4"~61331 JURISDICTION PURSUAN TO THE CLASS ACIION FAIRNESS ACT 16. 2 The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2i, as amended, 3 provides federal jurisdiction over any class action with at least 100 member, as follows: 4 The distct cour shall have original jursdiction of any civil action in which the matter in controvery exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, 5 exclusive of interests and costs, and is a class acton in which - 6 (A) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant. 7 17. This is a civil action over which this Cour also has origial jursdiction under 28 8 U,S.C. § 1332(d) and one that may be removed to this çour by Defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 9 §§ 144l(b) and 1446. 10 18. This action has been stled as a class action pursuant to Californa Code of Civil 11 Proceure § 382. Complaint at ~ 19. Plaintiffs seek to represent: ~'All hair stylists, aestheticians, 12 masseuses, or any similar commissioned worker, employed by Defendants to work at (Red Dor) 13 with the applicable statute of limitations perod though the date of ths action's fial 14 dispsition." Complaint at ~ 18. 15 19. Defendant has employed approximately 79 different "hair stlists, aestheticians, 16 masseuses, or any similar commissioned worker" at Red Door's San Francisc Salon since 2004. 17 Haa Declaration at' 5. Defendant has employed over 100 different "hai stylists, aestheticians, 18 masseuses, or any similar commssioned workers" in the State of Californa since 200. ¡d. 19 20. As set forth above, Plaintiff are citizens of the State of Californa and Defendat is 20 a citizen of the State of Arzona. Accordingly, Plaitiffs are citizens of a state different from the 21 Defendants. 22 21. Plaintiffs' Complaint is silent as to the total amount in controversy. As such, 23 Defendant needs only to establish by a preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy 24 25 26 28 9 QNo. ) 27 2 None of the exceptions set fort in 28 U,S,C. § 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERA COURT 332(d) apply to th instant action. 552038 Exhbit" 1 " Page 13 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03/20/20011 Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 12 of 74 41 '')131 FIRST LEGAL 1 in Plaintiffs' Complaint excees the jursdictional minimum. See e.g" Sanchez v. Monumental 2 Lif Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9t Cir. 1996). 3 22. Plaintiff allege that their claims ar tyica of the claims of each putative clas 4 member. Complaint at" 21. Assuming that the amount in controversy regarding Knight's claims 5 is "typical" of the claims of each member ofthe putative class, and based upon the calculations set 6 forth above, the total amount in controvery for the member of the putative class, excluding 7 attorneys' fees is approximately $8,403,529 ($84,035.29 x 100 members = $8,403,529). 8 23. As a rest, although Defendant denies Plaitiffs' claims for wrongdoing and 9 denies their requests for relief thereon, based upon the factal allegations in Plaintiffs' Complaint 10 and assuming, arguendo, Plaintiffs were able to prove these allegations, the total amount in 1 1 controversy sought by Plaintiffs and the other putative class members is in excess of $5 milion, 12 exclusive of interest and costs, plus attorneys' fees. Removal under the Clas Action Fairness Act 13 is therefore appropriate. 14 NOTICE TO PLAITI 15 24. Contemporaeously with the filing of ths Notice of Removal in the United States 16 Distrct Cour for the Norter Distct of Californa, wntten notice of such filing wil be served 17 on Plaintiffs' counsel of recrd. In addition, a copy of this Notice of Removal wil be filed with 18 the Clerk of the Cour for San Francisco County Superor Cour. i 9 WHEREFORE, havig provided notice as required by law, the above-entitled action 20 should be reoved from the San Fracisco County Supeor Cour. Marh, 2008. 21 RESPECTFULLY SUBMIED ths 19t day of 22 23 ensn 24 venue of the Star, 28th Floor 25 geles, California 90067 26 28 10 (No. ) Attorneys for Defendant 27 NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT 552038 Exhbit" 1 " Page 14 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 FIRST LEGAL 03/20/200f Filed 03/31/2008 Page 13 of 74 4' ~61331 ?/; f:l-:' ~ 'i 0 l.~~ Ii "- e1/31/26es, 14:58 MlH 415:4 .552 PAG B4/21 S . 0 SUMMONS 1' COlllli DIY ~o PMIIl 6I1. i: (CltACION JUDICIAL) NOTice TO DEFENT: (AVtSoAi DEMOA): RED DOR SALONS. INC., an Aroo Corporation and DOES I (lirough 25. inclusive, YOU ARE BEING SUep BY PlN1; (LO tETA DENDANDO El. DE/Une): USA KNIGl an MARCIE DA \I on behalf of th'lNe an th similarly situted. Yoiliwat CAi.NDA l)Yl'" \i l- an i- pi .. _. OI JO Co". wrl ,. ot tlll eo -i "'ve. CCl I8 011 lb,l- A ..rClqli- ciw. ii.l,. V_WI-i_.. Mli pr lIl-If1O.-i1i -l 10 lr' 1OCl T1 Il... co l-lI yo _.. lO pit- '10i.1 ft iiCCfoi .iid MC Infcll Il_ Cd Co anN .. ~ (w.e.clpyoCOlW i- 1I. Of .. wur_ ft_~ll If~ou -ipa tlfl.. -i ll,uoll~ fon_.... IfJO-.. . yo ns- OI "li fou mi 10M ti _ iw cluic -i JO W. ...iid pnpe -l .. li WI ~r"" lilI oo ,"_ot ""'ll'il YOIt 1l-l1o ail.. ~ tf-,.lfJO ci ii"_,,~. ro ll -i lD calhA at"" Nl.',OIl _at-lII~. ~ -r - 0I l-fi fl-- lr _lIpro i.-l prolJrl You ...IO.. i- lI." c... $e 1M.. i-.i-iIaOI !h Ctila ~ One acHl-i l'll iw.iCI..Ilpt ci bJ ci l"'" ia _It or -l bi ü8lS. fi,'" iia-i yiiqI-lflh;..",_ ~.. u..~._.. ""40"~ s.,.¡iai l.e~ __lb ,. -i _ ....,. ..-..,. ci .. pt aiMp li ftØ/ pl- i-..li_~ I' ~..~ de,IiOl,..W~.." CM.~ tll-CG de TIeJO DIM DE CA Øt *_10 1r'" dt yi- /fP*~- ÌU, plflli Ca(_~~IJJl..ii_-~,. "'. ~ lMledw aè- 0 ii,. cm.,ll al" Ar $/li su ~. i' ".~cl.. pI''-i'Ii~y'' CO,."... - -i dl ...,. .. ~ pUlpl /. l- .~_ fI.M g Meo 4U" ii..1M '" -- HfI. ct llno pm-i Ha -ni,.. Ee, ~..rUlln Ql l- 1III-l ti.~ 81li __. ØI ol.jl... Ul sfl df i-,... S/li"" /I .I~.. .. po.iCl GC Ii Il /1 ci ntci ""1I li l- ",' de .. -l . ti . i- ,. -i__lfsI f/l dflulO en ,/,f wñ,'" ~li 1..,11 ~ l-.Il."ar.. Il iic. dlAyu.'" eodlCl ii na IS r-.~0&.i,ii"1I 0 pøiidlll om -l _1i ei 0 "cMto de iipd/-l (SIl y ih di " COH): Superor Court ofCaifomla, County of Sa fniÎsco 400 McAllistr 81rt ~~~=s~=ie~DfPi.imnllme.oipllnwlllla1)'.ls: ~".d:'," r' ", ,,( lEiimbni. 1I Ø1 Y ti tl d. ,fM dølIad de dlle. 0 de dMll al/ no tInc ~ 'ê.s: ":; , (FeO/eJ ~~ (Ai) Oe,iy E. Mos, E1.. Ma Patrcia. Hough, Es.. De M. Thii &q" MOS~ &)J~t\~ _an Nes Avene. SultlL2'p,1~~_r:~~-S) 399-11\0 , DATE:' ~1\1 GQ\i ci i:Ä .o.puly (Fo~of"rvølthluumii-. ilProofSelViufSUoi jJ 10). J, (Ptlr8 pI/l de enfr de lIa c: lI'" bm Pn or Sa of Su. (POS-01O,). 1S'l . NO 10 TH Pi SERVD: You 8t 6ed 1; CJ as., lnlVkW ilfet 2. 0 li tl pe sued ~1h ~ na ~(~Il\:~ ( -t Vl W' Ik ~ i ~ _ 3, òë on behalf of (l,i): ~ \)(1:: ~ "'.) \ ' c: ò( ~ dl~ I'un~r. ~ CC "16.10 (oorp\l) CJ CCP..16.0(ml ~ d CC-41UO(deCOIl) c: CC416.?0 (COeIValce) t: CO 41eAO (assocaton or Pfnil9) 0 COP" tB.1i (aut peJSl c: Olr (spJ: .iiill_ 4. 0 by pell de on (dBfI): ". AdIiIl UI Sl 101 ¡l., .i " Zt"1 SUMMNS Po Ult C-lIC"_15~. ~....I__..WM 1fi6M?li.Ir.lmæ~q-?P1 EXHIBIT A Exhbit "A" Page 11 Exhbit "1" Page 15 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 14 of 74 41' ''1131 FIRST LEGAL 03/20/2ooR Service of Process CT CORPORATION A WolteriKIu C~ Transmittal 02119100 CT Log Numbr 513101888 IIIBOIII.IIUlIlllllIllnU TO: Gabrila Mack, Tax Manager Bliiith Aren Salons. Inc. 3822 E Unl Dr, S1e 5 Phonix, AZ 85034- REi Process Served in Calornia FOR Red Door Salos, inc, (Dostic State: AZ) ENOSED AI COI' Of LEGA PROCESS RECaI BY "'E $TATlI AGEN OF Tf AaVE CO AS FO, 11 Of AeiiON. Us Knlgt and Marci Dave, etc., Pl. vs. Red Door Salons, Inc, etc., et at Oils. DOMEHT(S) SERVo. Suns, Cor Shet. Comint. Notic, Atchment, Stlli Form, Case çoURT/AGECY. San fra CoutY San Franci, Suri Cour CA Mana Statet Case' CG7168 NATVE OF ACN. Em !-iin - For unlawfl wage deucs, for violti of lar. for failu to reiurs bUS" expens and (alre to pay overtme compns ON wH" PRSS WAS Sli C T Corpatin Syste. -Los Angele, CA DATe AND HOUf O~~. By Pro Seir on 021191200 at 09;00 AIEAIl 011 AHSW DUEl wi 30 days aft 8elVlc. file wren iepon If 7-3- at 9;00 a.m. . Cas ATT£Y(S) i SENOIRlS)i Gary E. Moss Ma Conferenc Mo & Thugh 601 Van Nes Ava Sa Fra, CA 941 02 41S-~99.1110 ACTIN lTt SOP Paprs with Tran via Fed Ex 2 Day, 191003260380 SIGNS: CT~ Sysm Ema NOUfti.GablaMacogmackOOrdspa.co PIl AD TElON &'~ Sevent Stret LosAnele. CA9017 213-3?-415 Page' of 1/JD In di-- 01 lh Iienlo fo CT Ccnotks _ii p__ on -i II pn 10 lh m: lo q.... 'i Worm do no cioO ilI Dpl HIO tIll of 1d0n, tIl- 01 di h _ di", IK 11 In t: In \h ..II till Roc Is iu for fnlJlI Sld ~ ind fo Il ~ id Slii- on C* mal ni ca i-.f i-ii' DI, na CDi. _SQ/~ (~, ;¿/2'o,/08 Exhbit "A" Page 12 Exhbit" 1 " Page 16 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 03/20/200f 8i/31/2888 14: 5~ FIRST LEGAL 4153991552 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 15 of 74 4' '61331 M05SUG PAGE 62/21 _i:tll 0Nl' "'w:~oll:r~~'\t'Pttr.;t S3N 104$42 Doèk 1'. !$. SaN 248897 MOSS & HOUGH _ ' 601 Von Na A"llll!ISUÎU 2030. Sail fraol~. CA 94102 ENeeR8EQ $ør FmnlkJ ok Ë 0 11!U'HOI.HO: 4151399.1110 ,""_ 4J5/399-1552 &n\ II IIntl'SuRIJ -' ,,"~ Clllrl IM CO ll CAIA, lI ll San FnicisÇ( l!læHlS: 40 McAllir Strt -._'" sae JAN 8 1 2008 :~/erk - CIAIZlCQ San Fnicisc, CA 94102 D\~OROON PAFW i CA8. NM Us lC t & Martie Dave v. Red Dor saloDS Inc et al. ~jìi. i¡f' , CIL CASE COVER SHEET Compl c. DRnll o unU~ 0 IJltd 0 OGntlf 0 Jo (.lmot (Ai de , cl-- Is Fl w\ (li lIlJ deen ~UO !l $2.00 $2.0 or le RI d Ci nâ 3.40 De 8- '411 bS:; "1l 1- bt /1" _ ~ QI Auto Ton Co 1. Chll _ tix bi fo 1h i- ty Ui l de Cl: moll (~&) RiiIU.14l c: (O)(l) B tJSl AU (22) BB Bi0Ioroicort 0t PIIIP 1i~ (il) 08mlgGØfIDHT6i' li-il1l) D Al83 (0) 0 ot CI (37Y li ""18c11r(411) 0 Eml~ 8 iity (24), i-~ri(1') Pn o Pfuc otPI/(23) Niiii (0l Tar 0 Wro e' (æ) , 0d ClwI (O) (1S¡_ LJ CoY!.i (31) § sii DQ Ii ii(0T D Ot fi ¡lpw (2) ~ fni(lØ) Do RI(3) . ~~(19i OilM) Olr nø lD 135) AsIlla_d (Q!) IMlit Pltl 1'; (11) ~ 1e(3l) D W'll-i (Q Piol ne (25) acii Re PnlllO Ço Cl Utl (ClRuloICc"'I_~ o ÁnJBe~(03) l. tIci (40(10) 8 Co § ~lJçtgr1I~) ~1l(i8) -- ai ,li ii lI i: ii ai ~ tn ClSI ty 141) El~oI Jumanl ' o Ei rJ Jl (2) ~ Civ Cl8l Oii (i GØ B RI (1l sp ii (42) MI. C1vll" Ol pl (n1lll ~J ~143) B Piitnlml (2) if OUt 11; OM le 2. Th Cl Is It nQ 0l iind ru 3.40 of ih Cl. Rul or ColL If th oae Is CO mi th . .:: 'il '-I r1K15 ni ex1l pi mø: ' "' :_: a. D 1.. ntm ofae ra8d parec d.D lal1 of.l_ e: ,. "" b. 0 ~ ln pl' i- dI Of no e.D COdon lIlh ra1ed 8C paln ii on (j mo CO.!t; l8ue Vi wl bilI to i- In 0I to. ii. (j Il or In II fe ca c. iz Sub emOU of ~ fI f. iz Su øo~tJu8lll6i ' 3, Rem soug (ci .6 th ¡p: B.rn ni b.D noCl dG or ~unlla I1WGf ç, 0 punive 4. Nuof oa of lIn ($p)': Eleu eii) :i. Ths C8 l1 Is 0 Is no a da ac su". 6. Illher are Il ic rete ce il øn ør ø ~ i: reted Dae: Janua 31 :ZS Patrcia 01_ Iì · Plll ni li Ihl& (A 81ll wl !h fir pe \\ in \h ad ot ~ (axl 8I da C8 or ca iled unerth Proll Co. Faml Co, or Wel- ii i",1l Coo¡.ICe. l'Je of Có nf 3.UO.) f8l1¥1I to 1I mii flt l",,"~, · fi this co elln -i to any QM 8hØ niqu b) Ic CO W. oI pi to 1h ll or prQi , · If Il Ql1I co unlr nie 3.400 ei "£I. of \1. CaOl Ru or Co l/u mu ØI ø COY of this aw clØQI on 8l . Unle.lh I. . co cee und I' S." 40 or a Cl CU th _ii wi bD UI fo 1118 ~ "'ii,=ii CML CASE CÒVI SHeET ei.ø,ø tf.. M¡ I. *' Qf--"-~ -- .. IMlW EXHIBIT B Exhbit "B" Page 13 Exhbit" 1 " Page 17 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 16 of 74 . -"26133 FIRST LEGAL 03120f20( fv 81/31/2886 ¡q:58 4163991552 PAG ai/21 1 MICHAEL VON LOEWELDT (178665) MICH NG (237915) 2 KERR&. WAOSTA~ LLP ~I.QQ¡aÆfl~ 100 Spe Stree Suite 1800 3 San Francsw. CA 94105.1528 Telepone: (415)37J-85oo Sin "'111l~.J / §, 0 t'''it" 11lP., t, fi;¡rl' ìiipl1la, 4 Facile: (415) 37J-05oo JÀN 3 1 teo8 5 GARYE.MOSS(4300) MAY PA TRCJA HOUaH (I (4542) aOAOO~Lr¥\Fll~i:I, ~I .,~ §~ ~~~~~~~-1- $I;i - - .- .. Pá .~ 6 DBREKM. THOMAS (248897) MOSS &. HOUGH LAW OFFICE OF CAæ_CXær . ~. l 7 601 Van Nesii Aven Suite 2030 811 Franel!lco, CA 94102 8 Telc.ponc; (415) 3991 110 Facimile; (415) 399. 9 J SS2 JUL 3 . 2008 -9!lAM Attrney fo Plaintitf 10 LISA JCTJGHT.'an MACm DAVE on behaf oftbemseve an thos similarly situated 11 ~21 12 TN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIORNI 13 FOR mE COUN OF SAN FRNCISCO 14 (ULIMED JUDICTON) 15 -- -~nA,,"47168:; 16 LfSAKNJOHTandMARClDAVE.onbeha1 ~ of thanselve an tboii siiiy situed, Cue No. 11 Plaintif. COMPLAI 18 VB. 19 RED DOR SALONS, lNC., an Ar 20 Corption an DOES I thug 25, jnclusive. JUY TR DEMANED 21 Defeail$. p, ~~: F :i~'~ ",/\, ."~'i.t: 22 Jt"'~;' ~ 23 Plaintif LISA KNIGHT ard MARCIE DA VB allege, on behalf oftllve an a 24 Clas of 25 thse mmilary situatec as fonows: :PARTI 26 1. Deendat RED DOR SALNS, INC., i. II eoipration th own and ope.tQ6 a 27 28 salon nnd day spa doig business under the ticttiouS name Elbet Arden Red Door Spa Y. tAl ~, . .' . i. -........ WAc;erhFtli '.:." EXHIBIT C 1 rAf,.).:.. "Al\MI"'~ tlA......t"AAl\' Exhbit "C" Page 14 Exhbit" 1 " Page 18 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03/20/20 "')261331Page 17 of 74 Document 6-2LEGALFiled 03/31/2008 FIRST 1 (hereinafter referred to as "RDS"). RDS is located at 126 Post Street, in the City and County of 2 San Fracisco, Californa. 2. Plaintiff LISA KNIGHT and MARCIE DAVE are former employee of 3 4 Defendant. KNIGHT was employed as an aesetician at RDS beginning in Februar 1999. 5 KNIGHT resigned her employment in July 2007. PlaintiffDA VE was employed by RDS as a 6 hair stylist from Januar 9, 2007 though and including Septembe 27, 2007. KNIGHT and 7 DAVE bring this actian on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. 8 3. The tre names and capacities, whether inividual, corprate, assate or 9 otheiise, of defendants DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, are unown to Plaintiff, who therefore 10 sue these defendants by fictitious naes purt to Code of Civil Prcedure § 474. Plaintiffs 11 fuer allege that each of 12 and occurrences herein set forth. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to show these defendants' 13 tre names and capacities when asceined, 14 defendant is responsible. 15 thes fictitious defendants is in sonie maner resonsible for the acts 4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege, that eah of the 16 defendants named in this complaìt was an agent, servant, employee, co-conspirator, andlor joint 17 ventuer of each of the remaining defendants, and was at all times acting with coure and scope 18 of said agency, servce, employrent, conspircy and/or joint ventue. 19 5. Defendants, and each of them, aided and abed, enèourged and rendered 20 substantial asistace in accomplishing the wrongfu conduct complaied ofhèrein. In takng 21 action, as parcuarzed herein, to aid an abet and sustatially assist the commssion of these 22 wrongful acts complained of, each of 23 primar wrongdoing and realized that hislher/its conduct would substantially asist the 24 accmplishment of VENUE 26 6. Venue is prope in the County of 27 that are the basis of 28 II K 2 R R '._ _~. & __.. .0- WAGSTAPPß the defendants acte with an awareness ofhislher/its the wrongfl conduct and wrongdoing. 25 L '.P as well as the maner in which each fictitious San FrancisCQ because obligations and liabilties ths action arose in San Fracisco County. 2 CompJirnt Exh t "C" Page i 5 Exhbit" 1 " Page 19 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 FIRST LEGAL 03/20/2lY Filed 03/31/2008 Page 18 of 74 ;261331 GENERA ALLEGA TlONS 2 7. KNIGHT was employed as an aesthetician by RDS. In that capacity, her Plaintiff 3 primar duty was to provide skin ca and hair removal sece to clients. KNIGHT was 4 clasified as an employee and paid 'on a commission basis. KNIGHT's position was not exempt 5 from the overime requirements of Califonua law or any other provisions of the California Labor 6 Code. 7 8. , PlaintiffDA VB was employed as a hair stylist by RDS. In tht capacity, her 8 primar duty was to prvide hair styling, coloring and related hair care serces to RDS clients. 9 DAVE was classified as an employee and paid on a commission basis. DAVE's position was io, not exempt frm the overime requireents ofCalifonua law or any other provisions of the 11 California Labor Cod. 12 9. Plaintiff KNIGHT an DAVE were paid an hourly wage as a draw aganst 13 commissions. The price customer paid for Plaintiffs' services was set by Defendants. Upon 14 hire, Plaintiff were promised a set percentage of that price as a commission. The commission' 15 percentages promised to Plaiffs were set at 33% an 40% respetively. Plaintiffs' prar 16 duties were to pedonn serce for cuomer, not to sell products. However, Plaintiffs were 17 also paid a commission, ragig from 5% to 10041, on skin car, beauty and nail products 18 purchas frm the spa by their customers. 19 10. Dug Plaintiffs' employment, Defendants regularly and unlawfully deducted 20 amounts frm Plaintiff' wages to cover Defendants' own overhead and business expenses. the serce but on a reduced price, referred 21 Plainti' comiissions were not paid on the price of 22 to by Defendants as a "commissionable prce." Defendants did not provide Plaitiff with a 23 breakdown or wntten explanation for the reduced servce price, however, the d~uctions were, 24 according to Defendants for: 25 a. 28 K l! l\ R "assistant charges," i.e., Defendants forced Plaitiff b. For the "cost of matenals," whch included the products Plaintiffs were requied to use as pa of thei employment. For example, when Plaitiff ... ._-~. '.' i. .,.... '" ,.. 3 Ll P Complant WA(lSTAFFll to pay for the cost of other employees hired by Defendants. 26 27 The cost of Exhb t "C" Page i 6 Exhbit" 1 " Page 20 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03/20120r Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 ~. '''l6131 FIRST LEGAL Page 19 of 74 KNIGHT perfonned hair removal, she was assessed a charge for the wax 2 she used in perfonning the serice. When PlaintiffDA VE colored hair, 3 she was charged for the tint. 4 c. Defendants deducted unspeified sums for marketing; 5 d. Defendants deducted unspeified sums for benefits (without defining what the benefits were for); and 6 e. 7 Defendants deducted unspeified sums for operting expenss. 8 i 1. Plaintiffs are infonned and believe and allege thereon that Defendants applied 9 similar policies and deductions unifonn1y to all stylists, aesthetician and masseuses employed 10 by Defendants at RDS, an have done so consistently since at leat 2003. 11 12. In addition, Plaintiffs were reqred to work on a schedule set by Defendants and 12 were usually required to stay at work for all scheduled hour whether or not they had customer 13 appointments. Plaintiffs were required to come to work approximately 15-20 minutes before the 14 beginning of each sceduled shift to prepare their work areas. Plaintiffs were also require to 15 attend meetings and clases in addition to their scheded work hours. Plaitiffs, however, were 16 not paid the proper amount of overme for the perod when they were require to work more 17 than eight hour a day in a workday or 40 hours in a work wee. Defendants failed to keep 18 proper time records, discouraged "early" clockng in, and therefore often failed to capture the 19 first 15-20 minutes of 20 Plaintiff' overime work peormed. Defendants also unawflly and inacurtely caculated plaintiff pay based on the hourly rate of , drw agaist commission, rather 21 than including plaintiffs' commis~ion income in the ''rguar rate" caculation as requirea by 22 Califonua law. 23 13. Plaintiffs are infoimed and believe and allege thereon that Defendants similarly 24 failed to pay overte compensation at the correct rate to all stylists, aesthetician and masuses 25 employed by Defendants at RDS and have done so consistently since at leat 2003. 26 14. Plaintiffs and other employees at RDS were sometimes required to work without 27 rest and ormeal breas as provide by IWC Wage Order No. 2-2001 (11HI2). Defendats 28 1/ R - ."K". S- ,R_.,. ~ -- WAG$TAf'FE lo , 4 Complaint Exlb t "C" Page 17 Exhbit" 1 " Page 21 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 FIRST LEGAL 03/20/2oP Filed 03/31/2008 D '6131 Page 20 of 74 failed, however, to pay Plaintiffs or any other employee for these missed breas and meals as 2 required by law. 3 15. Plaitiffs and other employees ofRDS were required to enter into written 4 agreements which, in clea violation of California law, purrt to prohibit Plaintiffs and others 5 frm competig with RDS durng and after their employment by RDS. 6 16. Plaitiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other perns who 7 wer, are or wil be employed by Defendants as styist, aeshetcians and masse or any other 8 similarly commissioned positions at RDS, within the relevant sttute of limitations period 9 (hereinaftr ''the Class"). 10 17. Plaintiffs, on bealf of themselves and th Clas, seek compensation for an 11 impropery witheld wages, uneimbur business expeses, missed meas and rest breaks, and 12 und-cmpensated overime work required or suffered or penÎitted by Defendants; injunctive 13 and declartory relief; liquidated and/or other damages; and penalties as peitted by law; 14 interest; attorneys' fee and costs. 15 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS of 16 18. Plaintiffs brig ths class action on behaf 17 18 themselves and the following asceainable class (hereinafter ''te Class") of siilarly situte persons: All hair stylists, aesetcian, ntaseu, or any similar commissione worker, emloyed by Defendants to work at RDS 19 with the applicale sttute of limitations peod though the date of ths action"5 final disposition. 20 Civil Procedure § 382. 19. 11s action is brought pursuant to Code of 21 the 20. Plaintiffs are infonned and believe, and on that basis allege, that members of 22 Class are so numerous that joinder 'of all members is imprctcable. Wlle the exact number of 23 class members is unkwn to Plaintiffs at this tie and ca 'only be asceained though 24 discovery, Plaintiffs believe tht ther are more than fifty members of the Class. 25 21. Plaitiffs' clai are tyica of the claims of the Clas, becuse Plaitiffs and all 26 Defendants' same patter and practice of , class membe sustained damages tht arse out of 27 makig wiawful wage deductions, failing to reimburse for expense, failng to pay proper 28 K E II R u . ~ _ " "'W.~. ...~. WAGSTAFfS HP 5 Complaint Exhb t "C" Page 18 Exhbit" 1 " Page 22 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 FIRST LEGAL 03/20/20r Filed 03/31/2008 Page 21 of 74 .. :61331 overtime premium compensation, failng to provide prope rest and meal perods as required by 2 Californa law, failing to provide proper wage statements, failing to maintain prope time 3 recrd, and failng to pay all wages owed upon termination, an forcing employees to sign 4 ilegal and abusive "non-compete" agreements. and adequately protect the interests of 5 22. Plaintiffs wil fully the Clas, and have 6 retained classcounsel who are experence and competent in both class and employment 7 litigation. Plaintiff have no interts that are contrar to or in conflct with those of the Class. 8 23. Plaintiffs know of no diffcuty to be encountered in the management of ths 9 action that would preclude its maintenace as a class action. 10 24. The likelihoo ofindividuaI Clas member persecutng separte claims is the Clas do not have a significat interest in individually 11 remote, and individual member of 12 controllng the proseution of separate actons. Additionally, the prosecutiòn of separate actions 13 by individual class membes would create a risk of inconsistent and varng adjudications 14 conceing the subject of this action, wluch adjudications could establish incompatible standards 15 of conduct for defendants under the law herein alleged. 16 25. There is a well-defined community of interest beween Plaintiffs an the members 17 of the Class. Questions of law and fact common to the membe of the Class predominate over 18 any questions that may affec only individual members, in that Defenants have acted in a 19 manner generly applicable to the enti Clas. Among the questions of law an fact common 20 to the Clas are: 21 a. 22 23 wages of b. c. 26 27 28 K I! R R the Class; Whether Defendants unlawfully deducted "cost of materials" from the wages of the Class; 24 2'5 Whether Defendants unawfully deduced "asistat charges" frm the Whether Defendats unlawfully deducted ')naretng" from the wages of the Class; d. Whether Defendants unlawflly deducted ''benefits'' from the wages of the Class; -- -- --- -- ~ _..--- ---- 6 .. . Complaint WAG$1'AFFE Exhib t "e" Page 19 Exhbit" 1 " Page 23 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 FIRST LEGAL 03120/200 e. 1 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 22 of 74 ~ '61331 Wheter Defendants made other unawful deductions from the wages of the Class; 2 3 f. 4 Wheter Defendats otherwse failed to reimburse the business expeses of g. .5 the Clas; Whether Defendats unlawflly failed to pay overtime to the Class in the proper amowits; 6 h. 7 8 Wheter Defendants failed to provide Class members proper brea periods; 9 I. Whether Defendats failed to provide Class members proper meal perod; 10 J. Wheter Defendants failed to kee accurate records showing when Class member be and ended each work and meal perod; 11 k. 12 Whether Defendats failed to provide itemized wage statements to the Class member as required by Califoroia law; 13 14 L Whther the non~mpetition contrcts Defendants force Class members to sign are wuawfu; 15 m. 16 Whether the legal claims presented in this Complaint on behaf of the Class have mert; 17 n. 18 Wheter Dedants' violations ofCaliforoia's labor laws constute unawfl, unfar or fraudulent busines practice; an 19 o. 20 Whether member of the Class ar entitled to relief for Defendants' violations of California labr laws an if so, the prope relief. 21 22 26. Accordingly. this acton should be maintaned as a class action. TOLLING OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 2.3 24 27. Any applicable statues of 2.5 knowig. and actve conceent of limitations have been tolled by Defendant's continuing, the facts alleged herei. Despite exercising reasnable 26 dilgence; Plaintiff and the Clas could not have discovered. did not discover, and were 27 prevente frm discoverng, the wrngdoing complained of herein. 28 1/' K B R R ..." ..-_. , _...-- -- W¡'GSTAFFll LU 7 Complait Exl t "C" Page 20 Exhbit" 1 " Page 24 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 FIRST LEGAL 03f2012() Filed 03/31/2008 Page 23 of 74 ~ '61331 1 FIT CAUSE OF ACTON FOR UNLAWFUL WAGE DEDUCTIONS 2 (BY PLAINTIFFS AND THE CLASS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 3 28. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class, re.allege and incorporate by 4 reference pargraphs 1 through 27 as if they were set fort herein. 5 29. California Labor Code secon 221 states, "It shall be unlawful for any employer 6 to collect or recive from an employee any par of wages theretofore paid by sad employer to 7 said employee." 8 30. As descrbed above, Defenants reguarly dedcted amounts from the wages 9 eared by Plaintiffs and other Class member for assistat fee, supplies, and other business and 10 overhea expeses. TIse deduction violated Labor Coe secon 221. 11 31. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below. 12 SECOND CAUSE OF AClION FOR VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE SECTION 450 13 (BY PLAINTIFFS AND THE CLASS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANS) themselves and the Class, re-alege and incorprate by 14 32. Plaitiffs, on bealf of i 5 reference pargraphs 1 though 31 as if they were set fort herein. 16 33. Labor Code section 450 states tht "no employer. . . may compel or coerce any' 17 employee.. . to patronize his or her employer, or any other person, in the purchase of any thing 18 of value." 19 34. As descrbe above, Defendants regularly requied Plaintiffs and all the other 20 Clas member to purchase proucts and servces frm Defendats by way of charges and other 21 deductions. Requiring Plaintiff and the other Class member to purchase proucts and seice 22 from the Defendants violated Labor Code section 450. 23 35, Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as set fort below. THIR CAUSE OF AClION 24 FOR FAIURE TO REIMURSE BUSIN EXPENSES 25 (BY PLAINTIFF AND THE CLASS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 26 36. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class, re-allege and incorprate by 27 reference paragrphs 1 thugh 35 as if they were set fort herein. 28 II K ii R R . "' ,", - " ..- -," .'~. WAGSTA~FB LLP 8 Complait Exhb t "C" Page 21 Exhbit "1" Page 25 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 37. 1 Filed 03/31/2008 FIRST LEGAL 03/20/20r' Page 24 of 74 J" -;26133 t Californa Labor Code section 2802 states, "An employer shall indemnify his or 2 her employees for all necsa expeditues or losses incu by the employee in direct the discharge of 3 consequence of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of 4 the employer, even though unlawful, unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, 5 believed them to be unlawfuL." This seion prohibits employers from requiring employees to business overead to 6 incur uneimbursed business expeses and from passing on the cost of the State of 7 employee. Labor Code secion 2802 represents a fudamental public policy of 8 California, and the righ created in tht secon are not waivable. 9 38. As describe above, Defenants reguarly charged Plaintiffs and other Clas Plaintiffs' duties including assistat fee, 10 member for expe necsa to the pedoimance of 11 materals chages, and other bUSness and overead expeses. In addition, Defendants failed to 12 reimbure Plaintiff or other Clas membe for any other busines expese incued by the the Clas. Defendants' conduct violates Lar Code section 2802. 13 members of 14 39. Wherefore, Plaitiffs pray for judgment as set forth below. 15 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAU..RE TO PAY OVETIM COMPENSATION THE CLASS AGAIST ALL DEFENDANTS) 16 (BY PLAINTIFFS AND 17 40. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themlves and the Clas, re-allege and incorporate by 18 reference paragraphs 1 though 39 as if 19 41. they were se fort herein. Califonua law requires that an employer such as Deendants compesate aU non- 20 exempt employee at a rate of one-and-one-half (1 Yi) ties the regular rate of pay for work 21 perormed above eight hours in a workday or above fort (40) hours in a workee. 22 42. Plaintiffs and member of the Class were scheduled by Defendants to work more 23 than eight hours in a workday and/or forty hour per week, and did in fact work more than eight 24 hours in a workday and/or forty hours per week. 25 43. Plaintiffs and memer of the Class ar non-exempt employee, and at all relevant 26 times have been and are entitled to be paid overime compesation for all overime hour 27 worked. 28 II I( I! R R . . ... li _."- ~.. WAGS'!AFFIl 9 Complait ExJb t "e" , Page 22 Exhbit" 1 " Page 26 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03/20/20(1 Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 J '6131 Page 25 of 74 FIRST LEGAL 44. At all relevant times, Defendants failed and refused to pay overtime premium 2 compensation to the membes of the Class for their hour worked in exce of eight hour in a . 3 workday or forty (40) hoW' pe week. Defenants also failed to make and keep accrate time 4 records showing when Plaintiffs and the Class began work and ended each work period. This the work day and work required 5 problem is paricularly acute with respet to the begiing of 6 "before" a scheduled shift. 7 45. In addition, at all relevant times Defendants unlawfulJy failed to pay Plaintiffs and 8 the Class the corrct overme preium compesation under California law by miscalculatig the 9 relar rate used to caculate overime pay. The membe of the Class arelwere paid in par 10 based on commissions and other non-discretionar payments for hours worked tht are required 11 by law to be included in the rate used to calculate premi,wn pay. See Labor Code § 200; 29 12 U.s.C. § 207; Division o/Labor Stanards Enforcement Policies and Interpretations Manual § 13 49. Defendants, however, unlawfully calculated overime premium pay based solely on the 14 hourly "draw" against commssion, ignoring commissions and all other forms of wages. As a 15 result, the rate used by defendants was subsantially les than the rate actually owed. Defendats 16 reported this incorrect rate to member of the Class as ifit were the rae actlly owed, thereby 17 conceing their underpayment of overme from Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class. 18 46. By failing to make and keep accurate time recrd showing when Plaintiffs and 19 the Class began work and ended each work penod, and by faling to compesate Plaintiff and 20 the Class at a rate of one-and..ne-half (1 ~) times the reguar rate of pay for work peonned 21 above eight (8) hours in a workday or above forty (40) hour in a workweek, Defendants violated 22 - California law. 23 47. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for j~dgment as set fort below. 24 FI CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PAYMEN OF SECRET WAGE LOWE THA DESIGNATED SCALE 25 (BY PLAIFF AN THE CLASS AGAIST ALL DEFENDANTS) 26 48. Plaitiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class, re-allege and incorprate by 27 reference paragrphs i though 47 as if they wer set fort herein. 28 II K E R il .. ... .'. " .. _ H _~ _... I'AGSTAFFB L L' 10 Complaint Exh 't "C" Page 23 Exhbit" 1 " Page 27 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 FIRST LEGAL 03/20/2Of i Filed 03/31/2008 ¡l 61331 Page 26 of 74 Labor Code secton 223 provide, "Where any statute or contrct requirs an 49. 2 emloyer to maintain the designated wage scale, it shall be unlawful to seretly pay a lower 3 wage while purrt to pay the wage designated by statute or contrct." 50. 4 Defendants represented to Plaitiffs and to each member of the Class,that they 5 were paying proper overme to the Plaitiff and membe of the Class, while actually paying 6 Plaintiffs and members of the Class les than the rate that was owed as a reult of Defendants' 7 intentional miscalculation of the overtime rate. Th conduct repre~ts the payment of a secet 8 wage lower tha that owed by law in violation of Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for jugment as set forth below. 51. 9 Labor Code section 223. SIXH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCUTE WAGE STATEMENTS (BY PLAITIFF AND TH CLASS AGAIST ALL DEFENDANS) 10 11 12 52. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class, re-allege and incorprate by 13 reference paragraphs i through 51 as if they were set fort herein. 53. 14 Labor Coe setion 226(a) requires an emloyer to "semi-monthly, or at the time 15 of each payment of wages, fush each orhis or her employee. . . an accurate itemzed 16 statement in wrting showing (1) gross wages eaed, (2) total hours worked by the employee. . . 17 rand) (4) all deductions. . .," along with other iionnation. 18 54. Labor Code sections 226(a) and 226.3 provide for damages and penalties for each Lar Coe secion 226(a). 19 violation of 20 55. Defendants failed to prvide Plaitiffs and each other member of the Clas with 21 the accurate statements required by Labor Coe secon 226(a) because the itemizations provided 22 by Defendants (1) under-reprted the amount of overime eaed by misreportng the regular 23 rate, (2) failed to report all hour worked, and (3) did not list all deductions. Accrdingly, 24 Defendants violated Labor Code seon 226(a) for Plaintiffs and each member of the Class with 25 respect t to every pay perod dung his or her employment. 26 56. Wherefore, Plaitiffs pray for judgment as set forth below. 27 II 28 II K Po R R . . - ,..M .. " ", ~ _ . ~ l'AGSTAFFR '-1.. , 11 Complaint Exh t "c" Page 24 Exhbit" 1 " Page 28 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03120!2Of SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAIURE TO PAY WAGES FOR REST BREAK PERIODS 1 (BY PLAINTIFF AND THE CLASS AGAIST ALL DEFENDANTS) 2 3 Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 4 '6131 Page 27 of 74 FIRST LEGAL 57. Plaintiffs, on bealf of themselves and the Clas, fe-allege an incorprae by 4 reference pargrphs 1 though 56 as if they were set fort herein. 5 58. Californa law requires an employer to provide an employee ten minutes of duty 6 free "net rest tie" for every fom hours worked or "major frction thereof," with the rest peod 7 to be available nea'the middle of the work peod, insofar as is practicable. 8 59. Member of the Clas, including Plaintiff were sometimes required to work 9 through rest break or were not given rest breas at all. the Class 10 60, Under Californa law, Defendants are obligated to pay each member of 11 who worked through a ret brea or was not provided a proper rest break for ever four hours 1 i worked at the rate of one hour or reguar pay per violation. 13 61. Wherefore, Plaintiff pray for judgment as set fort below. EIGHTH CAUSE OF AClION 14 FOR FAILURE TO PAY WAGES FOR MEAL PERODS 15 (BY PLAITIF AN THE CLAS AGAIST ALL DEFENDAN) 16 62. Plaintiffs, on behalf of 17 reference paragraphs 1 though 61 as if themelves and the Clas, re-allege and incorporate by they were set fort herein. 18 63. Caiforna law requires an employer to provide an employee with a mea peod of 19 not less tha thirty minutes for any work peod of more th five hours. California law also 20 requies an employer to provide employee working more than ten hour pe day a secnd meal 21 peod. Excet in specific circumstace not relevant here, unes the employee is relieved of all 22 duties durng the meal perod, the entire peod must be counted as time worked. 23 64. The nature of the work perormed by Plaintiff and the other Class Members was 24 not such that prevented them from being relieved of duty durg their restive meal periods. 25 Neverheless, members of the Class were sometes requied to work through their meal perods 26 or were not given mea perods at alL. Defendants also failed to make and kee. accuate time 27 recrds recording mea perods provided, to Plaintiffs and the Class. 28 II K ERR "" . -. li ~.... -..- W!'GST!'.IYE u. 12 Complaint Exhb t "C" Page 25 Exhbit" 1 " Page 29 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03/20/20(' Document 6-2 " '6133 i Page 28 of 74 FIRST LEGAL Filed 03/31/2008 1 65. Under Californa law, Defendants are obligated to pay each member of the Class 2 who worked through a meal period or was not given a prope meal period at Ûle rate of one hour 3 of regular pay per violation. 4 66. Wherefore, Plaintiff pray for judgment as set fort below. 5 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WAITING TIM PENAL TIES UNER LABOR CODE §203 6 (BY PLAITIF AN THE CLS AGAIST ALL DEFENDANS) 7 67. Plaintiffs, on behfofthemelves and the Class, re-aUege and incorprate by 66 as ifÛley were set fort herein. 8 reference paragraphs 1 thugh 9 68. At the time that Plaintiffs resigned and those other members of the Clas no 10 longer employed by Defendts resgned and/or wtre teninated, Defendants failed to pay 11 Plaitiffs any of the amounts due as set fort herein. Defendants' falure to pay Plaintiffs and 12 other members of the Clas overme, mea and brea tie at the time of their resigßation and/or 13 terination violates Labo Coe sections 201 and 202. 14 69. Defendants' falure to pay the wages of Plaintiffs and othr mebers of the Class 15 was wilful and they are entitled to penaties under Labor Code secon 203 which provides that 16 an employee's wages shall continue as a penty until paid or for a peod up to thi days, 17 whichever is shorter. 18 . 70. Wherefore, Plaitiff pray for judgment as set fort below. 19 , TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION ILEGAL NON-COMPETITION AGREEMENT 20 (BY PLAINIFF AND THE CLASS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 21 71. Plaintiffs, on behalf of ~ems~lves and the Clas, re.ailege and incorprate by 22 reference paragraphs 1 thougb 70 as if 23 72. Dur the coure of they were set fort herin. their employment, Plaintiffs and the member of the Class 24 ,were reqired to sign wrtt ageeents with Defendants that purrt to restct the right to 25 work of Plaitiffs and the other membe of the Class. Those agreeents provided, in violation 26 of California law: "For six (6) m.onths after Ûle teination of your employment with the 27 Company for whatever reason, you shall not directly or indirectly render hair, beaut, nail, or 28 other servces ordinaly provided by a Company Spa/salon, to or for any person, finn, K II R R '..,. _. - ár .- ~- .... WAGS'rAf'f'll L f. P 13 Complaint Exhib t "C" Page 26 Exhbit" 1 " Page 30 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 d '6133\ FIRST LEGAL 03/20120r Page 29 of 74 1 corpration (including self-employment) directly or indirectly involved in the provision of such 2 serices withn a 5 mile radius from the home spa where you were employed, unless wrtten 3 consnt by the Compay is granted." 4 73. This requirement, which purprt to completely eliminate the abilty Plaintiffs and 5 the other members of the Class from engaging in their vocation, violates Californa Busines and 6 Professions Coe section 166, which provides'that "every contract by which anyone is 7 restrained from engag in a lawfu profesion, trade, or busines of any kin is to that extent 8 void." Defendants' contract also violates well established Califomia public policy against 9 restrint on employment. this provision by Defendants is thus a violation ofCalifornía law and 10 74. The us of 11 public policy. The in terrorem effect of ths ilegal contrct clUlls and impairs Plaintiffs and the the Class' nghts notwthstding its ultimate unenforceabilty. Purant to 12 other members of 13 California Code of Civil Produre 1060, Plaitiffs and the membe of the Class are entitled to a 14 declaration that the non-competion provisions of their employment contrct are invalid and 15 unenforcle, and to an injunction aganst Defendants continuing to use such provisions in 16 current and futu contrcts in California. 17 75. Wherefore, Plaitiffs pray for judgment as set fort below. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 18 19 UNFAI AN UNAWF BUSINESS PRACTICES (BY PLAINTIF AND THE CLASS AGAIST ALL DEFENDANTS) 20 76. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves an the Class, re-aIlege and incorprate by 21 reference pargrphs i thugh 75 as if they were set fort herein. 22 77. Ths caus of action is brougt pursuant to Business and ProfesionS Code secion 23 i 7200, et seq. Defendants as descrbed above violates 24 78. The pattern and practice of conduct of 25 numerous laws and public policies of the State of Californa. As a result, such conduct 26 constitutes both an unfar and unlawful business practice in violation of Busines and 27 Profesions Code sectiòn 17200 et seq. 28 II K ERR .. " ,_.~ , WAO;;TAFFB i. f. P 14 Complaint Exhb t "C" Page 27 Exhbit "1" Page 31 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03/2012(): Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 4" ~61331 Page 30 of 74 FIRST LEGAL Business 79. In committing the unfair and unawfl business practices in violation of 2 and Professions Coe secion 17203, in an amount to be detemned at tral. Additionally, the amounts that Defendats have impropely witheld from her and 3 Plaintiff seeks retution of that seion. their conduct in violation of 4. the Clas by virte of 5 80. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as set fort below. 6 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of themselves and the Clas, pray fur relief as 7 follows: 8 i. 9 2. Designation of Plaitiffs as representaves of the Class; 10 3. Reimburent of all improper wage deductions and uneibur busines 'Certficaon of this acton as a clas acton on behalf of the Class; 11 expenses; 12 4. Unpaid overme_premium compensation as provided by Californa law for 13 overtme hours worked; 14 5. Compnsation at the rate of one hour of reguar pay for each instance in which 15 Plaintiffs or any other Class member worked though a rest break or was not provided a prpe 16 rest brea for ever four, hour worked; 17 6. Compensation at the rate of one hour of regular pay for each ince in which 18 Plaintiff or any other Clas member worked thugh a mea perod or was not given a proper 19 mea peod; 20 7. A declaratory judgment that the praice complaine of in ths complaint are 21 unawful under California law; 22 8. An injunction agait Defendants and their offce, agents, succors, 23 employee, represntatives. and any and all perns acg in concert with it from engaging in 24 each of the practce complained of in this Complaint; 25 9. An award of dages, according to proof; 26 10. AU pealijes requir by Califoll law; 27 11. Attorneys' fees and costs, including expert fee, and expnses as provided by 28 California law; K ERR ~ .",," ... " _..~-~~.. WAGSTAFFB '" 15 Complaint Exhb' "C" Page 28 Exhbit" 1 " Page 32 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03/20/200' d '61331 Page 31 of 74 Document FIRST6-2 LEGAL Filed 03/31/2008 12. For prejudgment and post~judgment interest at the maximum legal rate; and i i 3. Such other relief as the Cour dees just and proper. 3 Dated: Januar 31, 2008 KERR & WAGSTAFFE LLP 4 LAW OFFICES OF MOSS & HOUGH 5 6 '/~ MAY-PATRICIA HOUGH 7 8 9 Attorney for Plaintiffs LISA KNIGHT and MARCIE DA VB on behalf of thelves and those similarly situated 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 lCEQR .. -.... '. " -".'-" WAGS'lIIFi'& i.i.ii 16 Complant Exh "t "C" Page 29 Exhbit" 1 " Page 33 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03/20/2()' Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 4" "'61331Page 32 of 74 FIRST LEGAL CASE NUMBER: CGC-08-471683 LISA KNIGHT et al VS. RED DOOR SALONS, INC AN ARIZ( NOTICE TO PLANTIFF A Case Management ConferencB.ls set foi DATE: JUL.o3..2008 TIME: 9:00AM PLACE: Departent 212 400 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102~3680 All partes must appear and comply wit Local Rule 3. eRe 3.725 requires th fiing and service of a case management statement form CM-11 0 no later than 15 days before the case management conference. However,lt would facilitate the issuanc of a case managemet order without an appearance at the case maagemnt conference if the case management statement Is file. served and lod In Departent 212 twenty-fie (25) days bere the case managemet Plaintif must seive a copy of this noti upon ea part to this acton with the summons and complaint. Proof of serv subsequentl flIed with this cort shall so state. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTIN POL1CY REQUIREMENTS rr IS THE POUCY OF TH SUP.R COURT THAT EVY CIVIL , CASE PARTICIPATE IN EIHER MEDlAnON, JUDICIA OR NON- JUDIIA ARBITRATI, TH EAY SELEEN PROGRA OR SOME SUITABLE FORM OF ALTERNATI DIUTE RESOLUTON PRIOR TO A MANDATOR SETEMENT CONFERENCE OR TRIA (SeE LOCAL RULE 4) Plaintl must serve a copy of the Alternatve Dispute Resolution Information Package on each defendant along wih the complaint. All conse must discuss AOR wit clients and opposing consel and provide clients 'with a copy of the Altemative Dispute Resolution Infrmation Package prior to filing th,e Case Management Staement. (DEFENDANTS: Atnding the Case Mangement Conference doe not take the must file a writtn response with the court within the time limit reuired by law. See Summons.) plac of filing a written reponse to the complainL You Superior Court Alternative Dispute Resolution Coordinator 400 McAllster Street, Room 103 ' San Franclsço, CA 94102 (415) 551-3876 See Local Rules 3.&. 6.0 C and 10 D re stpulation to commIssioner actin as temporary juges EXHIBIT D Exhbit "D" Page 30 Exhbit" 1 " Page 34 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 FIRST LEGAL 03/20/20(\' Page 33 of 74 4' '61331 Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR.) Program Information Package Alternatives to Trial other ways to resolve a civi dispute.. There are The plam1J se a copy of th.AR. birmon pae on ea ifaloogwi th compl. (CR 2oi.9Cc)) .SDor Co ofCaor San Ft County AD-i ioler (1) EXHIBIT f. of l' I Exhbit "En Page 31 Exhbit" 1 " Page 35 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 4' '61331 Page 34 of 74 fIRST LEGAL 03/20/20r Introduction lawsuits sette without a tral? Did you know that most civl And did you know tht thre ar 8 nl.ber of was to relve ciil disput wiout having lOSUB some~y? Thes alteties to a lauit are kn as altie disput reutns (A). ' Th mo co fo of ADR ar med. aron and case evaat. Ther are 8 number of otr krad of ADR as weL In ADR, tr.lmpal pe deci dI or help pa de diut' thes Th.. are ca 1M. Fo eX8pf In meia th llutlls th meia. Ne nOrmll.. chen by th disputng part or by lt cort NeutriS can hep paes rø dis wiout hang to go to court dispute reoln ADR is not ne., ADR is availbl in man comunlt through programs and prvate neut. Advantages of ADR ADR can'hàve a numbe of advantaes over ¡¡ lawuit. . ADR can save time A dispute oftn can be reolved in a matt of month even weks,through ADR, while a lawsui can take Y~rs~ . AM can save J1oney. Court costs, attrns fe, and exp fee can be saved. · AM can be cootie. Th mea that th partes having a dJsput may work ,, toge wi th nel to i-lve th dlpu an agre to a re th in se to thm. ra th wo agnst ea ot. . ADR ca re st Th ar fe. If an, cort appenC. And bese AD ca be sp, and sa mony, an beus the..rt ar nor cootie, AD Is .. l) th nerVes. Th paes don't hae a lawsuit 'hangg over their hea for yea. , , , . ADR enco partip. Th~ pa may have more chs to tell thir side of the sto 'than In court an nJY ha mo control over the outcme. ' . ADR Is nexle. The part can choose the ADR prces that Is bes fo them. For exmple, In meian the pa ma,ded how to reol thelrdlspu. . ADR can be mor sat. For 81111 ab,reoos. many peple have repone a high d8gre of satlsfa&n with ADR. ' AD.i 10/07 (I) Pa 2 Exlbit HE" Page 32 Exhbit "1" Page 36 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 03120120r Filed 03/31/2008 Page 35 of 74 ¡J' ",61331 FIRST LEGAL Beus 0' the adta, many paes choos ADR to reole a dispute in of filing a lawst. Even Wh a laui ha IJn file th cort ca re appeled. ' th dfsput to a neull befre the partes' poit h.~n and the lauit bees cost. ADR has ben us to relve disput even aftr a trl, when th result Is Disadvantages of ADR ADR may not be suitae for every diput . . If AD Is bing, th pa nor give up mot cOur prteo.. ing a declslon by a re for leal ju or Jur unde foft ru of evce and pr, -id err by 8n appla cort . There geerall is Je opponf'to fi ou abot th otr sie's ca wi ADR than wi lltl AD may no be"' if It take plce before the paes have sutnt Infonnatl to reole th disputé. . Th ,neutl may chi,. a fee for his or her aec~. , . . If a dispute Is not reolv through AD the part may have to pu tie and mone int both AM and a lauit.' . Lauit mus be brught wiin tplf pes of-tie, knn as statu of Iflltlon. Paes mus be carel no to let a sttu of Umltll run ouWhe a dipute Is in an AOR pr. ' JiR-i 10/07 (j) hp3 Exlbit "E" Page 33 Exhbit" 1 " Page 3 7 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 FIRST LEGAL 03/20/200f Page 36 of 74 4'- "61331 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAMS Of the San FranciscO Superior Court .It is the poliCY of the Super Court that ever nonaimlnal, non juvenile ca partte ei in an eay se co, meiation. arn, '~r1 nel evUo or so ot altti dise relut pr pr to a mator set cofer or trl.. (Sup cou Lo Rul 4) Th gue is dene to ast attorys; th cU and sel-rted liant in co ~ Sa Fra Suri Corts àle , di relulioll t-AD po. Attys ar èn to sh this gue wi cliets. By mag infrm chce about dispu re alerties, attor. thei clen and se-rte li may, achiee a more sain reut of. ci di. Th, San Francisc Superr, Cort currntly of three ADR progra fo general civl mattrs; each prram is desbe beow: 1 ) Judicial Arti 2) Medaton 3) Th Early Set Pro (ESP) in cojuncton with the San Franci -Ba Asation. JUDCIAL ARBITROON , Deription In arbtin, a neut.~to pre at a henng whre th part pr ev thh ex Iand testion. The arbito apie th law tø th facfs of th ca an maes an aw ba up th me of . th case. Wh th Court orrs a -cse to arbtin it is ca iudlc aiOl "1 gol of ar is to provid pa with an adudcaUon tht is earlier, faer, le forl, and usuaHy le exsive than a trl. Upon stulaon of alt par, othr cil matter may be submed to judicial arbtraon.. Alough not currnt a part of th Couits ADR prram, ciil disputes may also be relv throh private arbn He, th pares AJ.1 10/er (j) Pi 4 Exlbit "EO' Page 34 Exhbit "1" Page 3 8 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03120/200' 4. '61331 Page 37 of 74 Document FIRST6-2 LEGAL Filed 03/31/2008 voluntariy cot to arbitr. If al pa agre, pr aron may be bindin and th pa give up th riht to judical re of the arlts deJø. In prte ar, th pa se a pr arbittor and are resnsi for payh th attors fee. Operon Puruant to COP 1141.11 an Lo Rue 4¡ al ~I ac it whch th . amunt in co Is $5,00 or le, an no pa se equibl , re, shaD be orered to arat. A ca IS ord to ar af the Ca Managt Cofe An ar is ch fr th Cos Arn Pan. Mos case oRi to arli are als order to a pr-arbti se co. Ar are , gener he be 7 and 9 mo af a copl ha be fied. Judic arbitr Is J: bidi un aD part agree to be bond by the arbtor's dec. Any part ma ret a co trl wi 30 days afr th arto(s aw has be flied. Cost There is no cost to th pa fo judical arbtion or for the pre- arbtln seem cofernce. MEDIATION Deripti Mediati is a volunta, flble, an confdentil pros in wh a nel th pa "mediato faciitte neottins. -Th goa of meiati is to rea a mu sati ag tht reoles aD or'pa of th diut af exlo th siifnt inte, nes, an prri of th pa In ig of re evæ and th la. Alh th are difert ~Ie and appl'es to me, most , meiati ~in wI prons of ea side's vi 'of th cae. The meiator's ro Is to asst th par In comunlti wi ea otrf exes thr in, unng th inte 9f opng part; recgnizng areas of agrent and geneting optins for reution. TIough qu, th meator aids eac part in asseng the stngts and wea of their poon. "'5 .A-i 10/0'1 Om) Exhbit "E" Page 35 Exhbit" 1 " Page 39 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 03/20/2Of FIRST LEGAL Filed 03/31/2008 Page 38 of 74 ,1 161331 A meiator does not prop a judt or provide an evaluation of th th ca. Many attorey and litnts find that me an value of mela's em on cotie di relut pruc mor satictory an enur resutons. Mediat's nodverrial apprch is partrl efece in dispu in whlåi th pa have a conting relaonp, whe ther ar mu pa, whe eqbl reief is soht. or wh str peal fe $)st Opn Sa Fra Supor Co Lol 'Cour Rule 4 prid thre dint volunta meiati pr fo ci dipues. An apprprte pt is avabe for aU åv ca rele of the ty of acn or ty of re soht To hep li an al id qua meatrs, th Sup , Court maintns a li of me prov whos trinng an expce have ben revi an approved by the Court. The list of court apped men provi ca be fod at ww.sfv.orco. li are not 6mile to medator 01' the cour li and may sel any ,meia agree upo by all pa A me prvid ne not be an at~. lol Rule 4.2 t; al fo meti in lie of judicl ar, so lo as the partes file a stula to mete wiin 240 days from th dat th compt is fi. If &eent is not reachecl-hroh meiation, a ca pro to tral as scedul. Prte Medol, The Priate Meia prra acte ca th wih to papa in prat meia to fu th courts ai dispue re reir Th pa seec a meiato" pa of meiatrs or meti pr of thr chce to cOct the meia. Th co of , , me is bo by th pa eqal unl~ th pa agre othse. Par in ciil èa that hae not be orer to arbitrti may coent to pr meatn at any point before tr. Partes wiUing to'subm a mat to prate meiaon shul indcae this pr on th , Stipulatin to A1eml Di RèSlut fonn or 1h Case Manaen Sttement (CM-110). Both fo are at to this packet .... Jolrr Oa) l' 6 Exlbit "E" Page 36 Exhbit" 1 " Page 40 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 FIRST LEGAL 03/20/20( Nledatin Sence oftha Bar Asciatin of Filed 03/31/2008 Page 39 of 74 t 161331 Sa Fr Th MeIaUon Sece is a cordin ef of th San Fracisc 'Supe Court an Th Ba Asstion of San Franc (BA) In wh a court appved meiato prvid thre ho of meian at no chge to the part. It is deigne to afor cil li th op to engag in ea me of a ca 8h af min th cot. in an ef to re th mat be sutil ñm ar ex on th liUon proc. Algh th go of th pr Is to pr th se at the ou of th lion, th prra ma be utiz at ' an thro th litin pr. The meia pang In th'pr ha be pr-aprved by Ui co puant to st edcaon an ex reents. Af th fl of th sine Stiatin to Alat Dis Resut form Inc in ths Alpage th pa win be co by BASF. Upo paym of the $200 per pa adinis fee. pa Seec a . spec me frm th li of co appved media prviders. Th hour1 ~ fe beyond th ,fi th hors wil var dein on the meto sele. Waiv of th administe fee ba on fincial hardip is avalae. A co of the Med Seic rues ca be fond a.n th BASF webit 415-782.~. atww:sfr.or. or you may cal BASF at Judcial Medon Th JuälCai Meat prra is de to provk early meiation of coplex cases by vote Judge oflh San Fra SU Co. Cas cosi for th program In coctn de emplymt disc. prfe mapr, Insuce cover. toxi tor and in~1 ac. Par interte in juic meiatn should fi th Stpu to Alrnate DIe Res fo atch to this paet Inicting a jont reque for inc in th prra. A prrenc fo a sp jud9~ may be ind. The cort AJat Die Ren Conatorwll coinat asslgnmet'i: ca that qualif for the progr. ' .i-i i./O' 0.) Pa 7 Exhbit "E" , Page 37 Exhbit "1" Page 41 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03/20/2008 Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 41" '1331 Page 40 of 74 FIRST LEGAL Cost Geerally, th cot of Pr Men ra'fr $2 pe ho to $4 pe hour and is sha equally by th pa. Many meia are wlng to adjust thr fe dep1n upo the Ince and resl' of the part. appnt a Meia to se at no co to th paes An pa wh me ~rt elgili reui may as th cort to , The Media Seic of th Bar Asti of San Fra prides thre ho of meti ti at no cot wi a $2 pe pa adnie fee. Ther Is no ch~ for papation in th Judic Medti prog. EARLY SET PROGRAM Deptin The Ba Asc: of Sa Franci, in cotin wi th Co, offers an Earl Se Prora ("SP-) as pa of th Cos set coce caar. Th go of èarl set Is to pr papants .. , an oprtnit to i- a rn actabl set that rees all or pa of th di. Th tw-m volunt~ attomey pa re a banc be plaint and defse at wi alle 10 yea of tral exprience. As In meiatin, th ~ no set for for th se coce. A co tyUy bein wi a bnef me wi all pa an coun, in whic ea Is given an oprtnit to ma an init stemnt Th paelis then ass disng th sts and wes of th pa in ~ an cadily th ca. The Ea seen Con Is coer a .quasiud procng and. ll, is not ened to the sttory confidenit prteon afrde , to meiatn. Opon Civil ca enter the ESP ei voluntaÌy or throug asignment by the Court Pares who wi to che the ea seme pr shuld indicte this prefre on th status- an seng confenc sttement .i.¡ 10107 (j) PI 8 Exhbit "E" Page 38 Exhbit" 1 " Page 42 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 FIRST LEGAL 03/201200l Page 41 of 74 41r '133 ( If a rn is asne to the ESP by the Cotl pa ma cos.t tle ESP prra mate acanng th -Noce of th Eary Setut Confere- fo lñfnn regardln remval fr th program. Partciants ar notifi of ther ESP confer dat appxiately 4 moth pr to tral. The se QO Is tycaUy he 2 to 3 mont pr to th tral dae. Th Ba As's ESP Coordnat Infor the pa of nam of the pa me an locn of th . seWe cofeen app 2 wee pr to the cofece dat. lo Rul 4.3 se ou th reuire of the ESP. All pa to a ca asign to th ESP ar req to su a seen conc' stte pr to th co Al part, atys who w1ß tr th' case, an in reprntaties wi set au ar reuir to at the semet cofe. If seer is no rèchd throgh the confce, the case prces to trl as scUl. . Cost All partes must subm a $250 gely rirefuble adminise fe to the Bar Astion of San Franci. Pares who me certin elibit reuireent may reue a fe waiv. For mo inon, plse conta th ESP Coon~tor at (415) 782.. ex8717. ***... * * **** * * * ** *** For furter infoaton ab Sa Fraci &ipeor Cour ADR pros or dIpu retion altatve, pl contact Surir Go, Altie Dis Reon, . , 40 Mcst St Roo 103 Sa Franc, CA 94102 , (415)551-3876 or visit th Supior Cour Webe at htt://sfov.orsielcorl''ag.asp?id=72 AD-i 10/f1 00 P.9. Exhbit "E" Page 39 Exhbit" 1 " Page 43 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03120/2001l Document 6-2 41' '\1331 Page 42 of 74 FIRST LEGAL Filed 03/31/2008 SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNIA COUNT OF SAN FRANC~CO 400 McAte Sl Sa Fn. CA 94102-414 Case No. Plint 8nPUTI TO ALTETI DIS REsoON Y. De Th pa IM sUpai.. th this ac .. .. .ub to th foUowl a1 dis reluton pnes: (J (J o i: o Pr li 0 Jl Meiaon Ser of BAF 0 Julcal Melatfon Bing arllon Nodlø ..CUCiai aib..tI BA Ea 8e Pr , Judge OI ADR Pr (de,u) Pllntlffs) an Decls) fl agre as folow Nam ofParb S1lang D PI 0 Di Nl of Pa ~lall CJ P1alnf 0 ' De' Name of Part StIlati o Pliilf 0 Defade Nl atPai or Al &e SI Slgabn of Par or Ati' o Cl' Da o Cn Ol Na at Pa or A\ Ex Slilati Slati at Par or AU Na 0( Pa or At Ex S18ln . SIgn of Pa or At o Cni- De . 0 Add sis) atld ADR~ 31 STIPULATION TO AlTENATI DISPUTE REOLUlON Exlbit "E" Page 40 Exhbit "1" Page 44 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 FIRST LEGAL 03f20/20011 Page 43 of 74 41" ~1331 - CM-110 AYORI'NrWIOU AlTOl"" _ar~.. RI CO uillr f- "'o\lC~ i;__mDllll~ Ad AlT FOR (Hom Il .I ii~ 0£~: CA. II STATE SV COT Of CA CO OF ~ i: Nf2I CO -i ii (Clk on): CJ (Adl UN CA el ..00) ClCAl-CA \fid Is $200 orle) A CAse MAGE CON ii $t.. l. Dat De: li Ad of CI II Dil.: cort (idi ~ th Bd ~J: Roo: : INSlRucON8: AIlippllla boxe mi- bell and ih sp Wormn mu be pnde 1. Pa or i- '(lIonJ; L 0 Thslluubmlll8brp¡(l-): b. CJ T1 tI Is 1I.i bi pa (1l): 2.a,Cøan cr-c (10'" ai byp/an CIplon Th cot wi li on (d): . b. 0 Th c:~ii if ii. wa lI,on (da): 3. 5I lI be BI by pIlI ~ on) .. 0 AI pa i- In ih Cl -i ~iI ha be ee, or ha II or hae li dli b. 0 1I~pdl1ln"~or~ (1) D have no be $l (ai nlll eKp iW no: (2) CJ 11 l- II buli no Ip -i li no be di (sp 1/): (3) CJ ha Ii 8 de en ag tI (s nø c. 0 Th ii iil pe ma be ad (sp names nil of fn fn C8. tl th date by'tM fheymay be ætd): 4. a~on ly orca. fl ca 0In ca F"'eii: cullO...i1.2l o tIt (dsa, in C8 of ac): CAE MANAGe STAlE .. hr. ca .. CCCl _3.no "lX~Wr" i=-~~i Exlbit "E" Page 41 Exhbit" 1 " Page 45 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03/20/2001' Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 41R'"l61331 Page 44 of 74 FIRST LEGAL eM.ii0 icm~ bDEENDANIRPO; PLANTFFIP I d8cI In melJ lD æ. li.. en am fMfu tr-i, iø -i to da. il.. fu lo ci "ea refs ao ØN.. na clih re In an da (f #* /i ct.. ~ iI lb ti an 4. b. Pnivl a bc ti oI1h ea c: (I mo sp Ia nc ch IhIø an al. pf ~ ItsAl 4b.J ' 5. Ju or Mn tr Th i- or pi n: D . jw lll CJ a no ti (I tI Ih on pi, pt IJ n/l oi.ac pt Il . ju 1r: 6. Tri dabt a. c: Th t.aI ha be ri fo (datiJ; , b. CJ No tñal da ha been se Th ç,,Wi be rey brlr wa 12 moUi ofll date of Ih lig ofthCDalnl (i 111, exp/): c. Oa on wh pa or at wi not be ave fo tr ($p dal9S im ei /M fo unvaJ:. 7. EsII le of tr TI pai or pai es lh It trl wi ta (c on): a. 0 dt (li 1I: b. Cl ho (sh ca) (ø 8. Tri nitall (1 be lI forea ~ a. AI b. Fi Tho par or plii1 wi be ien1 allrl 0 by th at or pa II In li ca o by Uie ii: c. Ad d. Telephon num e. Fax num f. E- add: g. Pa re: D AiIl re Is de In Atcl ~. 9.o Pn-i ' This ca Is en to pice (sp c: se): 10. AItie~RM(AR) , re ADR qi wi .. cf , . a. CO c: ha c: hi no pr lI AD Inim pa ld In ni 3.1 to 8I clt ii baa b. 0 Al pa ba ag to a fa or AD AD wi be ~ by (óaJ; Co D The ea ha ci to an AD pr (l *us c:I10...i 1.:I CASE MANAGEI STAl' ..hl 4 .....~ Exhbit "E" Page 42 Exhbit "1" Page 46 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 45 of 74 Exhbit" 1 " Page 47 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 46 of 74 Exhbit" 1 " Page 48 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 FIRST LEGAL 03/20/200' Page 47 of 74 41" ~6I33I ~-i . . 1-- CM11.1 10. d. Th B orpa ... wi to ~ In (c: II"" -t: (1) Me (2) , Na ji ai un Co of CM Prii ~ 11.1.12 (dlry to cl 15 da bebi ai lICø Ru of Co iule 3.82 Co (3) CJ Nòl1nju8l un of Cll Pi&e 1141.12 (disYSry to re op lI51 be ti oi re un ea. Rule of Coi iu1e 3.82 aD da (4) CJ B/ ju ai ' (5) c: BI pr" -l (6) ci Necaavua (7) 0 OI($: e. D TI ma. su to ni-ld ju id be Ih an In i::; no exci Il stll li Pi se 11.1.11.' , t c: Plli eI ti ra lh c: lD )J 8l an N- to Im re 10 fle 11 sp In Co of CI g. 0 Th.. Is ei frjucØ ii UInio 3.11 ofll Cï Ruaf Co (sp.emp 11. Setlnt coce CJ Th pa orpaiturewing to pa.in an ease c;ii (sp wh): 12. lnsu 8. D lninnc ca. If any, fa fi fi this llemnl (nam): b. Re of ri CJ Yes CJ No c. 0 Co Is wi slgnl ;a Rl of Ih ca (ØI: 13. Jull , , In .Y it IJ ma aff 1h i:t ju or f.1n of ibis ca, II äe th stlu CJ Ba D Ol (il Sts: . 14. Rela ca, colk ud coo ii c: 1b an oi un or æI ca. (1) NI of ca (2 NI of cc (3) c. nu (.) SC D Ad ca ar ci In Al 1... b. CJ A mi to Cl cx C1 CO WI. be ii by (na pa): 15. al D The pa or paln to fi ø mo fo an aibl, ~g. or cordin th ro Iss or ca of ICn (8f movi pa tn of~ an INs): , 16, Ot moon o Th pa orpa ei to li Ih folow moll ba til (spçl mOV paff (y of moUo, an /us): Ql1l0\l...it,-i CASE MAGEM STATE ..ii:iol. Exhibit "E" Page 43 Exhbit" 1 " Page 49 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 F1RST LEGAL 03/201200 Filed 03/31/2008 4 61331 Page 48 of 74 CM110 17.D~ ' I~- CEANIR; G AN~~ I fm De ll a 0 Th ~ or pa ha ood il dI. b. 0 lb. fólow ~ wl be co by ti d8 sp (d- ll an df): ç, CJ Th fo dÎ Is al8 anii (spJ: 18. Ec U1p1OA ' , Is IiI1 ci cu (La, th -i de II $2 or Ie an li ii Ii prui In Co b. CJ Th Is ali ci cu -i . ~ towl th C8 to theóa II pr or fo ad , 8. CJ Th '01 CI Pr.. 91 th 98.... ~ 11 i- . di wI be fI N ~ ex sply wh 8l It p¡ ie ro di or Id sh no ap 10 tI ca): 19. Oterluue o Th pe or pa ie ih tt fong additional mail be consider Qr deleed allh ease ma , coff tscI 20. lIand conl'r . Of Co (I no oa , a 0 11 pi or pa ha met an c: -M al p8 tl aU &U reie by ru 3..724 of Ui CimI Rul b. Al meti and c: iiie by NI 3.724 oflh Ca RuofCow th pa ii on ih fo (8p . 21. CløinalJOn Pi ci ma oi In" ta .. (di øn): D no D aii as Al21. 22 Toll nu or pa atdi N any): 18m ~ ra wi Uii- -wi be Yy pr to -i.. li Il of d/ lI AD .. we as ol Is ni I1 \h ii an wi po Ih IU to ll Jn dp on th Is It th li of ih ca mat ccl',1r lhwi aI oftl JØ vm re Da: ' . . lM ORPl ~ (JÎ; OR Pl /i -l'Na' /W OIAtrON iiQI/W OI Am o Ad s/ 818 allch Clll0\I. .iI,2O CAS MA 8TATE i \,',-,. ..hU , (, ~.... . Exhibit "E" Page 44 Exhbit "1" Page 50 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 FIRST LEGAL 03120/200' Filed 03/31/2008 4 j 133\ Page 49 of 74 Superior Court of Calorna. County of San Frandsc li DAVID BA Tl PRJUD Judicial Mediation Progr JEN B. AlAR AIlI' ~1O Th Judcia Medon pr of meaton of coplex civliga by a th la th is th suec Sa Frais SU Cour of ju failjAl wi th ar of th COver. Ca th wi be code for paci in th prgr inlu bu ar no lite to pioæ mace CO employm , ince cover diut mi to an colex co li Jud medon offer civli th opty to en in ea medon of a ca shor af fitb C0plSÏ in an ef to reve th in be su~ , . :f ar ex 'I pr may al be ut1i'7 at 8D thgh th liga pr. Th pal of jud c:tl paci in th pr inlues: The Honorble Jam J. McBrde . The Honorale Daid 1. Balla The Hora1e Ane Bo Tho Honorble Kein M. McCy Th Hao Robe i. Do Th Ho Rod Qudacy The Honle Blco Cb Th Hoo Jo B. MUD Th Hoble Bm H. 00 Th Holi A.lam Ro n The Honble Hald E. Ka Th.Hoorale Patr 1. Maney Th Honle Toma MlI Pares ind in Tho Hoolc Jo K. St Th HooorJc Mar B. W'IS judia meian shul:fe th Stion to A1e Diute Reoluton fo at to di pake indicag a jol re for inluon in th prgr and delier à cour coy to De 212. A piJeu;lIJO for a spif ju may be in' 'I cour .Ae Diut Reluton Prgr Ad wi tàll1Ø 8Sgoen of oa 1h qu for th prgr Note: Space is li Suon of a stpulon to judcia meti do not gu inlusion in tle prgr You wi re wr notion fr 1he com as to th outcome of you aplicaon. . Supor Cour Ale Dite Re1.on 400 McA s~ Roo 103, Sa Frais, CA 94102 (415) 5SI.3816 i 010 (iii) Exhbit "E" Page 45 Exhbit" 1 " Page 51 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03/201200' DocumentFIRST 6-2LEGALFiled 03/31/2008 Page 50 of 74 4 :'1331 John Swenson (SBN 224110) STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP the Stars 2 2121 Avenue of Suite 2800 3 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.734.3200 4 Fax: 310.734.3300 Email: jswenson~tetoe.com 5 Attorneys for Defendant Red Door Salons, Inc. 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA I, Sus Haa, declare and state as follows: 20 21 1. I am employed by Elizabeth Arden Spas, LLC as the Director of Benefits and 22 HRS ("Human Resource Information Systems") in Phoenx, Arzona. Red Door Salons, Inc. 23 ("Red Door") is a wholly-owned subsidiar of Elizabeth Arden Spas, LLC. I am a cutodian of 24 records peraining to benefits and human resources matter for Red Door. I have personal 25 knowledge of the foregoing, or knowledge based upon corporate recrds which are withn my 26 27 EXHIBIT f 28 (No. ) DECLARTION OF SUSAN BAAS 1 Exhbit "F ' Page 4 t:r:"f1'-r: Exhbit" 1 " Page 52 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03 1 2. Document 6-2 f20/2O()' Filed 03/31/2008 Page 51 of 74 4' '61331 FIRST LEGAL I am informed and believe Plaintiffs have fied a Complaint against Red Door in 2 which they seek, among other things, payment for wages and overtime they allegedly worked and 3 for which Red Door allegedly did not pay them. 4 3. Red Door was at the time of the filing of this action, and remains, a corporation 5 incorporated under the laws of the State of Amona with its principal place of busines in Arizona. 6 4. During the entire course of their employment with Red Dor, Plaintiffs were 7 employed in the Stat of California, Plaintiff Usa Knight provided Red Door with addresss 8 located in Concord and San Francisc, California as the location at which she elected to receive 9 communications from Red Dor during her employment. Plaintiff Marcie Dave provided Red 10 Door with an address locted in MiUbrae, California as the location at which she elected to receive 11 communications from Red Door durig her employment. 12 5. I have reviewed Red Door's corprae records. dating back to 2004, and have 13 determined the following: 14 a. In 200, Lisa Knght's gross income wa approximately $21,557.38. 15 b. In 2005, Lisa Knight's gross incme was approximately $2 i ,054.56. 16 c. In 2006, Lisa Knight's gross income was approximately $24,940.45. 17 d. During her tenure at Red Door, Lisa Knight was paid bi-weekly, 18 e, The amount of revenue Lisa Knight generated in 2007 was approximately 19 $44,250.47. 20 f. Red Door has employed approximately 79 different "hait' stylists, aestheticians, 21 masseuses, or any similar commissioned workers" at its saon located at 126 22 Post Street, in the city of San Francisc, California, since 20. 23 g. Red Door ha employed over 100 different "hair stylists, aestheticians, 24 masseuses, or any simlar commissioned workers" in the State of Califomia, 25 since 200. 26 27 28 (No. ) 2 DECLARATION OF SUSAN HAS Ex.bit "F" Page 47 \ Exhbit "1" Page 53 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 52 of 74 4' ~6133i FIRST LEGAL 03/20/200P I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Arizona and the United 2 States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. 3 Executed this 18Ui day of March, 208 in Phoenix, Arizona. 4 5 .,l¿¡Ó/h i/æi.-( 6 Susan Haas 7 8 9 day of tt~ , 2008. 10 ~=~_.. 11 12 "'CH A. Bl My Commission Expires: ~ili-i-fj1t1 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 DECLARATION OF SUSAN HAAS (No. L Exhibit "F" Page 48 Exhbit" 1 " Page 54 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 4 FIRST LEGAL 03/20!2() Page 53 of 74 :;1331 CIVIL COVER SHEET ". i.. l,¡ ,lo.-,'.I:i.:1li)I":;,mif,I;\'I.li,.I:lri: n....i~ -l; çjVI~ L,.\\t'l :öhc:\. t1ni: 11", m'ormiini: cOI\taio-~ '1~~lO ncrti reploce Mr !t-Uppi:I1lIll ihe riling lU-' strVlCc of plt.'.adillg or l:lth~rJ\"pc us n.qtùrcd ('y taw. t'xc;;pt (i~ lWCh'lcJd 0)' 1',,,1 ivie' nfeiin. 'lhis ¡Mil, 01'l'(vtC by ,he J..ical C",i(erenç~ of.he I iOled 5101., in Sci~.(nber 1914, is lIQlired lor ihe I~C, ~rtl CI.r. ofC"u~ iiir ihe (iUrp'"'' ,,0' iliii~I,,S ~'" C;i'¡ dtJ~.. .hci (SEr INSiRlKTIONS ON l'GE TWO OFTI'II:: FORM, i i. (a) I'LAINTlFFS DEFENDANTS Li,~ Knigh' and Marcie Dave, on behalf of themselves And all others Red Door Salons. Inç,. cl al. similarly.illlRleI COUll1y ur Reid."" of Firs UJ,ed o.rend (IN U,S. Pl.lNTIFI' CASES ONL.V) (h) Counl)'or~idc=ofFil$ usie Plainrlf (EXCEPT IN u.s, PLAINTlfl CASES) NOTE: INLANOCONOENATlONCASfS USE lAND INVOLVED, Tim I.oC~T10"nrTHF. Anonie (If KIlOwn) (c) Iiiion\C~", (Finn Nom:, Addr.",.nd Telephone Numbrl i John P. Swenson. Steptoe & Johnson LLP 2121 Avcmic of the Sws. Suile 2800 Michnel von Loewenfeldi and Michael Ng. Keri & Wagstaffe. LLP, f 00 5rir Stree. 51. 1800. San Fi.."cisc. CA 94105-1528; and Gary £. Moss, Mary Patrcia Hough and Derek LV, Tho. Law Off~ of -':, . 'j Lo Angele. CA 907 Mo,,' & Hough. 601 Vaii Nes .~ve., Sie, 2030, Sail Francisco. CA 94102 , in. CITIZENSHI OF PRICIPAL l ARTl (1'1....")( ¡.(lnella, r.. p~(.,irr II. BASJS OF JURISDICI0N (PI.....')( in 0.. Bo. Onl)) 01 01 (For Diveii¡y ea Ony) 'Oid On i.. ¡N r.~.JiIiI f' OEF PT DF.F li'i...fTlúSi (i i 0 I 1....ponial.,Prlip.IPb O. D 4 o ;; F...i Q.io (US, G._merv Nol. I'atl u.s. GO\'Clltmcl l1am,¡rr ll$ aOWllm1Cul i: ~ l)c(tqdiinf ",rOøsiaCSf fA Tliis 51_ ('li .r ....lhC SlIte 0 2 0 2 Oi...ít Os IlllPoi lied turd PriCJal lli-c: (1m:lice.Cteizc,h,)øfl1,,"i iu ltcmlll) ofßiii4csl- In I\nthC\ SC;ie in , 0- O. Cl.. or S.bjo or. 0 ~ 0 i forill to'all For.. COUl"" iv. NA TIRE OF SUI (1'1""..-)(- ..0.. Bo.OnI FO.RllITREENAI,'lY CON-lRACT OTU£R ST ATlITlt 40 !iUifC RCõMtÌlUH~ØtI 410 AoIi. 6\0 Iiio,"c o "Olti¡:ur~e 620 Olba foo .. 0,,'5 CJ 11U Mi'llilÇ . CJ no Mille ~çr D 1-t0 Nt¡lialc Ini;lnial(; c: I$ORoc"efy(\r~"Il1~1l & i:ofon...f lll.icl 62S Dm Itii... S.,.. 430 iii. anll_.kin .r""y 11 use 8&1 6JOLii, La.. .UO(".o..uia ~60 Dc.. IVO Itll & l.... no R..GI..IIiII".. im CJ ISIRa:...rDcll.I'od Slidcid lAnI' 66~io S.ro¥H..I,h ~IO C"",,(,'od. 4l(,llle iv 6901.. CJ 160 SlokM'dc,,' S.. 71 n f.~ i.ol Siiiid, I7SClImcr(:hlcIp: CJ laS C....i ProOO I.i.bmiy 196 fl'nciå;c 720 i... It .i.... 890lba Smut ""ions 731 i.liiiR.cpm& l91 Iib...I,-\ _sr IS ScielCoimioò iC$ LfiOR "" o l'IOIb..,...,oc, 12 use )4~, o 2101..ld("Diit&~l\i0Il CJ iio For..mi L~-kl m &onuiic SIi"i1ii:Iløn Aci 4 Dilo ,. m¡AL I'ROPFlnì' ,..-. aloSos..j: (f~\:i: VÇlc:~) i: tB R=..,.rO""ii... ørVaerrls Boneriu '. ,i.~ C~QI\Ìlicl. 650 ....I.. R.. CJ ISL M..i:..,, 740 RaiiVI Li "' 1'3 ênvirøl M..Cl~ 7' O'bcr Li UI¡¡ic. 89 EilC Iilln l. 791 e",pl R.,loç, 895 frøm..r lnfnnniMiiul \i' ,,, S""Ìl ki CJ no R.Clll l. It EF1tnenl ï -.1 9OApot.rF.. UainiinQliø CJ 2-OTorsioLand c: i.¡s Tot' Pro"" Uibi~'i' UodSq..il\ lMGRATlN lø Ju ~ -u.., Ap ol_('_- i: 2'AIIOIb;rR..pluply qSO Cmuiitutiitfiirøy flf Smic $tui Alien DeniilC .UOlII"-IIJIIa k1:ÒlVi V. ORIGIN W~iç... -x. .,0... 80, o.ly) 2 Reved l\om CJ i Re".nd from CJ i OiiQi roitCE lraçceding Sioie Cuiin Appellatc eii"n Apl ,. Di-ik:! Trinstëd from CJ 4 lleiinued or i: s aro~' distri Riopene (s¡ilj) CJ 6 Mlilridi$iriCl I,Atigation CJ 7 Judge ITm Mo!li,n'" Iud incnl Cilo Uie U,S, Civil SUtute under which YOlI1 filing (1)0 nol tUr j~dlcllnal.lat\ll.$ vnles.. diniilly); 28 u,s,c. Sens 1332 a, d, l441 and 1446 VI. CAUSE OF ACTON Brierclcrn ofCliie: Class acn complaint alløgin Failur 10 Vrr-REQUEED rN m CHECK ir niis IS A CLAS ACTON DEMAD $ unspecfied CHECK YES \lill ildem¡ixlcd in coilplainr COMPLA: UNDER F,R,C,P, 23 JUlIY DEMAND: CE YcsCJ No VrI. !tELA TED O\SE(Sl PLEA REFE TO CI LA ).12 CONCERING REQUIREMENT TO F1 IF ANY 'NOTICE OF RELA TIlD CASE'. None LX, OIVISIONAt ASSIGl''MENT (aVil. L.It 3-2) (I'LACEAND 'X' IN ONE BOX ONLY) CJ SAN JOSE DliTf. 3 Exhbit "1" Page 55 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 54 of 74 4 '')61331. FIRST LEGAL 031201200'- ~l9A ~q¡~ lt., ~C~ fl -141Wl1 N ~~ . ~ ío ~i. . 1~6' John Swenson (SaN 2241 10) STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 4Ir~.. the Stas 2 2121 Avenue of Suite 2800 E-fiing "' 3 Los Angeles, CA 90067 I i I ¡ Phone: 310.734.3200 4 Fax: 310.734.3300 I. Email: jswenson§gteptoe.com ¡ 5 Attorneys for Defendat Red Door Salons, Inc. I 6 i i 7 UNTED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTIERN DISTRCT OF CALIFORNIA I j 9 LISA KNIGHT and MACIE DA VB, on ev 0 8 i 0 situated, ) behalf of themselves and aU other simlarly) Case No. ) sc 1520 (San Francisco County Superior Cour I Case No. CGC-08-471683) r~:i 12 vs. ) ) ) CERTICATION OF INTERETEn¡ i."'; i 3 RED DOOR SALONS, INC., an Arzona Corpration and DOES 1 thrugh 25, 14 inclusive, ) ) ) ) ENTITIES OR PERSONS I Plaitiffs, 1i Defendants, 15 ) ) -/~ .... t".; : .....t 1",1 '.'~.,' :. .t Action Filed: Janua 31,2008 I' "J i ~' ) 16 17 Purant to Civil L.R. 3-16, the undersigned certifies that the following coiporations have a fi~ancia1 interest in the subject matter in controvery odn a par to the procing, or have a 18 non-fiancial interest in the subjec matter in controvery 19 affected by the outcome of this or in a par tht could be'substatially ,proceing: 20 Red Door Salons, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiar of 21 22 Elizaeth Aren Spas, L.L.C. , Elizaeth Arden Spas, L.L.C. is a wholly-owned subsidiar of Elizabet Arden Salon-Holdin, Inc. 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~o. ) CERTIFICATION OF INTERSTED EN1TS 5528Ô9 Exhbit" 1 " Page 56 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 03/20/2()' Filed 03/31/2008 Page 55 of 74 4' SI3! FIRST LEGAL ' March, 2008. RESPECTFLY SUBMrITD ths -B day of STETOE & JO LLP 2 3 4 I, venue oftbe Sta, 28th Floor 5 I I 6 I 7 geles, Californa 90067 Attrneys of Recrd for Defendant j i i 8 I 9 10 i1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ,19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (No. ) CERTIFCATION OF INTERETED ENTIE 2 55200 Exhbit" 1 " Page 57 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03/20/2001' 4' '''61331 Page 56 of 74 FIRST ' Document 6-2LEGALFiled 03/31/2008 Oh ~~n John Swenson (SBN 224110) '~N e~~~ STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 2 2121 Avenue of -t~&.~Ck /.,9 the Stars Suite 2800 ~4'.9 ~.i'' 1f 100& ~~.~ 3 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.734.3200 .. hing ~c.~ '~, 4 Fax: 310.734.3300 Emml: jswenso~steptoe.com 5 i, E f'i' ..~o)-~~ Attrneys for Defendant Red Door Sa1ons, Inc. s 6 7 UNTED STATES DISTRCT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN to situted, ) 9 LISA KNIGHT and MARCIE 'DAVE, on ) eii 0 8 ~- themselves and all other simiarly) Cle No. behalf of 1380 ) (San Francisco Cowity Superor Cour Plaitiffs, 11 12 vs. ) Case No. CGC-08-471683) ) ) CORPORATE DISCLOSURE 13 RED DOOR SALONS, INC., an Arzona Corpration and DOES 1 thugh 25, 14 inclusive, j STATEMENT ~ Action Filed: Januar 31,2008 ) 15 Defendants. ) ~ ~ l1 ~ ) 16 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1, Defendat Red Door Salons, Inc. states tht Red Door 17 Salons, Inc. is a wholly-ownedsubsidiar of Elizabeth Arden Spas. L.L.C. Elizabeth Arden Spas, 18 L.L.C. is a wholly-owned subsidiar of Elizabet Arden Salon-Holdins, Inc. None of these 19 the public. companies has any outstanding secties in the hads of 20 RESPECTFUlY SUBMITED ths 19th 21 day of March, 2008. STEP1\OE & JO N LLP 22 By Jo 212 Los 23 24 , 25 Attorneys for Defendant 26 27 (No. ) 1 28 CORPRATE DISCLOSURE STATENT :¡52B08 Exhbit" 1 " Page 58 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 FIRST LEGAL 03/20/200f' Page 57 of 74 41 'í1331 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Of: Ir' ¡:1!~r~AI i.ED ... 1111/( J LISA KNGHT, 0. fllCHA _ fj 2011 No, c 08-1520~~ &."'&:f~~ Plaintiff (s), _ .. ORDERSETTINGIN~~E~ 'liin§)ANAGEMEm:CON;ÊRi~ v. RED DOOR SALONS INC, Defendant(s). AN ADR DEADLINES IT is HEREBY ORDERED that this action is assigned to the Honorale Samuel Conti. When serving the complaint or notice of removal, the plaintiff or removing defendat must serve on all other paies a copy of this order and all other documents specified in Civil Local Rule 4-2. Counsl must comply with the case schedule listed below unless the Cour otherwise orders. IT is FUTHER ORDERED that ths action is assigned to the Alternative Dispute Resolution (A DR) Multi-Option Program governed by ADR Lol Rule ~. Counsel and clients shall familarze themselves with that rule and with the material entitled "Dispute Resolution Procdures in th Northern District of California" on the Court ADR Internet site at ww.adr.cand.usoour.gov.Alimited printed copies are available frm the Clerk's Offce for pares in cases not subject to the number of court's Electronic Case Filing progrm (ECF). CASE SCHEDULE -ADR MULTI-OPTION PROGRA Date Event Governing Rule --------------~------------------------------------------------------------------------------3119/2008 6/20/2008 Notice of removal fiOO *Lat day to: . meet and confer re: initial disclosures, ealy FRCivP 26(1) & ADR L.R.3-5 settlement, ADR process selection, and discovery plan · file Joint ADR Certification with Stipulation to ADR Civil L.R. 16-8 Process or Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference 7/7/2008 *Last day to fie Rule 26(f) Report complete initial disclosures or state objection in Rule 26(1) Report and fie FRCivP 26(a) (n Civil L.R. i 6-9 Case Management Statement per athed Standing Order re Contents of Joint Case Management Statement (also available at btt://www.cand.uscourt.gov) 7/1112008 INTIAL CASE MAAGEMENT CONFERECE (CMC) in Ctr i, 17th Floor, SF at i 0:00 AM Civil L.R. 16- 10 * If the Initial Case Management Conference is continued, the other deadlines are continued accordingly. Exhbit" 1 " Page 59 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 Filed, ,03/31/2008 ,', ,..4' '11331, Page 58 of 74 FIRST LEGAL " 031201200P , UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2 3 4 CASE NO. 5 ORDER SETING CAE ,MAAGEMEN CONF:ERENCE . 6 This action having been assigned to Judge Samuel Conti, 7 IT is ORDERD that a conference wili be held ,before Judge 8 at 10; 00 A.M. in the United Conti on 9 States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, '10 California . 11 The parties shall appear in person or through counsel and 12 shall be prepared to discuss the future course of the 13 litigation including, but not limited to, matters set forth 14 in civil Local Rule .16-10. Parties, are to file a written case .' 15 management statement at least 10 days before said hearing date. J6, The parties are required to comply with the provisions '17 of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, Civil Local Rules 16-3 to . 18 16-10 (patent cases sho~id comply ~ith Patent Local Rule), 19 including, but' not limited to, the following reqnirements: 1()' 1. The parties must meet and confer no less thàn 21 2l- days prior to the initial' case management ,conference. 22 2. The parties must devise a discovery plan and submit 23 it, ,jointly, no less than 7 days prior to the ' case managernent conference. The parties shall 24 submit a propOsed order embodying the term of the discovery plan at the status conference. 25 26 27 3. At the "meet and confer" con,ference referenced in paragraph 1, above, the parties shall discuss ~hether and to what extent they shall make the kinds of "disclosures" contemplated in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties ,shall report to the 28 Exhbit" 1 " Page 60 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03/20/200" DocumentFIRST 6-2LEGALFiled 03/31/2008 Page 59 of 74 41 'í1331 Court the results of this disçussion, in their case management conference statement_ 2 Following the conference, appropriate orders will be 3 entered regulating and controlling fnture proceedipgs in the case. 4' PLAINTIFF is DIRlCTED TO SERVE COPIES OF THlS ORDER AT 5 ONCE UPN ALL PARTIES TO THIS ACTION AN UPN THOSE 6 SUBEQUEY JOINED IN ACcORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF RULES 4 7 AND 5, FEDER RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. and to file with the 8 Clerk of the Court a certificate reflecting such serVice. 9 FOR TH COUR'r:, 10 Richard W. Wieking. Clerk 11 )2 By: 13 Deputy Clerk 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 " 21 22 23 IMPORTANT: '24' SEE ATTACHED ORDER RE TIMELY FILING OF PLEAINGS. BRIEFS. AN 25' MOTIONS CAENAR' AN ELECONIC CASE FILING: 26' Judge Conti i s Law and Motion Calendar is held at 10:00 A.M..i Fridays. 27 28 :? Exhbit" 1 " Page 61 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 03/20/200l Filed 03/31/2008 Page 60 of 74 4' '61331 fIRST LEGAL NOTICE TO ALL ATTORNYS: J 2 J 4' $ 6 7 ,8' 9' 10 ii , BRIEFS. MOTIONS, ETC. ORDER RE TIMELy FILING OF PLEADINGS, It has been noted by tbe court that mâny attorneys are not filing their pleadings and briefs within the time speci.fied in the Local Rules, nor in the manner or form required. Specifically, many attorneys have filed briefs and memoranda in excess of twenty-five (25) pages, without leave of court. Said practice violates Civil Local Rule 7-4 (b) . By addressing this order to you, the court does not infer that rou or any membr of your firm adheres to this practice, but rather seeks to put all attorneys on notice: Any pleading' or brief, hereafter sought to be filed with the 12 court after the required time, or in an improper manner or form, 13 14 15 J6 17 shall not be received or considered by the, court. Any attorney in violation of these requirements will be subject to other sanctions pursuant to Civil' Loal Rule 1-4. ,RE ELECTONIC CASE FILING: In all cases that have been assigned to the Electronic Case Filing System, the parties are required to 18, 19 20 21, 22 23 provide one paper copy of each document that is filed electronically for use in chambers. be delivered no later than noon on the The paper copy of 'each' docment shall 'day after filed electronically. Delivery shall be made directly to Judge Cont i 's chambrs. RE MOTIONS: All pleadings relating to all motions should 24 25 26 27 28 the document is be complete as to briefing and argument l as the court will decide the issues therein wi thout oral argument l unless otherwise ordered by the Judge. when this occurs, the court will notify the parti~s that they need to appear_ (Civil Local Rule 7-6) Exhbit" 1 " Page 62 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03120/2001 41 '')1331 Page 61 of 74 Document 6-2 FIRST LEGAL Filed 03/31/2008 S' ANDJNG ORER FOR ALL JlGES OF 11E NORTIRN ÐJsTiUcr 9F CAL)FO~lA CONTS OF JOJNT-CASEMAAGEMENT STATEMET the Noren Disrit ofCaJifomia wjJ rere the .c~cig Matdi J~ 2007~àiljudge of identícal infoiatkm in'Joint Cae Mangemt Sta1eits filed pusut to Civil Lol Rule iÓ'9. The paies mus includ the-following inomiation in i.jr ~temenl which, excep in . lÌusUay (;oríplex ca shld not excee ten pages: ì. Jurisdction an Seice: The basis for the court's subject matter jwisdiciion over pJaii1ifls claim an defents Cbterclaims. whether ;my iss existregarding ptaJ junsdidn or vene, ~th any pares rem to be sered~ an, if any partes'rein to be 'sered, a propo deJin for serce. the facts and a sttement of the pnncipaJ factal 2. ~: A brief chrnôlogy of issueS in dispute. 3. Le~al is: A bnef statement, witht exteml legal arguent, of the disputed pOints .ofJaw, inludig refer~ to spific statutes an deisions. 4. Motons: AUpóor and: pending motions, tbeir current statu and any aiticipted mo~OD. 5. Amt ofPl~: The extent to which pinies, claim, or defense are expeted to -be ad or dismssed and a pro deine for amending the pleaiiigs. 6. Evidee PiatÍO Steps taen to prese evide relevant to th is ~Oß3b : evidt in ths acton~ iJg interdiction or;my doment-d~ion prog an any òngoing errt ,òf e-ails. voice mails, an othr elecronicall)recrde maeraJ. 7, , Dislos Wb thee ba been full80 timly. colì,8ßce yñ1h th initial dislosu Fed R. Civ. P. 26 and a desplion of~ dislos mad. reqø-emtS of 8. pisvei ~scvei taen 10 date, if any, th scope of anticipated discovery, ..oy propose limitations or ~odjfications of the discovery roles, and a proposed discover plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(1). 9. Clas ACbons: If a class action, à propol for bow and when tbe class wjJ be' certified. LO,' Relaied Cases: Any related caes or proceedings peding before another judge o( this cour or before anoler cou or admiiistrtive boy. 1 J, Relief:' All relief sought ,through complaint or counterclaim. iDcluding the amount or any -1- Exhbit" 1 " Page 63 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 FIRST LEGAL 03/2012001l 41 '1131 Page 62 of 74 damâKes sought al)d a ,description Qf th baes 9J whic -dges aie cacUlated. bi addition any p~rt from Wh9m damage are ,sought-mus debe the bas on whicb it conlends damages should be calcuiated~ if ¡iability is estabJised, J 2. ~uiement an ADR: Pr~ts for selemt, ADR effott to dat~ and a spific ~R . plan ,for ta case, inc,ÌUg colian with ADR LR~' 3-5 ar a destion ofJcey discoveiy or rotiODS necesry. tø position the paes'to neotate a rnJ\iion. )3, Consent to Ma~teJucleFQt AU Pues: Wbether,aIJ paies wiJJ consnt to håve a magistrate juge contil all fiher predgs inluing tral and en of judgment. . 14. Ot Referen: Wbel th ca is suitale for reference In binding, arilfation, a spiäl maer, or the Judcial Pàn on MuJtidict Litíg~t¡OD. 15. Nanwjn~ ofJs: Isses th can be naowed by agreent or by motion, suggestion to expedite the p~entation of evdence at tral (e.g., though summes or stipulated facls), and åny requet ,to bifucate .ies, claims, or defen. 16. Expeited Schele: Wheth this is t1 ty of cae lht ca be hanle on an expedited bass with ~eamlioed procdues. .17. Scbed~: Propo dates for designtion of experts. discovei cuoff heang of dispitive motions~ prtial coference an tr. 18. Trial: Whther the ca wiJ be tred 10 a jur or to the co and th~ expected length of the tral. . i 9. DisJoe ofNoo-P3l.ter Eititil¡' or Pmons Whea pa ha filed th "Cerfication orlieres Enties or Pmons require by Civil Lo Rule 3..16. In ~drolioDr ,~cb,pai must :resta in th ca ~geme.t slatement the contents of its çafition by identifyig ány'pens. fi~ paisip, ~tiQD (inclg pat coratiri) or ot. entiti knwn by th par' to hae eith: (i) a ,fial ÏDei in ib sullèc ma in ,çOooover or in a pa to th prng; or (ii) aly et kind 'Of iniet tht col~ be , substatially affecled by th outc of th proing. 20. Such other imtters as may facilitate the just spdy and inexpensve dispsition of Ibis . matter. . -2- Exhbit "1" Page 64 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 FIRST LEGAL 03~0/200V Page 63 of 74 41 ~1331 UNITEV STATES DISTRCT COURT NO~l1RN DISTRCT OF CALIFORNIA 2 3 4 5 NOTICE OF A V AILABILITY OF MAGISl TE JlDGE TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION 6 Title 28, U.S,c., § 636(c).you are hereby notified 7 'In accordance with the provisions of 8 that a Uniied States magistrate j~dge 0.£ this district is available to exercise the court'8 jurisdiction 9 and to conduct any or all proceedings in this case including a jury or nonjUl)' trial. an~ entry of a i O. fial judgment. Exercise of this jurisdiction by a magistrate judge is. however, permitted onl if 11 al,l paries voluntarJy consent. 12 You may; ,without advefse substantive consequences, withhold your consent, but this will i 3 pÌevent the court's jurisdiction from being exercised by a magistrate judge. 14 0 Ai appe from a judgment entered by a magistrate judge may be taken directly to the 15 0 United -States court of appeas for this judicial circuit in the same manner as an åpJleaJ from My 1.6. ,other jùdgien of a district court, i 7- Côpies of the Form for the "Consent to Exercise of Jurisdction by a Uni States 18: 'MllgiSttitè Judge" are avaiable from the clerk of court. oJ ,19', , The pJaintiff or removing pary shal serve a copy oftbis notice upon aU other paesto o' . . '. 2(1; ,this ae-iòn, PUrsuant to Fedet:arRule!o££j:J.Pioe~ure 4 and 5. .... 21 't.; ;;'~ .; ,FOR 11 COURT 22 23 24 RlCHA W, WIEKIG, CLER ~~~ ~~ By: Depuiy . Jerk . 25' -t 26 . magcons.nlc (rev, 10/99) 27 28 Exhbit" 1 " Page 65 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 64 of 74 41 ~1331 FIRST LEGAL 03120120011 AO :J 1121 NonCE OF lAWSUIT AND REQUEST FOR WAIVE.R OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS TO: (A) as (6) .of (C) A lawsùlt ha ben commenced against you (or the entiy on whose behalf yo are addresse;) it ha ben fied In the United States Distôct Cort for the (0) District of A copy of t.he complaint Is attache to this notice. and has ben asslgne(j docket number (E) This Is not a formal summos or notiièation from the court, but rather my request that you sign and return the enclosed waver of sel~ in order to. sae the cost and an additioal copy of serving you ,with' a judicial summons of the complaint The cot of service wil be avoid~ If I reive a signed copy of the waiver within (F. da~ after the date designated below as the date on which this Notice and Request Is sent. I enè,lose a stampe and addre envelope (or othe means of cost-free return) for'your use. An extra copy,of the waer Is aloaltaced for your records. If you comply with this .requ~t an return the signe waiver, it wil be fled with the court and no summons wil be served on you. The action wil then pro as If you ~ ben served on the date the waiv~r is filed, except that you wilt not ~ obirgated to arswerthe complalnt 'before GO day~ from the date desIgnated below as the date on which-thIs notice Is sent (or before 90 days from that dae If your address ,is not in any judicial distrit of th United States.) If you do not retum the,slgned waiver within the time Indicatei.1 WILL take approprate steps to effect fonnal service In a,man,er authozed by 'the Fedral ,Rules of .civl Procedure an wil then. to the extent aUthorized' by those ,Rules, -ask the 'Clt' to require' you (or the pay on whse behaf you are ,addms,lQ.:paY4he:'~U;ëøl&ofò'lJ..slN:htlJn-~pJe-ihesktemwoo~mlng.f:' . .~" tti duly 0" paries tò ,walvR:th& seNiee.oÜrr'suìins; whlch-rs, Set forth at thefQQt of the i affinn that this rèquest Is being sË:mt 10 you on behalf of the plaintif, this ,waiver fonn. day of Signture ofPlaiotif's' Attory or Unrepresented Plaintiff A - ~ 01 IndiYlal defendant (or na of,olllcr or avl of c;allt defenanl) Ð - nile, OJ oth relatiop ol'lilYua' to corPate defendant C ,- Na of eopote. defenan lt an , o ,- OIrlt E - Ookel numbe at actio Exhbit" 1 " Page 66 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 65 of 74 41 "1331 FIRST LEGAL 03/201200° 100,), ll9.Jt WAIVER OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS TO: 4NAME'OF PLINTIFF'S ATTORNE' Of UlPfESENTEO PLAINTIfF) I acknowledge receipt of your reqUest that I waive seivce of a summor:s in the action of , which is cae number tCPTIO Of ACTIO) in the United States District Caurt for the IOEl NIJR1 , District of : i have also received a copy of the complaint In the action, two copies of thlsinstrument, an'a mean'S 'by whieh'I'C8n return thesigneú.waiver'toyou wltttut cost 10 me. I agree to sae the cost of service of a summons and an additQnal copy of the coplaint In this lawsuit by nqt reQllñng that i (or ,the entity on whose behalf i am acting) be served with Judicial process in the manner provide by Rule 4. I (or the entiy on whose behalf I am acting) wil retain afl defenses or objections to the lawsuit or to' the jurisdiction or venue of the court except ,for objections bas on a defect in the summons or ' in the service of the summons. ' on whose behalf i am.acting) I understand that a judgment may be entered against me (or the pary if an answer or motion under Rule 12 is not'served upon you- within 6Q days after . . . ¡(TE REOUT WAS sail or within 90 days 'after that date if the requet was sent outside the United States. DAlE , SIGNATURE Printedyped Nam: of As (TITLE) (CORPORATE OEfENOAIl Duty to ,"voi Unneesry Costs of See 01 Sus , Rule" of lti Froral Rules of CIVI Procedure reqlls cen paies io cooe 1(1 sang unnessry costs 01 serve of the summos aM coml"ainl. A delenanlloated In the Untec Siate: whO. alter beng noille of an -itlo an ased by a l"aintiflloced In the Ured Sla!eS 10 waive service 01 a summos, lails 10 do so wi be requred 10 ~ the cost 01 such seice unless go cause be shon lor ¡is faôlure to sign and rellJß lhe waô... II is no goo cause lor a faile to wai serv Ihat a pay beieves illllhe coplait is unound. or lhallhe aciio ha be brout 'in an improp pl or In a co that laks juiciOf ove the su mattes oHhe acio Of 0Y its person or propey. fi p~y who waies ~lce 01 lll sumrn ,el;n al iltehse,¡i obio If:ce an realin 10 lhe sis or to lhe servC' ollhe :Sfl); an ma !ales obie1 , 10 til jurllio of llI cou 'or 10 it pi wt !h actio ha be br. ' . A defend wl waW $C(çe.mul wihin th tlspie On th wai~fonn see on lhe plnlll's allorn (or unr~ed,plntlll, a resse,to th'coalnt an mua1so Iie,a SI;CIol the resWith the,Cl." lhe an or,molio 1$,li1 sii wlltlihl'li , a êlaul illgme ma be taken agtll deen 8y waYi see, a defent Is allowe ffe iim 10 answer lhan,lI.lhe sur ha ben aclualy seiV when the requet lOf waier of see was rec. ' Exhbit" 1 " Page 67 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 03/2012009 Filed 03/31/2008 FIRST LEGAL Page 66 of 74 41' '-;1331 ~,,; ~,;:~ ~J8'~. ..c.--"'~""d .....: .:;i~.;. ~t)j-~..i~,. ~ V' ~:'il~. of " . .' . .. . .,,;;e~,/~.';~~!,:'~,,:: '~d;'.fJF,.~."tf~l~ìl"infM.r'~iø"M..lö~t, ,. ,i!re . ':Î: '~ you ", .)0. .. ,~. '. . . , ~'" '81' ';', partrtip.tlj\gJn;hàs beeri d~~lgOat~for thIs CQ.uitis ' .::: ','d.nlt,Ca$e Atll1g,(6Ç Pltãln, p-tir$a'nt:tb'Cì'íIi,i.ØtI'Ri)lè 5"'4an(j' '. -- :,~iGi-er 45~ 1lSrle,ans t6à('¡9~._it~t(dieCkoffthe ooxes Sf Wl1e,n ~ii'ê): ' ,.,'.,. . , ' . 'ÈI,t, S,èNè:t EcFR'e.lstratlonlnformatlpn Ha!idot '9" ân p¡utitS.tb, ' tlleqi'~ along wJt,liJhê; '~m~.liitr or ,for't~~oval!;,. the refnoYaltiotl~; .. ÐO,NOT serv the.øni~r äppllqJtlori form,jlJsttl/s handOU. Eàct'~ttomeyrel?re~naAa ~ 'Ra.tt OOv.s.f,lso: , O~),:R~l~r' ~O;~qOnie:,a?,~tUerb'(6~fIn#ø.tlt~Qe:~~ ap'J)Utatip~ ' fQrm; .t!o1lø~A:IL,tA~'fistritt!t)n.s',Q!ltt:~'Jør.ro që)r~1illy.lf 'yóu,~re .:l , ,al~ad¥..regls~r~:ln,:t6.s:dlst'Çil --acii.~cit;tt9f~~#¡'iiøa~1 yoor , r,ëglsttiol' Is vålitHqhllfeon àli'eêFèases'ffttlls dlStrtct. .....',.. ',:ß' '¡'- .'\,," ..., ~,,;; ":. . . ." .. ." " ,,' ',ECF"" ".,r.atipn f0'rros~;if\-e¡-actrvetutijriåi~'.,and CQ,ml:llat~li!~titi, . ," , ;., ': ;.:.,f:llfl , ,:;y;~ë:.;fòûn~:~ó'th~ ~tF;,~e~fté:d'-':'d:';'i':;d.~:¡"::"~ "'..~:n, . ,', ",", ",'" - .-: ¡', ~ ~:. .. '" ., '. ~': ,j~~ .lölà.~., 'V:,t~~~i~tÏ'4.tl1 ~ .:~. .' Exhbit" 1 " Page 68 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03/20/200Y Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 FIRST LEGAL 4'- . Page 67 of 74 l-133 \ ts orI9¡na,!y:,supmlt~tp, th:ê.çOÜtt '. 'ete.) 'm9#t~~~~11,~ta~f '_ " I"$i~ri tri~ thll'J;ëfét.ì\g, ' ne&¡s;~a,ลก"(jf the opehln!i cOf'yóur' .' e$,:p,L' go. .', ion (J~"f"', :~;, . ,to': . ',,,~~a'$lnlti~l~ .Intn,è,~~~~;4l~'~:;af all ,.è?,fl~ed to walt 'fQr yoLlr -regl$tta'tön tp ,~;~:~:-~~t~\~~~~~:i=~i';Qn. , ,. " veT g~~eti S~i:.rn~l-s/. :or;~riy , "'. ':.;:.:;. :~ " . . " . ~t 't"l..'ot~.....';';A""" :';,l' ~ :A' ,ling; flu e ,1:ìÇl ':i'i"!;,;ao"ne~ ;~v ,el'Ue .- ~J:" ,",:'" ...... .~.. ¡.: ...: .:.~:.:'\i..~:. ....;. .. . * ~...' . ~", : , .. '.::..:~.:::' . ":;':~'l;'. .;.....::., _. '.-'.l. i . ~, ~:" , ~: ';.,J)Ç~~Y\: ',V,;" " .,:"':', . ...;.- ~ . ", ..' . .~.:, .. :" '¡.:..'" .,'. .....' Exhbit" 1 " Page 69 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 FIRST LEGAL 03120/200~ Page 68 of 74 41' ~1331 ,, -. '-i~'" .'~; !\ .-; . ,.; "'''.. ....:'. . l. :~: .' :.,.....:... :1.' . ~.. ",ï Exhbit" 1 " Page 70 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC 03/2012009 41 ''lI331Page 69 of 74 DocumentFIRST 6-2LEGALFiled 03/31/2008 WELCOME TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE HOURS: 9:00 A.M. TO 4:00 P.M. 415.522.2000 www.cand.uscourts.gov In Addition to the Local Rules, the Following Guidelines Have Been Provided to Ensure That the Filng Process Is Accomplished with Ease and Accuracy. For Additional Information or Assistance, Please Call the above Number During Offce Hours. 1. the chambers of the judge to whom the action has been assigned. We do not accept filings for cases assigned to judges or magistrate judges in the Oakland or San Jose division, per Civil L.R. 3-2(b). 4. This offce wil retain the original plus one copy of most documents submitted. We wil confonn as many copies as you bring for your use. Related cases require an extra copy for each related action designated. 3. The copy retained goes directly to the assigned Judge. Couresy copies, or Documents are to be fied in the Clerk's Offce at the location of instructions for couriers to deliver a copy directly to chambers are inappropriate, unless you have been instrcted to do so by court order. 4. In order to faciltate the fie stamping process, each onginal document should be submitted on top of its copies. In other words, group like documents together-.as opposed to a set of originals and separate sets of copies. 5. The case number must indicate whether it is a civil or criminal matter by the inclusion of e or CR at the beginning of the number. Miscellaneous and foreign judgment matters should also be indicated with initials MISe or FJ at the end of the case number. 6. The case number must include the initials of the judge and/or magistrte judge followed by the letters designating the case Arbitrtion (ARB), Early Neutrl Evaluation (ENE) or Mediation (MD)--if assigned to one of 7. those programs. The document caption should inclune the appropriate judge or magistrate judge involved iii a paricular matter or before whom an appearce is being made. This is especially importnt when submitting Settement Conference Statements. 8. Documents are to be stapled or acco.fastened at the top. Backings, bindings and the original document covers are not required. Two holes punched at the top of wil faciliate processing. 9. Appropriately sized, stamped, self-addressed return envelopes are to be included with proposed orders or when fiing documents by maiL. Exhbit" 1 " Page 71 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 03/20/2001' Filed 03/31/2008 Page 70 of 74 41 ')1331 fIRST LEGAL i O. Proofs of service should be attached to the back of documents. If submitted the document showing separately, you must attach a pleading page to the front of case number and case caption. i 1. There are no filing fees once S. case has been opened. 12. New cases must be accmpanied by a completed and signed Civil Cover Sheet, the filing fee or fee waiver request form and an original plus two copies of the complaint and any other documents. For Intellectual Propert caes, please provide an onginal plus three copies of the com,plaint. Please present new caes amount of for filing before 3:30 p.m., as they tae a considerable time to process. 13. Copies of forms may be obtained at no charge. They may be picked up in person from the Clerk's Offce forms cabinet or with a wrtten reuest accompanied by an appropriate sized, stamped, self-addressed envelope for retu. In addition, copies of the Local Rules may be obtained, free of charge, in the Clerk's Offce or by sending a wrtten request, along with a self-addressed, 10" x 14" return envelope, stamped with $ 3.95 postage to: Clerk, U.S. District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 16th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102. 14. Two computer-terminals which allow public acess to case dockets and one terminal with information regarding fies at the Federal Records Center (FRC) are the Clerk's Offce. Wntten instrctions are posted located in the reception area of the Clerk's Offce, electronic access to docets is available thugh PACER. To obtai information or to register call 1 ~800-6766851. by the terminals. Outside of i 5. A fie viewing room is located adjacent to the reception area. Files may be viewed in this area afer signing the log sheet and presenting identification. Files are to be returned by 1:00 pm Under no circumstaces are fies to be removed from the viewing room. 16. The Clerk's Offce ca only accept payment by exact change or check made payable to Clerk, U.S. Distrct Court. No change ca be made for fees or 'the public copy machine. 17. Two pay copy machines are located in the fie viewing room for public use, at fifteen cents ($.15) per page. Copy cards may be purchases atthe snack bar on the first floor. Orders for copywork may be place through Eddie's Document Retrieval by phoning 415-317-5556. Arangements may be made to bring in a personal copier by callng the Clerk's Offce in advance. 18. We have a drop box for filing when the Clerk's Offce is closed. Pleae see attached for availabilty and instnctions. Exhbit" 1 " Page 72 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 FIRST LEGAL 03/20(200' Page 71 of 74 41 ''j1331 SAN FRACISCO Article III Jud2es Jud2es Initials Alsup, Wiliam H. WHA Chen, Edwar M. EMC Breyer, Charles R. 'CRB James, Mara-Elena ME Chesney, Maxine M. MMC Laporte, Elizabeth D. EDL Conti, Samuel SC Laron, ~ames JL Hamilton, Phylls 1. PJH Spero, Joseph C. JCS Henderson, TheIton E. 1EH Zimmennan, Bernard BZ Ilston, Susan SI Jenkins, Marin J. MJJ Patel, ~arilyn Hall MHP Schwarer, Wiliam W WWS Walker, VaugJi R VRW White, Jeffey S. JSW Matdtrate JUd2e8 Jud2es Initals SAN JOSE Artcle in Judges Fogel, Jeremy Ware, James Whyte, Ron~d M. Jud2es Initials Magitrate Judges JUd2es Initials JF Lloyd, Howard R. HR JW Seeborg, Richard RS RMW Trubull, Patrcia V. PVT OAKAN Artcle III Judges Jud2es Initials Armstrong, Saundra B. SBA Jensen, D. Lowell DLJ Wilken, Claudia CW Magitrte Judges Brazil, Wayne D. Judges Initials WDB Exhbit "1" Page 73 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 03/20/200P S&n Francisco 16th Floor San Jose 2nd Floor Oakland 1st Floor Filed 03/31/2008 FIRST LEGAL 41 building closed between 6PM and 6AM building closed between 5PM and 7:30AM building closed between 5:00 PM and 7:00 AM Page 72 of 74 '1)1331 more info 415-522-2000 more info 408-535-5364 more info 510-637-3530 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN DROP BOX FILING PROCEDURS 1. The drop box, located outside the Clerk's Offce (see above char), is available for the fiiing of documents before 9:00 a.m. and after 4:00 p.m. weekdays. Pleae note that acess to the federa building is limited to 'nonnal business hours' (as noted in th char above). 2. The drop box: may not be used for the fiing of any briefs in support of, or in opposition to, any matter scheduled for a hearing within 7 calendar days. All such documents must be filed in the Clerk's Offce during regular offce hour by the date due. 3. Using the electronic fie staping machine located next to the drop box, stap each original document "Received" on the'back side ofthe last page. Clerk's Offce employees empty the box once each cour day when the Clerk's Offce opens to the public. The "Filed" date, which wil be place on original documents by Intae personnel, wil be the same as the "Received" date, unless the "Received" date is a weekend or Cour holiday. In those instances, the "Filed" date will be the first cour day following the weekend or holiday. Documents placed the day the box is next emptied. in the drop box without a "Received" stap will be filed as of 4. After stamping each original and enclosing one copy for the cour * the docwnents must be placed in an orange cour mailing pouch or red Expando folder provided for your convenience. To faciltate processing of your documents, each original document should be submitted on top of its copies. Prior to placing the pouch or folder in the drop box, please inert in the pouch or folder widow a fully completed Drop Box Filig Information Card. You may use more than one pouch or folder per filing, but a separate Information Card must be enclosed for each one. (*Pleae note that the Clerk's Offce wil retain two copies of all new complaits relating to patents, trademarks and copyrghts.) you wish us to mail you one or more confonned copies that you have provided, you 5. If must enclose an appropriately sized, self-addressed, staped envelope with adequate retur you would like to pick up conformed copies, please mark your return postage. Alternatively, if envelope "FOR MESSENGER PICK UP,BY: (NAME. FIRM." Your copies will be 'available for pick-up after 2:00 p;m. on the day the drop box is emptied. required, may be paid by check or money order, payable to "Clerk, U.S. District Court" in an exact amount. Please do not enclose cash. 6. A filing fee, if 7. Documents deposited in the drop box must be in compliance with all local and federal rules, as appropriate. Documents fied "Under Seal" must be submitted in compliance with Civil L.R. 79-5. Exhbit "1" Page 74 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 Filed 03/31/2008 FIRST LEGAL 03120120r Page 73 of 74 ~ - i61331 PROOF OF SERVICE CCP 1013a(3)/FRCP 5 2 I am a resident of, or employed in, the County of Los Angeles. I am over the age of 18 and not a 3 4 5 par to this action. My busines address is: Steptoe & Johnson LLP, 2121 Avenue ofthe Stars, Suite 2800, Los Angeles, California 90067. On March 20, 2008, I served the following listed document(s), by method indicated below, on the paries in this action: DEFENDANrS NOTICE OF FILING NOTICE OF REMOVAL 6 7 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST o BY U.s. MAI o BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE (via electronic fig service provider) By placing 0 the onginall 0 a tre copy th~f enclose in a 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 sealed envelops), with postge fully preaid, addred as pe the attached sece list for collection and mailng at Steptoe & Johnson LLP, 2121 Avenue of the Sta, Suite 90, Los Angeles California 90067., following ordinar busines price. i am By elecnically trsmittin, the document(s) listed above to LexisNexis File and See, an eleconic filing seice prvider at ww.fileandsere.lexisneiÜs.co, fr the email reily fìmilar with Steptoe & Johnson LLP's practce for addr tísteptoe.co, at collecion and prong of doents for mailing. Under that approximately _' To my knowledge, the practice the docment is depite with the United States Postl Serce on the sae day as it is collected and processe for mailng trsmission was rerted as complete and in the ordinar corse of business. 2060. o BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY By deliverng the doment(s) list above in a seed envelops) o BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE (to Indivdual pers.s) or package(s) designated by the expr sece caer, wi By electrnically trsmittg th document(s) deliver fee paid or prvided for, addreed as pe the attached listed above to the eiil addrees) of sece list to a facility relary maintained by the exre serce caer or to an authorze corier or driver authorze by th pen(s) set fort on the atched serce list without err. Se Cal, R. Ct. R. 2053, 2055, the frm the email addret/epoecom at approximately _' To my knowledge, the expr seiice carrer to reive documents. trsmission wa reprted as complete and 17 18 19 without err. See CaL. R. Ct R. 206. ¥ BY PERSONAL SERVICE o BY FACSIME , 0 By penaly deiverng and handing the dot(s) listed By tranttng the document(s) liste above from above to the pen( s) identified on the attched sece list. Steptoe & Johnson LLP in Lo Angeles, Calforia to the facsimile machine telephone 20 :~y penally deliverng the doument(s) listed above to the numbe s) se for on the atched seice list. offce øddres) as shown 00 the attched sece list and leavig Serce by facsimile trnsmission was mad 0 21 is in chare leaving it in a consicuous place in the offce(s). said docment(s) with a cler or other 22 23 24 25 pe in che, or irno one put to agrment oftlie paries, confimied in wrting, or 0 as a courtesy to the paries, o By peonally deliverng the document(s) listed above to the addres(es) as shown on the attched seice list and leaving said documt(s) with someone of suitable age and discrion reding at said addresees), I declare under penaty of peijur under the laws of the State of Californa and the United States of America that the above is true and corr. 26 /' Executed on March 20. 2008 at Los Angeles, CalfomiY--' , , /. ,1~' 27 28 l~~ Jt4.,'14;.- ¡.L (.:. l..¿, '-~' i . \l, '- C... \,C' -n -l. t/ i.,,..l' Type or Prit Name Signatue 3 PROOF OF SERVICE 552036 Exhbit" 1 " Page 75 Case 3:08-cv-01520-SC Document 6-2 03/20/20r Filed 03/31/2008 FIRST LEGAL Page 74 of 74 J -26133 I SERVICE LIST Lisa KniCht. et al. v. Red Door Salons. Inc.. et al. San Francisco County Superior Court 2 3 COUNSEL FOR PLAIN 4 5 6 7 Michael von Loewenfe1dt Michael NO KERR & W AGSTAFFE, LLP 100 Spe Stre, Suite 1800 San Fracisc, CA 94105-1528 8 Gar E. Moss 9 10 11 Mar Patrcia Hough Derk M. Thomas LAW OFFICES OF MOSS & HOUGH 601 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2030 San Fracisc, CA 94102 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 PROOF OF SERVICE 552036 Exhbit" 1 " Page 76