Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 1 of 31
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
FERMIN H. LLAGUNO, Bar No. 185222 MARIA R. HARRINGTON, Bar No. 201901 LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation 2050 Main Street Suite 900 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: 949.705.3000 Facsimile: 949.724.1201 Attorneys for Defendant PITNEY BOWES INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOHN C. SIEGMAN, an individual, Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 08cv0842-JM (BLM) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT
11 12 13 14 15
PITNEY BOWES INC., a Delaware corporation doing business as Pitney Bowes Group 1 Software, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
LITTLER MENDELSON
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2050 Main Slfeel Suit* 900 Irvina. CA 92614 949.705.3000
Case No. 08cv0842-JM (BLM) CERT. OF SERVICE OF NOTICE TO STATE COURT & ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL TO FED. COURT
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 2 of 31
1
I, Jeannine Watson, certify and declare as follows: I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action. My business address is Littler Mendelson, P.C., 2050 Main Street, Suite 900, Irvine, California 92614, which is located in the city, county and state where the mailing described below took place. On May 9, 2008, I served the Notice to State Court and Adverse Parties of Removal to Federal Court, dated May 9, 2008, a copy of which is attached to this Certificate as Exhibit "A," by placing a true copy of the same for collection and mailing following the firm's ordinary business practice in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid for deposit in the United States mail at Irvine, California, and addressed as William L. Bruckner, Charles F. Walker, Bruckner & Walker LLP, 4550 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 209, San Diego, California 92123. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 9, 2008. Jeannine Watson
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Firmwide:85093155.1 015331.1169
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
LITTLER MENDELSON
2050 Main Sluet SuiU 900 Irvine. CA 92614 949.705.3000
2.
Case No. 08cv0842-JM (BLM)
CERT. OF SERVICE OF NOTICE TO STATE COURT & ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL TO FED. COURT
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 3 of 31
EXHIBIT A
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 4 of 31
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25
FERMIN H. LLAGUNO, Bar No. 185222 MARIA R. HARRINGTON, Bar No. 201901 LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation 2050 Main Street Suite 900 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: 949.705.3000 Fax No.: 949.724.1201 Attorneys for Defendant PITNEY BOWES INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO JOHN C. SIEGMAN, an individual, Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 37-2008-00081663-CU-BC-CTL NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO THE HON. RONALD S. PRAGER (DEPT. C-71) Complaint Filed: April 8, 2008
PITNEY BOWES INC., a Delaware corporation doing business as Pitney Bowes Group 1 Software, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants.
26 27 28
LITTLER MENOELSON
A PlCFEUIONU COMOPLAtIO*
Firmwide:85093156.1 015331.1169
2050 Mim Sln*t Su.l. 900 Irvine, CA 92614 949 705 3000
NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 5 of 31
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
LITTLER MENDELSON
A P*OFE11>0**L COUPON*?!
TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT, AND TO PLAINTIFF JOHN C. SIEGMAN AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Pitney Bowes Inc. filed a Notice to Federal Court of Removal of Civil Action from State Court Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(a)(l), 1441 and 1446 ("Notice of Removal") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on May 9, 2008. A copy of said Notice of Removal is attached to this Notice as Exhibit "A," and is served and filed herewith. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the filing of said Notice of Removal in federal court, together with the filing of a copy of said notice with this Court, effects the removal of this action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. section 1446(d). Dated: May 9,2008
FERMfN H. LLAGUNO MARIA R. HARRINGTON LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation Attorneys for Defendant PITNEY BOWES INC.
Firmwide:85093156.1 015331.1169
2.
2050 Mi.n Sir»l Sum 900 Irviiw. CA 92614 949 705 3000
NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 6 of 31
EXWIBtTA
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 7 of 31
; \
FERMIN H. LLAGUNO, Bar No. 185222 MARIA R. HARRINGTON, Bar No. 201901 LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation 2050 Main Street Suite 900 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: 949.705.3000 Facsimile: 949.724.1201 Attorneys for Defendant PITNEY BOWES INC.
: I i.J>
08 MAY-9 AH II: 39
DEPUTY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOHN C. SIEGMAN, an individual, Plaintiff,
V.
Case No.
'08 C V 0 8 4 2 JM BLiv
NOTICE TO FEDERAL COURT OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE COURT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SECTIONS 1332(a)(l), 1441 AND 1446
PITNEY BOWES INC., a Delaware corporation doing business as Pitney Bowes Group 1 Software, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants.
TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT, PLAINTIFF JOHN C. SIEGMAN AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Pitney Bowes Inc. ("Defendant") hereby removes the above-entitled action, Case No. 37-2008-00081663-CU-BC-CTL, from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1332,1441 and 1446. This Notice is based upon the original jurisdiction of the federal district court over the parties under 28 U.S.C. section 1332 ("Section 1332") based upon complete diversity of citizenship. Defendant makes the following allegations in support of its Notice of Removal:
NOTICE TO FEDERAL COURT OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION FIRMWIDE: 85093144.2 015331.1169
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 8 of 31
1
JURISDICTION 1. This Court has original jurisdiction under Section 1332(a)(l), and this case may be
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
LITTLER MENDELSON A PMOFEIUONAL COLORATION 2050 Mitn SlrMl Suili 900 livin* CA 93614 949 705 3000
removed pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 1441 (a), in that it is a civil action wherein the amount in controversy for the named plaintiff exceeds the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs, and it is between "citizens of different states." As set forth below, this case meets all of Section 1332's requirements for removal and is timely and properly removed by the filing of this Notice. 2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 84(d), 1391 and 1446. PLEADINGS. PROCESS AND ORDERS 3. This lawsuit arises out of Plaintiff John C. Siegman's ("Plaintiff') dispute over the
amount of commissions to which he was entitled pursuant to an alleged contract. On April 8,2008, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, entitled JOHN C. SIEGMAN. an individual v. PITNEY BOWES INC.. a Delaware corporation doing business as Pitney Bowes Group 1 Software, and DOES 1 through 20. inclusive, bearing Case No. 37-2008-00081663-CU-BC-CTL (the "Complaint"). The Complaint asserts a single cause of action for breach of contract. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy of the Complaint. 4. On April 9,2008, Plaintiff served on CT Corporation System, Defendant's agent for
service of process, a copy of the Complaint along with the Summons, Civil Case Cover Sheet and Notice of Case Assignment. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a true and correct copy of the Summons; attached hereto as Exhibit "C" is a true and correct copy of the Civil Case Cover Sheet; and attached hereto as Exhibit "D" is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Case Assignment. 5. On May 7, 2008, Defendant filed its Answer to the Complaint in the Superior Court
of the County of San Diego. Attached hereto as Exhibit "E" is a true and correct copy of Defendant's Answer. 6. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1446(d), the attached exhibits constitute all process,
pleadings and orders served upon Defendant or filed or received in this action by Defendant.
NOTICE TO FEDERAL COURT OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION
FIRMWIDE:85093144.2 015331.1169
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 9 of 31
1
TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL 7. Plaintiff served the Summons and Complaint on Defendant on April 9, 2008.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
LITTLER MENDELSON A PioFEiitoDM. CORPORATION 2050 MUD Sir»l Suil* 900 Itvint. CA 92614 949 705 3000
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1446(b), this Notice of Removal is therefore timely filed as it is filed within thirty (30) days after Defendant was effectively served with the Summons and Complaint and within one year after commencement of this action. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1332 8. Section 1332(a) provides, in relevant part, as follows: The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between (1) citizens of different Statesf.] 9. This action is a civil action over which this Court has original jurisdiction based on
diversity of citizenship pursuant to Section 1332(a), and is one which may be removed to this Court by Defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1441(b) because it is a civil action between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, as set forth below. 10. Plaintiff alleges that he was, at the time of the filing of this action, and at all times
relevant, a citizen of the State of California and a resident of the County of San Diego. (Complaint,
12).
11. Defendant was, at the time of filing this action, and still is, a corporation incorporated
under the laws of Delaware. Complaint f 3. Defendant's principal place of business is in Stamford, Connecticut, and its corporate headquarters are located at MSC 1101, One Elmcroft Road WHQ, Stamford, Connecticut 06926-0700. Defendant is therefore not a citizen of the State in which this action is pending and is, in fact, a citizen of a different State than that of Plaintiff. 12. The Complaint names as defendants "Does 1 through 20, inclusive." Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. section 1441 (a), however, the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names must be disregarded for the purpose of determining diversity jurisdiction. See also Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co.. 157 F.3d 686, 690-91 (9th Cir. 1998).
NOTICE TO FEDERAL COURT OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION
FIRMWIDE:85093144.2 015331.1169
3.
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 10 of 31
1
2 3 4 5
13.
The amount in controversy in the Complaint exceeds the sum of seventy five
thousand dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs. The Complaint specifically prays for judgment for "special and consequential damages in the amount of Eight Hundred Eighty One Thousand Six Hundred Forty Six Dollars ($881,646) or an amount according to proof at trial." (Complaint, 5:11-13.) Thus, the amount in controversy for the Plaintiff clearly exceeds the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00). 14. For these reasons, this action is a civil action over which this Court has original
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
LITTLER MENDELSON
APHQFEIUONAI COftPORATIOH
2050 Mam SttMt
jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332, and which may be removed by Defendant to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1441 based on diversity jurisdiction. NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND PLAINTIFF 15. Contemporaneously with the filing of this Notice of Removal in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, written notice of such filing will be given by the undersigned to counsel for Plaintiff, William L. Bruckner and Charles F. Walker. In addition, a copy of this Notice of Removal will be filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego. Dated: May 9, 2008
LLAGUNO MARIA R. HARRINGTON LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation Attorneys for Defendant PITNEY BOWES INC.
Su>l* 900
liwm*. CA 92614
949 70S 3000
NOTICE TO FEDERAL COURT OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION
FIRMWIDE:85093144.2 015331.1169
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 11 of 31
EXHIBIT A
COWL
6 7 8 9
10
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 12 of 31
BRUCKNER & WALKER LLP William L. Bruckner SBN 132677 Charles F. Walker SBN 175852 4550 Keamy Villa Road, Suite 209 3 San Diego, California 92123 858) 565-8300 telephone 858) 565-0813 telecopier 4 cfwl234@,aol.com 5 Attorneys for John C. Siegman
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL BRANCH JOHN C. SIEGMAN, an individual,
) Case No. 37-200840081663-CU-BC-CTL )
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Plaintiff,
v.
PITNEY BOWES INC., a Delaware corporation doing business as Pitney Bowes Group 1 Software, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants.
J ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) )
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: BREACH OF CONTRACT
(GENERAL CIVIL - Amount Exceeds $25,000)
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMES NOW, Plaintiff JOHN C. SIEGMAN (Hereinafter "Plaintiff' or "SIEGMAN"), and for causes of action against defendant PITNEY BOWES INC., ("PITNEY BOWES") a Delaware corporation doing business as Pitney Bowes Group 1 Software and DOES 1 through 20, and each of them, and alleges as follows: 1. All of the damages complained of herein, and the last act of formalizing a
contract between the parties, occurred in San Diego County, California therefore venue is proper in this court.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
JT
A
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 13 of 31
2.
Plaintiff is, and at all times mentioned in this complaint was, an individual residing
n San Diego County, State of California, and doing business out of his home for PITNEY BOWES, located at 17330 Via Del Campo, San Diego, 92127. 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of such information and belief,
alleges that Defendant PITNEY BOWES is and at all times herein mentioned was, a corporation duly organized under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Delaware, and is authorized to transact business in the state of California and is doing business in the County of San Diego, State of California with Corporation No. CO 186264. 4.
10
The true name and capacities, whether individual, corporate,
associate,
partnership or otherwise, of defendants DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, are unknown to the Plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff sues those defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure § 474 and will seek leave of court to amend this complaint to show their true names and capacities when and if the same have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that alleges, at all times herein mentioned, each of the defendants sued herein as DOE was the agent, servant, contractor, and employee of the defendants and each are responsible in some manner for the events and occurrences referred to, and caused damages hereinafter alleged. 5. Plaintiffs are informed and believes and on such information and belief alleges
11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
that each of the defendants, including DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, at all times mentioned in this complaint, were each the agents, authorized representatives and employees of each of the other remaining defendants, and in doing the things alleged in this complaint, defendants were acting within the course, purpose and scope of their agency and employment, with the knowledge, consent, and express and implied permission of the other defendants.
/// /// ///
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
2
A. k
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 14 of 31
1
2 3
4
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Part Written, Partially Oral, Part Conduct and Implied in Fact Contract against PITNEY BOWES and DOES 1 through 20) 6. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation
5
contained in paragraphs 1 through 5, inclusive, of the above General Allegations as if fully set forth herein and further alleges: 7. In 2007, SIEGMAN was employed by PITNEY BOWES in the capacity of Vice SIEGMAN was paid a salary plus a commission
President Business Geographies Sales.
(collectively "wages") based upon a certain percentage of his dollar volume of software and
10
related sales. The terms of his employment contract identifying the amount of wages to be paid was based upon sales quotas established, set forth and offered by PITNEY BOWES and its authorized officers. The sales quotas were based upon previous years' quotas, dealings and conduct between the parties, verbal communications, and written documentation and implied in fact understandings between PITNEY BOWES' authorized agents and SIEGMAN. "Contract") 8. In years prior to 2007, SIEGMAN and his employer adopted a method of (The
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
commission compensation that was based upon previous years' quotas, dealings and conduct between the parties, verbal communications, and written documentation and implied in fact understandings between the employer and SIEGMAN. Prior to end of year pay outs for 2007, SIEGMAN was compensated fully in accordance with the compensation plan and package established by the employer. 9. In 2007, SIEGMAN extended an inordinate amount of energy, time and focus to
achieving the highest volume of software sales he could achieve and obtain. To the detriment of his personal time and family time, SIEGMAN devoted long hours to extensive out of state travel to facilitate and accommodate the sales of his employer's software and related services. In furtherance of his devotion and goals for his employer, SIEGMAN would leave on the earliest
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
3
A. 7
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 15 of 31
1
2 3
airline flights available in order to make timely meetings on the East Coast and other parts of the country. 10. During 2007, PITNEY BOWES' payroll department sent regular reports and
documentation to SIEGMAN in San Diego, California indicating his commission percentages. The documents also set forth a written system for tracking sales. Each and every month,
SIEGMAN reviewed the documentation to insure that his yearend bonus commission was on track for accurate and complete payout. During 2007 at varying intervals and times, SIEGMAN had discussions with PITNEY BOWES' authorized agents to verify that the sales quota for 2007 was accurate and that his sales were on track for significant level based commissions if he
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
hit or exceeded "plan."
After an exhausting year of travel and busy schedule of sales
appointments, SIEGMAN earned wages based upon his actual quota for 2007; an end of year payout consisting of December 2007 commissions, annual bonus and related bonus of $961,169.81. In February 2008, PITNEY BOWES paid SIGMAN $79,523.38 towards his
earned commissions. After receipt of the partial payment of wages, SIEGMAN inquired with PITNEY BOWES why he was shorted on his wages and SIEGMAN was advised that the $79,523.38 was his final commission and he would not be receiving any more wages for 2007. 11. PITNEY BOWES has failed and neglected to compensate SIEGMAN in
accordance with the terms of the parties' contract and understanding for payment of earned wages. PITNEY BOWES failed to pay wages in the amount, time and manner required by the parties' contract. PITNEY BOWES refuses to pay SIEGMAN as required under the law.
PITNEY BOWES breached its contract with SIEGMAN. 12. The Contract was amended and supplemented by oral and written
communications between and amongst the parties. SIEGMAN has performed and at all times stood ready to perform all conditions, covenants and promises required on his part to be performed and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract, except those which have been waived, prevented or excused by the actions and conduct of PITNEY BOWES and/or its agents or representatives.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
4
A ~?
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 16 of 31
13.
As a direct and proximate resuh of PITNEY BOWES' breach of the Contract,
SIEGMAN has been damaged in an amount reasonably believed to be in excess of $881,646, or an amount according to proof at trial together with interest, statutory and civil penalties, costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to statute. 14. Pursuant to California Labor Code section 218.5 this is an action brought for the
nonpayment of wages and the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party if any party to the action requests attorney's fees and costs upon the initiation of the action. Those attorneys' fees and costs are requested by SIEGMAN upon filing of this complaint.
10
WHEREFORE, SIEGMAN prays for judgment as set forth below. 1. For special and consequential damages in the amount of Eight Hundred Eighty
11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
One Thousand Six Hundred Forty Six Dollars ($881,646) or an amount according to proof at trial; 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. For prejudgment interest; For Statutory and Civil Penalties; Statutory waiting time compensation; For costs of suit and attorneys'fees pursuant to statute incurred herein; and, For such other further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: April?, 2008
BRUCKNER & WALKER LLP
Charles F. Walker
aiSU^
Attorney for John C. Siegman
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
5
A. Q
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 17 of 31
EXHIBIT i
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 18 of 31
SUM-100
SUMMONS (CITACION JUDICIAL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO):
FOR COURT us; OWL r (SOtomuMvsooeuicortTE)
PITNEY BOWES INC., a Delaware corporation doing business as Pitney Bowes Group 1 Software, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
JOHN C. SIEGMAN, an individual,
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers ara served on you to flla a written raaponaa at thla court and hava a copy served on tha plaintiff. A totter or phone call will not protect you. Your written raaponaa muat be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your raaponaa. You can find these court forma and more Information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Canter (www.couronfo.ca.gov/serttielp), your county law library, or tha courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose tha case by default and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to caU an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web alto (www.lawhelpcallfomla.org). the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtlnfo.ca.gov/serthelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. rtone 30 DtAS DE CALENDAPIO despues da qua to enfreguen aste cltecMn y papetes legate* para presenter una respueste por ascrtto ·n 9st* corto y htctr gut *t tntrtgut tint coplt tl Otm*Kltntt. Una carte o una ftemadateteMnfcano la protegen. Sursspuestepo/escrflo ttene
The name and address of the court is: f£/ nombre y direcctin da /a corte esj:
CASE NUMBER:
The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direction y el numero de telefono del abogado del demandants, o del demandants que no tiene abogado, es): Charles F. Walker 858-565-8300 4550 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 209 San Diego CA 92123 j J^
DATE: Cleric, by ^/J&MhG'&Vltor (Secretario) (Fecha) (For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).) (Para prueba de entraga de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)). NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served ISEAIJ 1. I I as an individual defendant. 2. | 1 as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
San Diego Superior Court, Central Division 330 W Broadway San Diego CA 92101
< MB
* *^y38b«-oooii663-cu-Bc^rrL
APR 0 8 2008
Deputy
(Adjunto)
3. CZH on behalf of (specify): under CH CCP 416.10 (corporation) | 1 CCP 416.60 (minor)
4. I
Form Adopted for MuxMoiy UM JudicW Cound of C«Womi« SUM-100 (R«v Januvy 1.2004]
| | CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) ~ |~~] CCP 416.70 (conservatee) I | CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) |--~] CCP 416.90 (authorized person) r"~l other (specify): I by personal delivery on (date): Pn»
SUMMONS
I Am«lc»i uartNH Inc. l|»»w,U8Counf»nm.co.nl
B
in
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 19 of 31
EXHIBIT C
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 20 of 31
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Jr.TM. SW. BvnmbK. and aottonj:
Tputf
MAIUNG ADDRESS:
- Charles F. Walker SBN 175852 Bruckner & Walker, LLP 4550 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 209 San Diego, CA 92123 TELEPHONE NO.- 858-565-8300 FAX NO.: 858-565-0813 ATTORNEY FOR fNMM): John C. Sicgman SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORMA, COUNTY Of San DjCgO STREET ADDRESS: 330 West Broadway CITY AND ZIP cooe San Diego CA 92101 BRANCH NAME: Central Division, Hall of Justice CASE NAME:
.
, .', " ..
.'\
: :
", 'JM
Siegman v Pitney Bowes
CASE NUMBER: CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Ca>« Designation ED Unlimited EH Limited 37-2008-00081 663-CU-BC-CTL EH Counter EH Joinder (Amount (Amount JUDGE: demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant DEPT: exceeds $25.000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) Items 1-5 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). 1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: Provisionally Complex CMI Litigation Auto Tort Contract Auto (22) CZ3 Breach of contract/warranty (08) (CaL Rule* of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)
Uninsured motorist (46) Other PVPD/WD (Persona! Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort Asbestos (04) Product liability (24) Medical malpractice (45) EH Other PI/PD/WD (23) Non-PI/PD/WO (Other) Tort I I Business tort/unfair business practice (07) EH Civilrights(08) Defamation (13) Fraud (16) Intellectual property (19) Professional negligence (25) Other non-PI/PD/WD tort (35) Empto lyment Wrongful termination (36) Other employment (15)
'
n a
' Collections (09) Insurance coverage (18) Other contract (37) Real Property I I Eminent domain/Inverse condemnation (14) Wrongful eviction (33) Other real property (26) Unlawful Detainer EH Commercial (31) EH Residential (32) EH Drugs (38) Judicial Review I I Asset forfeiture (05) I -iI Petition re: arbitration award (11) EH Writ of mandate (02) I I Other Judicial review (39)
I I __ ZH EH I I I I
AntitrustfTrade regulation (03) Construction defect (10) Mass tort (40) Securities litigation (28) environmental/Toxic tort (30) Insurance coverage claims arising from the above listed provisionally complex case types (41) Enforcement of Judgment I I Enforcement of judgment (20) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint EH RICO (27) EH Other oomptaini (not specified above) (42) Miscellaneous CMI Petition Partnership and corporate governance (21) Other petition (not specified above) (43)
2. This case I I is L/ I is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a. I I Large number of separately represented parties d. I I Large number of witnesses b. I I Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. I I Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court c. I I Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. I I Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision Type of remedies sought (check all that apply): a. I / I monetary b. I I nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief punitive Number of causes of action (specify): One This case I I is I / I is not a class action suit. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case.
4-8-08 Charles F. Walker
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)
· Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result in sanctions. · File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. · If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding. · Unless this is a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only. .
Form Aoopnd for Mandatory Us* CM-010 [R«v. Jimmy 1.2007]
NOTICE
Judicial Councd of California
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
lAmMiM bigs***, inc. jwww.Fofn LFonmMMMw.com
CM. RuHs of Court, ruto* 3.220. 3.400-3403; SUndmli of JudicW AdminMralon. § 18
mw.axMMb.ci.oov
// ^
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 21 of 31
EXHIBIT D
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
X.
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 22 of 31
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUOT i OF SAN DIEGO
STREET ADDRESS: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY AND ZIP CODE: BRANCH NAME: 330 Wnl Browhmy 330 Wnt Bnwdmy San Dfego, CA 92101 Central
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
PLAINTIFF(S)/PETITIONER(S):
John C Siegman
DEFENDANT(S) / RESPONDENT(S): Pitney Bowes Inc SIEGMAN VS. PITNEY BOWES INC
CASE NUMBER: NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT 37-2008-00081663-CU-BC-CTL Department: C-71
Judge: Ronald S. Prager COMPLAINT/PETITION FILED: 04/08/2008
CASES ASSIGNED TO THE PROBATE DIVISION ARE NOT REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE CIVIL REQUIREMENTS LISTED BELOW IT IS THE DUTY OF EACH PLAINTIFF (AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT) TO SERVE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE WITH THE COMPLAINT (AND CROSS-COMPLAINT). ALL COUNSEL WILL BE EXPECTED TO BE FAMILIAR WITH SUPERIOR COURT RULES WHICH HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED AS DIVISION II, AND WILL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED. TIME STANDARDS: The following timeframes apply to general civil cases and must be adhered to unless you have requested and been granted an extension of time. General civil consists of all cases except: Small claims appeals, petitions, and unlawful detainers. COMPLAINTS: Complaints must be served on all named defendants, and a CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (SDSC CIV345) filed within 60 days of filing. This is a mandatory document and may not be substituted by the filing of any other document. DEFENDANT'S APPEARANCE: Defendant must generally appear within 30 days of service of the complaint. (Plaintiff may stipulate to no more than a 15 day extension which must be in writing and filed with the Court.) DEFAULT: If the defendant has not generally appeared and no extension has been granted, the plaintiff must request default within 45 days of the filing of the Certificate of Service. THE COURT ENCOURAGES YOU TO CONSIDER UTILIZING VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES TO LITIGATION. INCLUDING MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION, PRIOR TO THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. MEDIATION SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE UNDER THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAMS ACT AND OTHER PROVIDERS. SEE ADR INFORMATION PACKET AND STIPULATION. YOU MAY ALSO BE ORDERED TO PARTICIPATE IN ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO CCP 1141.10 AT THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. THE FEE FOR THESE SERVICES WILL BE PAID BY THE COURT IF ALL PARTIES HAVE APPEARED IN THE CASE AND THE COURT ORDERS THE CASE TO ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO CCP 1141.10. THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE WILL BE CANCELLED IF YOU FILE FORM SDSC CIV-359 PRIOR TO THAT HEARING
SDSCCIV-721 (Rev. 11-06)
P»0.:1
NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT
J?
/J
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 23 of 31
EXHIBIT E
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 24 of 31
^^vy/Lr
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
LITTLER MEMOELSOH A PMTHWMM CMVMJMM lUft W*ta IkMt Mn HI I»IM.CA im« Mt.w.aoM
DW
FERMIN H. LLAGUNO, Bar No. 185222 MARIA R. HARRINGTON, Bar No. 201 901 LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation 2050 Main Street Suite 900 Irvine,CA 92614 Telephone: 949.705.3000 Fax No.: 949.724.1201 Attorneys for Defendant PITNEY BOWES INC.
· no ···?',· '
'
icn 1 9 '·'
L& f
'
·/ u, j . t rj n ' ' " "' " r,, - · 'V; 1 > U ;. L/»
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO JOHN C. SIEGMAN, an individual, Plaintiff,
V.
|-y\/ DY
·-- 1^
Case No. 3 7-2008-0008 1663-CU-BC-CTL DEFENDANT PITNEY BOWES INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO THE HON. RONALD S. PRAGER (DEPT. C-71) Complaint Filed: April 8, 2008
PITNEY BOWES INC., a Delaware corporation doing business as Pitney Bowes Group 1 Software, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants.
Fmnwidc:gS097036.2 0)5331. 1 169
DEFENDANT PITNEY BOWES INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
f I2t
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 25 of 31
1
COMES NOW Defendant Pitney Bowes Inc. ("Defendant"), by and through its attorneys, and for its Answer to the Complaint (the "Complaint") filed by Plaintiff John C. Siegman ("Plaintiff'), hereby generally and specifically denies each and every allegation of the Complaint, and the whole thereof, pursuant to section 431.30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and hereby asserts the following defenses: AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES By asserting these defenses, Defendant does not concede that it has the burden of proof as to any defense asserted below. Defendant does not presently know all of the facts concerning the conduct of Plaintiff sufficient to state all defenses at this time. Defendant will seek leave of Court to amend this Answer should it later discover facts demonstrating the existence of additional defenses. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 1. Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein fails to
2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9
10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
TIER MENDELSON
·OPIMtMM COMOKATiQH
state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2. Defendant. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3. Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein are Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has waived all rights to assert any claims against
barred by the doctrine of estoppel. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4. Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein are
barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5. Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein are
barred by the doctrine of consent.
Firmwide:85097036.2 015331.1169
»M U«ln 5ti««t Suit* MO Irvine. CA 9JIU 1 70S MOO «
2.
DEFENDANT PITNEY BOWES INC.'S ANS
PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 26 of 31
1
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6. Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein are
2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10
barred by the applicable statute of limitations, including without limitation California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 337(1) and 339(1). SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7. Defendant alleges, without admitting to the existence of any duties or obligations as
alleged in the Complaint, that any duty or obligation, contractual or otherwise, which Plaintiff claims is owed by Defendant, has been fully performed, satisfied, or discharged. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claims are unreasonable, and/or were filed in bad
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
TIER MENOELSON
I0f IMlMU COBIWUTIM
faith and/or are frivolous and, for that reason, justify an award of attorneys' fees and costs against Plaintiff and his attorneys. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9. Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause of action contained therein is
barred because any damages Plaintiff has allegedly suffered as a result of any conduct by Defendant should be reduced or eliminated by the doctrine of setoff by the amount that Defendant has been damaged by Plaintiffs breach of any alleged contract, if any, between the parties. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10. Defendant alleges mat if the parties entered into any contracts, obligations or
agreements, as alleged in the Complaint, any duty or performance by Defendant is excused by reason of Plaintiff s breach of contractual terms, failure to perform conditions precedent, impossibility of performance, prevention of performance and/or acceptance. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11. Defendant alleges that any oral agreement alleged to have been breached was in
violation of the statute of frauds and was, therefore, unenforceable. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has been paid in full all amounts owed to him.
Firmwide:85097036.2 015331.1169
3.
2050 UiiN BHMl Sull* »00 Irvm*. CA 12614 141 705.MM
DEFENDANT PITNEY BOWES INC.'S ANS'
/r
·LAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 27 of 31
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
HER MENDELSON
OrllllONU COMOflllrOH 20SO Mini Ilittl Suiu MO Irvm*. CA 02014 KO.705.3000
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13. Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein is
barred by the doctrine of mistake of fact. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14. Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein is
barred by the doctrine of fraud. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15. Defendant alleges that the Complaint does not describe the claims or facts being
alleged with sufficient particularity to permit Defendant to ascertain what other defenses may exist. Defendant will rely on any and all further defenses that become available or appear during discovery hi this action and specifically reserves the right to amend this Answer for purposes of asserting such additional defenses. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that: 1. 2. 3. 4. The Complaint be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice; Plaintiff takes nothing by way of his Complaint; Defendant be awarded judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff; Defendant be awarded its attorneys' and expert fees and costs of suit herein, to the
extent permitted by applicable law; and 5. The Court grant Defendant such other and further relief as it deems just and proper.
Dated: May 7,2008
MARIA R. HARRINGTON ^^ LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation Attorneys for Defendant PITNEY BOWES INC.
FERMINH.LLAGI
Firmwide:85097036.2 015331.1169
4.
DEFENDANT PITNEY BOWES INC.'S ANSWERJG-PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
/I
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 28 of 31
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 2050 Main Street, Suite 900, Irvine, California 92614. On May 7, 2008,1 served the within documents): DEFENDANT PITNEY BOWES INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT | | by facsimile transmission at or about on that date. This document was transmitted by using a facsimile machine that complies with California Rules of Court Rule 2003(3), telephone number 949.724.1201. The transmission was reported as complete and without error. A copy of the transmission'report, properly issued by the transmitting machine, is attached. The names and facsimile numbers of the person(s) served are as set forth below. by placing a true copy of the document(s) listed above for collection and mailing following the firm's ordinary business practice in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid for deposit in the United States mail at Irvine, California addressed as set forth below. by depositing a true copy of the same enclosed in a sealed envelope, with delivery fees provided for, in an overnight delivery service pick up box or office designated for overnight delivery, and addressed as set forth below. by personally delivering a copy of the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below.
[5c|
I""]
["""]
Bruckner & Walker LLP William L. Bruckner Charles Walker 4550 Keamy Villa Road, Suite 209 San Diego, California 92123 I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing and for shipping via overnight delivery service. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service or if an overnight delivery service shipment, deposited in an overnight delivery service pick-up box or office on the same day with postage or fees thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business.
PROOF OF SERVICE
/'
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 29 of 31
1
2 3
4 5
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on May 7, 2008, at Irvine, California.
Jeannine R. Watson
6 7 8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
flER MENDELSON OMIIIOUl CMtMATIOH 2060 Main StiMI Suilt 100 Irviiw. CA 1M14 >U 70S 3000
2.
PROOF OF.SERVICE
/
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 30 of 31
1
2 3
4
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 2050 Main Street, Suite 900, Irvine, California 92614. On May 9, 2008,1 served the within document(s): NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT
5 6 7 8 9 10
n
on that date. This document by facsimile transmission at or about was transmitted by using a facsimile machine that complies with California Rules of Court Rule 2003(3), telephone number 949.724.1201. The transmission was reported as complete and without error. A copy of the transmission report, properly issued by the transmitting machine, is attached. The names and facsimile numbers of the person(s) served are as set forth below. by placing a true copy of the document(s) listed above for collection and mailing following the firm's ordinary business practice in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid for deposit in the United States mail at Irvine, California addressed as set forth below.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
D D
by depositing a true copy of the same enclosed in a sealed envelope, with delivery fees provided for, in an overnight delivery service pick up box or office designated for overnight delivery, and addressed as set forth below. by personally delivering a copy of the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below.
Bruckner & Walker LLP William L. Bruckner Charles Walker 4550 Kearny Villa Road, Ste. 209 San Diego, CA 92123 I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing and for shipping via overnight delivery service. Under that practice it
23
would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service or if an overnight delivery service shipment,
24
deposited in an overnight delivery service pick-up box or office on the same day with postage or fees
25
thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business.
26 27 28
LITTLER MENDELSON
A PROFESSIONAL CORPOIU1
2050 hUin SlrMI
Suila 900
Irvmi. CA 92B14
949 70S 3000
PROOF OF SERVICE
Case 3:08-cv-00842-JM-BLM
Document 5
Filed 05/13/2008
Page 31 of 31
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
LITTLER MENDELSON 2050 Miin Slraet Sum 900 Irvin,, CA 92614 949 705 3000
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on May 9, 2008, at Irvine, California.
i.- l^^iuAuSdjU^L^--Jeannine R. Watson
2.
PROOF OF SERVICE
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms