Free Notice of Removal - District Court of California - California

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW
. -f r...d1 [.-..

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 1 of 38
1& 00 1103U

e^

^v

rnp

If 1;300404jo

wU; t tKN_A t I IIRNEy

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations RICHARD 3_ SIMMONS, Cll. Bar No. 72666 31{ DEREK R. HAV'EL U. Barr No. 193464 GEOFFREY D. DEBOSKEY, Cal. Bar No. 211557 4 II LAUREN D. THIBODEA'[. X Cal_ Bar No. 239997 333 South Hope Street, 48th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1448 Telephone: 213-620-1780 Facsimile: 213-620-1398 [email protected] tTpardmullin.cora 7 dliavel ggdeDOS ey sheppardrnull>.n.corn 8 lrhibodeaux@sheppardmullin com 9 Attnrrieys for Defendant KELLY SERVICES,
INC_

.

"Is

lCr tit

,^W.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN

TRr

O Case No.

jr

f of CA'1H.ER. NE E. SULLIVAN, On hmelf and all others similarly situated, laintiff, KELLY SERVICES, INC., and ROES 1 to
19 It 10, inclusive,,

°^'184^

TyB^W ^ KELL-'' sEx'vlCls t INC.'S NOTICE OF REMOVAL & ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U-S.C. §§ 1332,1441, AND 1446 [Compliant Filed April 2,0, 20071
Trial Date: None Set

23

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES

24 DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFOR Lk AND 25 , TO PLAINTIFF AND HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

t^2-WEST- LDTIW6D31709&.1

DEFENDANT MLY SERVICE5, INC'S
NOnCE OF REMOVAL

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 2 of 38

1 2

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant, Kelly Services, Inc. ("KSI"), by its undersigned attorneys, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 and 1446, hereby removes to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the action captioned Catherine E. Sullivan v. Kelly Services, Inc., which is currently pending in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda,

6 as Case No. RG 07321759 (hereinafter the "State Court Action"). 7

1. THE PARTIES AND THEIR CITIZENSHIP Defendant KSI is a 1. corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business located in Troy, Michigan. (Complaint ¶9, Exh. A; Declaration of Debra Jordan ("Jordan Decl.") ^ 3).' Thus, KSI is a citizen of Michigan and/or Delaware for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, and is not a citizen of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c).

2.

At the time of Plaintiff Catherine E. Sullivan's ("Plaintiff')

employment with KSI as a temporary employee in 2006, KSI earned the majority of its revenue in states outside of California, and no single state generated an inordinately large proportion of its revenue. For example, only 11.6% of KSI's revenue was derived from California. (Jordan Decl. ^ 4). Under a "substantial predominance" analysis, no single state conducts the vast majority of KSI's business activities. See Industrial Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1094 (9" Cir. 1990).

3.

Under the "nerve center" test, KSI's principal place of business is

Michigan. See Tosco Corp_ v. Communities for a Better Environment, 236 F.3d
I

Filed herewith as Exhibit A to this Notice of Removal are copies of all of the pleadings, processes and orders that have been served upon KS1 to date, and that have been filed in the State Court Action.
-2DEFENDANT KELLY SERVICES, INC.`S NOTICE OF REMOVAL

W02-WEST: I LDTI\400317098.1

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 3 of 38

495, 500 (9"' Cir. 2001). KSI's corporate headquarters, where the majority of executive and administrative functions are performed, and corporate offices and executives are located in Michigan. (Jordan Decl. ^ 3). Accordingly, KSI's principal place of business is appropriately Michigan. Plaintiff is a California employee of KSI assigned to temporary

b

4.

7 work for KSI's clients. At all times relevant to this action she has been a resident of

the State of California. (Complaint Tj^ 6, 8, Exh. A; Jordan Decl. T 7). Residence is prima facie evidence of domicile. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Dyer, 19 F.3d 514, 520 (10"' Cir. 1994). Accordingly, Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California, and she is not a citizen of the State of Delaware or the State of Michigan for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. The putative plaintiff class members are KSI employees assigned

5.

to work for KSI customers "whose employment in California ended from four years prior to the filing" of Plaintiffs Complaint through the date of the action's resolution. (Complaint's 17, Exh. A). Plaintiffs theory of liability hinges on the allegation that for purposes of sections 201 and 202 of the California Labor Code, an employee is "discharged" or "quits" when a temporary assignment with KSI ends. KSI records indicate that the vast majority of these putative class members (i.e. employees whose temporary assignments ended in California within four years of the filing of the Complaint) have last known addresses located within the State of California. (Jordan Decl. ^ 8). Therefore, KSI asserts and affirmatively alleges that at least one (and probably almost all) of the members of this putative class are not citizens of the State of Delaware or the State of Michigan, and are instead citizens of California.

W02-WEST: I LDT 1\400317098.1

DEFENDANT KELLY SERVICES, INC.'S NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 4 of 38

H. TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL 6. The State Court Action was filed in the Superior Court for the County of Alameda on or about April 20, 2007. (Complaint p. 1, Exh. A).

7.

KST's agent for service of process was served with a file-stamped

copy of the Summons and Complaint on April 28, 2007. (Jordan Decl. T 5).
7

8.

This Notice of Removal is timely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1446(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), in that it is fled within thirty (30) days after KS1 was served with a copy of the Summons and Complaint in the State Court Action. See Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999) (holding that the deadline for filing a removal notice is not until thirty (30) days after service of the complaint). III. REMOVAL JURISDICTION UNDER THE CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT "CAFA" 9. The CAFA amended the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, by adding provisions that give federal courts original jurisdiction in class actions where the following factors are met: the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000; any member of the plaintiff class is a citizen of a State different from any defendant or any member of the plaintiff class is a citizen or subject of a foreign state and any defendant is a citizen of a State ("minimal diversity"); C. the primary defendants are not states, state officials, or other government entities against whom the district court may be foreclosed from ordering relief, and
03 1 70 9 8.1 W02-WEST:IL.DT114 0 DEFENDANT KELLY SERVICES, INC.-S NOTICE OF REMOVAL

a. b.

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 5 of 38

d.

the number of members of the plaintiff class is 100 or more.

28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), (d)(5); see also Hart v. FedEx Ground

Package System, Inc., 457 F.3d 675, 679 (7th Cir. 2006).

A. Minimal Diversity 10. In the present case, the minimal diversity requirement of the

CAFA has been met. As noted above, KSI is a citizen of Delaware and Michigan and Plaintiff is a citizen of California and at least one member of plaintiff putative class is a citizen of a state other than Michigan and Delaware. (Compare Complaint ¶^ 6, 8, , Exh. A with Complaint ^ 9, Exh. A; Jordan Decl. TTI 3, 4, 7, 8). Accordingly, the minimal diversity requirement of the CAFA is satisfied in two separate and equally sufficient manners. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A) & (B).

11.

Also in the present case, the sole Defendant, KSI, is not a state,

state official, or other government entity "against whom the district court may be foreclosed from ordering relief"

B.

Class Size 12. With respect to the CAFA requirement of numerosity, Plaintiffs

Complaint asserts that there are at least 50 individuals in the putative class, however KSI records indicate that at least 277,380 temporary assignments ended during the relevant time period. In 2006 alone, there were 35,903 putative class members. (Complaint X18, Exh. A; Jordan Decl. ^ 9). The scope of this class, as identified in Plaintiffs Complaint, is every California-based KSI employee assigned to work for KSI customers in California from four (4) years prior to filing of this action to the conclusion of this action. Clearly, that number is well in excess of 100.

W02-WEST:ILDTI14003I7098.1

DEFENDANT KELLY SERVICES, INC.'s NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 6 of 38

C. Amount In Controversy 13. While Plaintiffs Complaint does not set forth the precise amount

of money being sought from KSI, the allegations therein make it clear that the aggregated amount in controversy for the putative class exceeds $5,000,000. See 28
5 6 7 8

U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6) ("the claims of the individual class members shall be aggregated to determine whether the matter in controversy the sum or value of $5,000,000.").

14.

KS's burden to demonstrate the amount in controversy is low.

It need show only that there is "a reasonable probability that the stakes exceed" $5,000,000. Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446, 449 (7 h Cir. 2005). Indeed, KSI need not provide this Court with "proof' or "evidence" that Plaintiff actually will recover more than $5,000,000; rather, removal is proper as long as "a recovery exceeding $5 million for the class as a whole is not `legally impossible."' Id. at 448-49.

15.

The First Cause of Action of the Complaint alleges that KSI

improperly failed to timely pay the putative class members their final wages at the time of discharge or resignation over the course of a four (4) year period. (Complaint ^ 26-29, Exh. A). Plaintiff interprets "discharge" or "resignation" to mean the end of any temporary work assignment. KSI vigorously disagrees with this interpretation. Under Plaintiffs theory, Plaintiff seeks to recover:

a.

"wages due Plaintiff and any Class Members who have left the employment of KS1 and interest thereon;" (Complaint TT 28, 38, Exh. A) and waiting time penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 203. (Complaint T^ 29, 39, Exh. A).

W02-WEST: I LDTI1400317098.1

DEFENDANT KELLY SERVICES, INC.'s NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 7 of 38

Because Plaintiffs temporary assignment with KSI ended on August 11, 2006 and she received her paycheck on her regular pay date, August 16, 2006, Plaintiff claims that she is entitled to waiting time penalties in an amount equal to five (5) days of wages. (Complaint's 12, 14, Exh. A). While employed by KSI, Plaintiff was paid $190.00 per day. (Jordan Decl. T 10). Therefore, assuming
arguendo that Plaintiffs theory of liability is correct and that she worked 8 hours per

day, Plaintiff is owed a total of $950 in waiting time penalties. (Jordan Decl. 11). Given that the number of temporary assignments that ended in California is 277,380, the average recovery per ending assignment under the First Cause of Action of the Complaint need only be $18.03 to satisfy the $5,000,000 threshold. Assuming Plaintiff is in fact representative of her putative class, the potential recovery per temporary assignment is $950.00. This would yield a recovery well in excess of $500,000.00 if at the end of each temporary assignment an employee is owed waiting time penalties for at least five (5) days of wages during the four (4) year class period. Accordingly, there is "a reasonable probability that the stakes exceed" $5,000,000. Brill, 427 F.3d at 448-49.

16.

Count II alleges that KSI violated Business and Professions Code

§ 17200 et seq. (Complaint's 30-34, Exh. A). Plaintiff seeks to recover injunctive relief. (Complaint T^ 33, 42, Exh. A). See Tropp v. Western-Southern Life Ins. Co., 381 F.3d 591, 595 (7"' Cir. 2004)(holding the amount in controversy includes "the cost of implementing the injunctive relief requested.") Therefore, the cost of implementing changes to KSI's payroll system is properly included in the

calculation of estimated damages.

17.

Plaintiff also seeks to recover her attorneys' fees under both

Counts of her Complaint. (Complaint ^T 29, 40, 43, Exh. A). These are properly considered in the analysis of the amount in controversy. See Qshana v. Coca-Cola
W02-WEST: I LDTI\400317098.1 DEPENDANT KELLY SERVICES, INC.'s NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 8 of 38

1

Co., 472 F.3d 506, 512 (7t' Cir 2006)("attorneys' fees up to the time of removal also

2 count toward the jurisdictional amount.")

18.

Taking the aggregate damages sought and the cost of complying

with the injunctive relief Plaintiff seeks, it is clear that there is "a reasonable probability that the stakes exceed" $5,000,000. Brill, 427 F.3d at 448-49. Accordingly, removal is proper. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).

D. CAFA Exceptions Are Not Applicable 19. Further, while 28 U.S.C. § 1332(4)(3)&(4) does recognize

situations where this Court may or must decline jurisdiction despite the fact that the minimal diversity and the amount in controversy requirements of § 1332(d)(2) are satisfied, this case does not fall into either category because KSI is not a citizen of California. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 133 l(d)(3)(discretionary declination of jurisdiction limited to situations where "the primary defendants are citizens of the state where the action was originally filed.") and 13 3 1 (d)(4)(A)(local controversy mandatory declination limited to where "at least one defendant is ... a citizen of the State in which the class action was filed." See also 13 3 1 (d)(4)(B)(home state controversy mandatory declination limited to cases where "the primary defendants are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed."). Additionally, Plaintiff shoulders the burden of establishing that any of these exceptions apply. Hart, 457 F.3d at 682 ("Our holding [is] that the plaintiff has the burden of persuasion on the question whether the home-state or local controversy exceptions apply.")

IV. VENUE 20. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California pursuant to

29 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2), because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the alleged claims occurred in the Northern District of California. Venue in the
W02-WEST: ILDT114 0 0 3 1 70W I DEFENDANT KELLY SERVICES, INC.'S NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 9 of 38

Northern District of California is also proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) because the county in which the State Court Action was pending is found within this District.

V. DEFENSES 21. The removal of this action to the Northern District of California does not waive KSI's ability to assert any defense to this action.

22.

KSI has filed a true and correct copy of this Notice of Removal

with the Superior Court for the County of Alameda.

WHEREFORE, KSI has removed this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, in accordance with the statutes in such cases made and provided.

Dated: May 29, 2007

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 7 CHARD Jj-n-M I S DEREK A VEL . GEOFF D. DEBOSKEY LAUREN D. THIBODEAUX Attorneys for Defendants KELLY SERVICES, INC.

By

W02-WEST: I LDT I1400317098,1 I

DEFENDANT KELLY SERVICES, INC.'S NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 10 of 38

EXHIBIT "A"

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 11 of 38

-L-P bDi

Q

JADE BUTMAN (SBN 235920)
KELLER GROVEL LLP 425 Second Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, California 94107
Phone: (415) 543-1305,
^
,r: U

D
0.t T

Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
Attorneys for Plaintill' Catherine E. Sullivan

.I01H1;QtJRT CLEFMKOFIVt :iUi F-R By ja-sha Perry, Deputy

SUPEf IOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 11 H CATHERINE E. SULLI VAN, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: 1. VIOLATION OF LABOR CODES §§ 201-202
2, UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (Violation of California Business and Professions Code §§ 17204 et seq.)

15

.

KELLY SERVICI^S, INC, and DOES I TO 1 611 iD , inc l us i ve,

-10-

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 12 of 38

T.... - - PlaintifLCathorinE^tlli_{herefler_"Plaintiff'', by_and throztgh her attgmeys, alleges upon personal knowledge as to herself and her acts stated herein, and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows: L INTRODUCTION 1. This class action is on behalf of a class of former employees of Defendant KELLY

SERVICES, INC_ ("KELLY SERVICES"). Defendant failed to pay these workers their final checks 7 in a timely manner, in violation of Labor Code §§ 201-202. 8 2. Plaintiff, CATHERINE E. SULLIV AN, was employed by KELLY SERVICES from

March 16 through August 11, 2006. Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff her final paycheck on her last 10 clay of work, violating Labor Code § 201. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to waiting time 11 penalties under Labor Code § 203. 12 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant's practice of

13 not paying its employees' final paycheck in a timely manner following discharge or resignation 14 extends to scores of people formerly employed by Defendant, going back four years. 15 4, California law, as set forth in Labor Code §§ 201 and 202, provides that if an

9 16 employer discharges an employee, the employer must pay the employee their earned and unpaid 17 wages immediately. The employee must also be paid immediately if he or site resigns and provides
18 at least 72 hours notice of their resignation. Finally, if an employee resigns without providing 72 19 hours notice of their resignation, the employer must pay the employee the final check within 72 20 hours.

21

5.

Plaintiff seeks all available remedies for violations of Labor Code §§ 201 and 202,

22 and, to the extent allowable by lave, restitution and/or disgorgement in connection with Defendant's 23 violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. 24 25 6. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Business &

26 Professions Code § 17204 and Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10. This Court has personal 27 jurisdiction over the parties because Plaintiff is aresident of the State of California. The Defendant

Class Action Complaint

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 13 of 38

has._17 oflte ^n__Ca if rn^.a_..a? d s ste at cal
2 California.

and__cont nualiy_ does ..business_ n._the_ tate .of_.__.._.

3 7. Venue is proper in this Court because Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § § 395 and 395.5, along with case law interpreting those sections, provide that if a foreign corporation fails to designate with the office of the California Secretary of State a principal place of business in California, it is subject to being sued in any county that a Plaintiff desires. On information and belief, Defendant s a foreign corporation that has failed to designate a principal place of business with the office of
the Secretary of State.

III, THE PARTIES S. Plaintiff Catherine E. Sullivan is a California resident. She worked for KELLY SERVICES as a temporary employee sent to Managed Health Network to work on projects from March 16 through August 11, 2006. 9. Defendant KELLY SERVICES, INC. is a Delaware corporation. Defendant owns

and/or operates temporary agencies in California. Defendant sends people it hires to work on projects for its clients throughout the state. 10. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued as

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities once they are ascertained. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff makes all allegations contained in this Complaint against all of the Defendants, including Does I through 10,

IV. FACTUAL 13ACKGROUND A. Defendant Failed to Pay Plaintiff Her Final Check on Her Final Day 11. Plaintiff was a temporary employee of Defendant and was sent out to one client to

work on projects. 12. Plaintiff's tenure at KELLY SERVICES lasted through August. 11, 2006. At that

time. Defendant took Plaintiff off her assignment and did not reassign her to a new project. 13. 14. Plaintiff did not receive her final check on the final day she worked for Defendant. Plaintiff had to wait until August 16, 2006 to receive her final check.
^ Class Action Complaint

-2

-12-

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 14 of 38

15.

Plaintiff brims this action individually and on behalf of a class of people similarly

situated. This action is brought and can be properly maintained as a class action pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 382. Questions of law and fact common to the class predominate over questions affecting individual members. This class action satisfies the numerosity, typicality, adequacy, predominance and superiority requirements of those provisions. Therefore, a class action is superior to other methods of adjudicating the claims. 16. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times herein

mentioned, KELLY SERVICES engaged in a policy and practice of not timely paying wages owing to its employees assigned to its customers, upon discharge or resignation from their employment in California. 17. Definition of Plaintiff Class. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and

a class of KELLY SERVICES employees assigned to work for KELLY SERVICES' customers whose employment in California envied from four years prior to the filing of this action through the date this action is resolved. Plaintiff reserves the right under California Rules of Court section 3.765 to amend or modify the class description, or to seek to limit certification to specific issues. 18. Nurnerosity of the Class. The Plaintiff Class is so numerous that individual joinder

of all members i s unpractical under the circumstances of this case. While the exact number of Class Members is unknown to Plaintiff at this time and can only be ascertained after discovery directed to Defendant, Plaintiff'believe,s and therefore alleges that the Class consists of over 50 individuals. 19. Typicality of Claims. Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the members

of the Class, and Plaintiff's interests are consistent with and not antagonistic to those of the other Class Members she seeks to represent. Plaintiff and all Class Members have sustained damages and face irreparable harm arising out of Defendant's common course of conduct as alleged herein. The damages sustained by each member of the Class were caused directly by Defendant's wrongful conduct, as alleged herein. 20. Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the

interests of the members of the Class. Plaintiff's claims are not antagonistic to those of the

-13-

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 15 of 38

2 class actions,

including wage and hour class actions, and Plaintiff intends to prosecute this action

3 vigorously21. Community of Interest; Existence and Predominance of Common Questions of Law or F act. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class that 6 1 predominate over any questions affecting only individual Glass Members. These common legal and
factual questions, which do not vary among Class Members, and which may be determined without reference to the individual circumstances of any Class Member include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Does KELLY SERVICES maintain a policy and practice of not assuring that the (final wages ofits employees are timely paid in compliance with Labor Code §§ 201 and 202? (b) Is Kl.LLY SERVICES liable for waiting-time remedies pursuant to Labor Code § 203 if it does not pay its employees within the time frames prescribed in Labor Code §§ 201 and 202? (c) Is the violation of Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 a basis upon which an unfair business practice cause of action can be maintained? 18 11 22. Superiority. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and

19 efficient adjudication of this controversy, since individual litigation of the claims of each Class 20 Member is impracticable. Even ifevery individual Class Member could afford individual litigation, 21 the court system could not_ It would be unduly burdensome to the court in which the individual 22 litigation of the numerous cases would proceed. Individualized litigation would also present the 23 potential for varying, inconsisteni, or contradictory judgments and would magnify the delay and 24 expense to all parties and to the court system resulting from multiple trials of the same complex 25 factual issues. By contrast. she conduct of this action as a class action presents few management . 26 difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and of the court system, and protects the rights 27 of each Class Member. I3lai nti ff anticipates no difficulty in the management of this action as a class 28 action.

Class Action Complaint

-14-

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 16 of 38

Vi=e

1* 2 1 of conflicting adjudications that would be diapositive of the interests of the other Class Members not parties to such adjudications or that would substantially impair or impede the ability of such non-party Class Members to protect their interests. 5 24. The prosecution of individual actions by Class Members would establish inconsistent

6 standards of conduct for Defendant. 7 25. Defendant has acted or has refused to act in a manner generally applicable to the

Class, thereby making appropriate final and injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with regard to members of the Class as a whole, as requested herein. Likewise, Defendant's 10 11 conduct as described above is unlawful, continuing and capable of repetition and will continue 11 unless restrained and enjoined by the Court. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of Labor Code §§ 201 and 202) 14 26. The preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated by

15 reference. 16 27. . KELLY SERVICES employed and paid Plaintiff and other Class Members to work

17 on projects for clients in California. 18 2K Plaintiff is informed and believes and consequently alleges that throughout the three

19 year time period embraced by this cause of action, KELLY SERVICES' employment of over 50 20 employees in California ended by discharge or resignation and these Class Members were not 21 timely paid their final uncontested wages as required by Labor Code § § 201 and/or 242. Plaintiff 22 is informed and believes that KELLY SERVICES had a policy and practice of paying such persons 23 without regard for the requirements of Labor Code §§ 201 and /or 202. 24 29. Pursuant to Labor Code § 243, KELLY SERVICES is obligated to pay the Class

2 5 Members one day of wages for each day their wages were late up to a maximum of 30 days of 26 wages, plus, to the extent allowed by lave, interest, attorney fees, and cost of suit incurred herein.

-15-

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 17 of 38

99D CAUM (Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seg.)
3
4

30.
reference.

The preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated by

S

31.

't'hroughout the period starting four years before the filing of this action, Defendant

6 le ngaged 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

in and continued to engage in unlawful and unfair business practices in California by

racticing, employing and utilizing the employment practices alleged above, namely failing to pay its employees final wages within the time periods specified under Labor Code §§ 201 and 202. 32. Defendant's use of such unlawful and unfair business practices constitutes unfair

competition and provides an unfair advantage over Defendant's competitors, in violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. 33. Plaintiff seeks, on herbehalf and on behalf of a class of people similarly situated, full

restitution of monies and/or disgorgement of profits generated thereby, as necessary and according to proof, t0 restore any and all monies withheld, acquired and/or converted by the Defendant and/or profits generated thereby by means of the unfair practices complained of herein. 34. Plaintiff seeks, on her behalf and on behalf of a class of people similarly situated, an

injunction prohibiting Defendant from continuing to engage in the unlawful and unfair business practices complained of herein. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant, as follows: CLASS CERTIFICATION: 35. 36. 37. That this action be certified as a class action; That Plaintiff be appointed as the representative of the class, and That Counsel for Plaintiff be appointed as class counsel. AS TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: 39. Upon the First Cause of Action, for all wages due Plaintiff and any Class Members who have left the employment oFKELLY SERVICES in an amount according to proof, with interest thereon from the date such continuation wages were due;

26
27 28

0

Class Action Complaint

^

-16-

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW
I

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007
l

Page 18 of 38

t..

,. ainffri ,mac.ave i cIfC1L3^ VYLA lZiEFFii7i1' Lil[QS]

^ and t

§ 243; and 40. For reasonable attorneys' fees and costs allowed by law and according to proof. AS TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:
For restitution and/or disgorgement of profits as allowed by law and according to 41.

42. 81
9

For injunctive relief, and For attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 1021.5.

43.

KELLER GROV ER LLP

B Y'

C- -, ,_c ( ERIC A. GROVER Attorneys for Plaintiff

JURY TRIAL DEMAND
18 Plaintiff demands a trial by jury as to all issues so triable.

KELLER GROVER LLP

By.

ERIC A. GROVER Attorneys for Plaintiff

Class Action Complaint

-17-

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 19 of 38
CM-401

i-ATTQi triE' r S?F?A.RfY WITHOUTArTi: itNCY {+vrrmo, sr,r^ ew rrtimbs+. anti aCWSSSJ: -sa. (SBN 135080) Eric A. Grc-v&, F-

FOR COWiT USE ONLY

KEL LE R G OVER MY
^p y ^'

San Frarcj. Bo, CA 44107 -No.: (415) 543-7861 iELCPHONE340.: (415) 543-1305 krTORNEY FOR f110MVY Pla inlif3 Catherine E, Sull i van SUPER40R COURT Of G.x.IFORNIA, COUNTY or ALAMEDA
a TREEr ADDRESS· MALNG ADRRE· 58:

_ -

-

t _·

-i

1225 Fallon Strcct

APR
by Taihalrrz^-

cirYAaonPCOt+ eeRAh .I-1 r:AME:

t?ak)antl , (A 9461 Rene C . Davidson Courthouse

CASE NAME:

Catherine E. Sullivan v. Kelly Services, inc., ct al. CASE NUMBER: CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Desig nation ^ Limited 5 Unlimited Joinder C ount er (Amount (Amount JUDGE: demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant demanded (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) or:P'r: $25,0()0 or less) exceeds 525,(3(30} 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: Contract Auto Tort 1 Breach of caTtracthvarranty(436) Auto (22) Uninsured rrid liSt (46) Collections (09) Insurance coverage (18) Oilier PIIPDIWD (Personal InjurylProperty Damage/wrongful Death) Tart Otfaer wntract (37) r^ Asbestos (04) Real Property Product liability (24) Eminent domaintnverse Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation {Gel. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403) l
AnGtrustllrade regulation (03) Construction defect (i Q) Mass fort (40) Securities litigation (28) Environmental/Toxic tort (30)

0 0

1

Medical melprectice (45)

Condemnation (14)

Wrongful eviction (33) 0 Other PVP0A1V D (23) Other real property (26) NorhPI1PDAND (Other) Torl 0 Business tortlunfair business practice (07) Unlawful Detainer Civil rights (08) 0 Commercial (31)

Insurance coverage claims arising from the above fisted provisionally complex case types (41) Enforcement of Judgment Enforcement of judgment (20)
Miscellaneous Civil Complaint RICO (27)

= Detamation (13)
Fraud (16) Inteltectual property (19) Professional negligence (25) Other rion-PIIP01WD tort (35)

Residential (32) Drugs (38)

Judicial Review
Asset forfeiture (D5)

t m layment Wrongfvl teiminatlon (36)
r J

Petition re: arbitration award (11) vym of mandate (02) El Other judicial roview (39)

i.l other cornpwnt (net sp®cjr d aboYe) (42) Miscellaneous civil Petition Partnership and corporate governance (21) Other petition (Mt specified above) (43)

Other ernploynent (15)

2. This case ^ is = 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. t l Large number of separately represented parties d. = Large number of witnesses

Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court issues that will be time-consurning to resolve f. Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision Substantial amount of documentary evidence c. 3. Type of remedies sought (check all that apply): c. = punitive a, a monetary b. *' nonmonetary, declaratory or injunctive relief = rt ^ 4. Number of causes of ac ^i-o-"n {specify): 2 b.
5- This case ^ is L__J is not a class action suit.

6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may yse form CM-015.) Date: April 20, 2007 Eric A, Grover, ESq,
(TYPF OR i IuW WMC)

-(SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTpRt.FEY FOR PAriTY}

NOTICE · Plaintiff must file This toyer siieet w 4h the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small clair:ls 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 addilion to any cover sheet required by local court rule.
· if this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the Californa 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 Adapted for Aianderory U : ,Po*-i ^r Coen al of C- Aonna
CM-013 JRav. Jarwary t, 2QOrt

Page 1 of 2
eel. R+Res Court nJea 3.220, 3.443-3-d pi: $faitdmrrls of J. 4 1 Ad w t mlion. 5 19 t
xww.c»vrtlnlu.ce.Bov

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

_ amwrK;on L-pdi ot. xu :!!* fn+v^+or[M.w_mm

-18-

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 20 of 38

1 Un}ff Drift:: cfdw Sugcrlur Court ofCallfarrVa, County ol'Al2meda

t». ADQE jDUIv1 Tt3QVlt: CAS c^yFR F
Short Title

T
m

4A LIAV KEt.:I Y-SERVICES A

C et al.
_

r
ai

x*., .0. A

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM
THIS FORM IS REQUIRED IN ALL NEW UNLIiTFD CIVIL CASE F ILINGS IN HE

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, GOIINTY OF ALAAItEDR C' ]Hayward Hall of Justice (447) t Oakland, Rene C. Davidson Alameda County Courthouse (446)
Y Civil Cass Cover Sheet Case Type.: Auto tort (22) ^,

( ] Pleasanton, Gale-5chenc^rte Hall of Jtlstk:e ]448)
ti Y h^eN rte, . t
-` -

Gill Case Cover sheet Category Auto Tors

d S-

«^.,

, _+

Y,

,.

Alameda Cciun

Case.:T

a check 0n1 .'-0h6 1' _..1
es no

Auto tort (G) j ] 34 Is this an uninsured motorist case? 75 ( ] { ] [ ] ( ] [ ( ] [ } [ } ( ] ly]^ [ ] ] ] [ ] 1 ] [ ] [ ] [ ( ) [ } ] ] 89 97 33 79 80 84 24 87 59 03 38 85
53

Other PI 1PD 1 WD Tort

Asbestos (04) Product liability (24) Medical malpractice (45) Other PIIFDIWD tort 23)

Aahestos (D) Product liability (noel asbestos or toxic torlenviroamental) (G) Medicai malpractice (G) Other PI?PDNMO tort G Si4 tort 1 unfa'v bus. practice (G) Civic rights (G) Defamation (G) Fraud (G) Intellectual property (G) Professional negligence - rion-modicai (G) Other non-PVPDMfII tort G) Wrongful termination (G) Other employment (G) Labor comm award confirmation Nonce of a peal - L.C.A. Breach contract 1 Wmty (G) Collections (G) Ins. oevorage - non-Complex (G) Other contract G Eminent domain 1 Inv Com (G) Wrongful eviattoi'r (G) eri G Other real Unlawful Detainer - .commercial Unlawful Detainer - residential Unlawful detainer - drugs Asset forfeiture Pet. re: arbitration award Writ of rnandate [ No Is the deli. In possession of the property? ] Yes [ ] No

Non - Pt 1PD 7 'AND Taft

Bus tort f unfair bus. paclice (07) Civil rights (08) Defamation (13) Fraud (16) intellectual property (19) Professional negligence (25) Other non-PVPDfWD tart 35

Employment

Wrongful termination (36) Other employment (15)

64 Contract Breach contract / V mty (06) Collections (09) insurance coverage (1a) Other contract 37j Real Property Eminent domain 1 Inv Com (14) Wrongful eviction (33) (26) Other real prope Unlawful Detainer Cornmorcial (31) Residential (32) Drugs 38 Judicial Review Asset forfeiture (05) Petition re: arbitration award (11) Writ of Mandate (02) Other Provisionally Complex icial review 3g) 04 81 86 98 1$ 17 36 94 47 21 41 62 49

j ]
[ }

is this a CE4A action (Publ.Res,Code section 21000 et seq) [ ] Yes Other udiclal review 64 ( ] ( ] [ ] ( } [ } [ 1 ( ) [ ] 77 $2 Antitrust I Trade regulation Construction defect Claims involving mass tort Securities litigation Toxic tort i Environmenfai Ins covrg from c*mplex case type Enforcement of judgment Canfessiunof 'ucimeet RICO (G) Partnership i corp. governance (G) All other co taints G) Change of name
Other titipn

Antitrust 1 Tradu regulation (03) Construction defect (10) Claims involving mass 4ort (40) Securities litigation (28) Toxic. tort 1 Environmcntal (30) Ins cov from cmpix case t pe 41 Enforcement of judrmeni (20)

78
91 93 9S 19 08 90 $8 68

Enforcement of Judgment Mist: Complaint

RICO (27) Partnerstsip 1 Corp. governance (21) Other complaint (42

E

M6sc. Civil Petition

Other poti4on (43)

( ) ]

D6 69

242-19 (511100)

A-13

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 21 of 38
SUM-100

FOR COURT U9 cmy (Sa6O PARR VS0 DE LA CORTA}

t

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT; (AVfSO AL DE'MANDADO): KELLY SERVICES, INC. 1 Q V1( ^ } `

ENDORSED { I Y1C U Ve, APR 2 0 2001

YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTR DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTIW): CATHERINE E. SULLIVAN on behall'onccrselfand all others similarly situated

CLE_1 i

(CTF I 1,,ir ii^ " l^ii I { { lJ ^^f yy

You have 30 CALENDAR DAY$ after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at thin court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the Court to hear your case, There may be a court form that you can use for your response, You can find these court forma and more information at the California Courts Online Sell-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.govlseffhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. It you do not rite your response on time, you may lose the 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 attwmey right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. It you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate those nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawheIpcatifornIa,org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca,govlselfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association.

i

7iene 30 b1AS DE CALENDAR10 despucs de que le entreguen esta cltacidn y pape#es legates para presentar una respuesta pot ascr#to , an eats torte y pacer quo se entregue Una copla at demandante. Una Carta a una Hamada telefdnica no to protegen. Su respuesta par escr#to tiene que es tar en formato legal correcto si desea quo procesen so case on to Corte, Es posible pus hays un formulario que usted d pueda usar para su respiesta. Puede erriaontrar estos formular os de is Corte y mss informacivn en et Centro de Ayuda de las Cores de California (www.courtinfa.ca.gov/sellheplespanoto, on la biblloteca de byes de so condado o an Is carte quo to quads, mds carte. Sl no puede pager la cuota de presentacian, plda al secretario de la Corte qua le dii un fonnufario de exenci4nt de pago do cuotes. S1 no presenta su respuesta a tlempo, puede perder el case per incumplirniento y la code le pods} quitar su sualdo, dinero y blenes sin mss sdvertencia. Hay otros requisitos legaics. Es recamendablr quo flame a un abogado inmed#atamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede &mor a un serylcio de remisidn a abogados. Si no poode pager a un abogado, es posible quo cumpla con los requisitos pare obtener servkios legates gratuitos de un programa de servicios legatos sin lines de lucro. Poodle encontrar eslos grupos sin fines de facro an el s#llo web de California Legal Services, (1www.lawhelpcalilomia.org), an el Centro de Ayuda de las Cartes de California, (wwwxourdnfo_ca.gov/selfhelpfaspanoll) o ponl6ndose on contacto con is carte o el colegio de abogados locates,

The nape an address o the coo is: fEl hombre y direccibn de la carte es):

--

Alameda County Superior Court, Rene C. Davidson Courthouse 1225 Fallon Street Oakland, CA 94612
The reams, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El hombre, la direcci&n y el n6mero de tefefono del abogado del domandants, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es):

Eric A. Grover, Keller Grover LLP, 425 Second Street, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94107 Tel: (415) 5433-1305 Fax: ((415) 543-7861
DATE, #!f i^ G U tJ pj.AsWj,24 clerk, by [Deputy
(Adjunto)

(For proof of service d this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-Ul0).) (Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).
is 1

NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1. = as an individual defendant.
2. ('"'"'""j as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
<

3.

V,

on behalf of (specify):

Vs, G'F-

under: ® CCP 416,10 (corporation) CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation)

I

CCP 416.60 (minor) CCP 416.70 (conservatee)

CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) other (specify):
4. " by personal delivery on (date):
0 Forth AdW,,d I- MarAao y Us. Judioat Cauncr1 or Cakbrnia SUK4.100 JR-. January 1. 200al

CCP 416.94 (autho(aed person)

Pago 7 or S Cady at 00 PtacedL r §§ 412.2E1. 4156

SUMMONS

Ame.iti^ Esp.-I -

W1ieN6acVn

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 22 of 38

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION INFORMATION PACKAGE Ap ril _15,200:5
E

Instructions to Plaintiff 1 Cross -Complainant

In all general civil cases filed in the trial courts after June 30, 2001; the plaintiff is required to serve a copy of this ADR information package on each defendant.

California Rules of Court, Rule 2019 Exce t (a) Each court must make available to the plaintiff, at the time of filing of the complaint, an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) information package that includes, at a minimum, all of the following: (1) General information about the potential advantages and disadvantages of ADR and descriptions of the principal ADR processes .. . (2) Information about the ADR programs available in that court .. . (3) In counties that are participating in the Dispute Resolution Pro ;ram., Act (DRPA), information about the availability of local dispute rt:')Iution programs funded under the DRPA ... (4) An ADR stipulation form that parties may use to stipulate to the use of an ADR process. (b) Court may make package available on Web site ... c The Iaintiff must serve a ep v of the ADR information p ackage on, each defendant aloe with the com faint. Cross -com p lainants must serve a ca of the ADR information package on an new p arties to the action aloe with the cross-com plaint.

E
Rev 4105

-21-

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 23 of 38

GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT ADR

introduction to Alterna the iispu

-

--- -- ---- _-

bid you know that most civil lawsuits settle without a trial? And did you know that there are a number of ways to resolve civil disputes without having to sue somebody? These alternatives to a lawsuit are known as alternative dispute resolution (also called ADR). The most common forms of ADR are mediation, arbitration, and neutral evaluation. 'T'here are a number of other kinds of ADR as well. In At)R, trained, impartial persons decide disputes or help parties decide disputes themselves. These persons are called neutrals. In mediation, for example, the neutral is the mediator. Neutrals normally are chosen by the disputing parties or by the court. Neutrals can help parties resolve disputes without having to go to court. ADR is not new. AD R its available in many communities through court-connected and community dispute resolution
!1.nnrarna ^n^ nri,.afz> ,to.,tyale

Advantages of Alternative Dispute Resolution
ADR can have a number of advantages over a lawsuit:

ADR can be speedier. A dispute often can be resolved in a matter of months, even weeks, through. ADR, while a lawsuit can take years. * ADR can save money. Court costs, attorney fees, and expert witness fees can be saved. ADR can permit more participation. With ADR, the parties may have more chances to tell their side of the story than in court and may have more control over the outcome. · ADR can be flexible. The parties can choose the ADR process that is best for them. · ADR can be cooperative.. In mediation, for example, the parties having a dispute may work together with the neutral to resolve the dispute and agree to a remedy that makes sense; to them, rattier than work against each othe r_ AFAR can reduce stress. There are fewer, if any, court appearances. And because ADR can be speedier, cheaper, and can cradle an atmosphere in which the parties are normally rooperat'ive, ADR is easier on the nerves. The parties don't have a lawsuit hanging over their heads. For all the above reasons, many people have reported a high degree of satisfaction with ADR. Because of these advantages, many parties choose ADR to resolve a dispute instead of filing a lawsuit. Even when a lawsuit has been filed, ADR_can'be used before the parties` positions harden and the lawsuit becomes costly. ADR has been used to resolve disputes even after a trial, when the result is appealed.

Disadvantages of Alternative Dispute Resolution
ADR may not be suitable for every dispute. If ADR is binding, the parties normal ly give up most court protections, including a decision by a judge or jury under formal rules of evidence and procedure and review for legal error by an appellate court. Where generally is less opportunity to find out about the other side's case with ADR than with litigation. ADR may not be effective if it takes place before the parties have sufficient information to resolve the dispute. The neutral may charge a fee for his or her services. If a dispute is not resolved through ADR, the parties may have to put time and money into both ADR and a lawsuit. Lawsuits must be brought within specified periods of time, known as statutes of limitations. Parties must be careful not to let a statute of limitations run out while a dispute is in an ADR process.

Rev 4/05

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 24 of 38

Three Common Types of Alternative Dispute Resolution
This section describes the forms of ADR most often found in the California state cnu s and- cscusses w right for a dispute. Mediation In mediation, a neutral (the mediator) assists the parties in reaching a mutually acceptable resolution of their dispute. Unlike lawsuits or some other types of ADR, the mediator does not decide how the dispute is to be resolved; the parties do. Mediation is a cooperative process in which the parties worts together toward a resolution that tries to meet everyone's interests, instead of working against each other where at least one party doses. Mediation normally leads to better relations between the parties and to resolutions that hold up. For example, mediation has been very successful in family disputes, particularly with child custody and visitation. Mediation is particularly effective when the parties have a continuing relationship, like neighbors or business people. Mediation also is very effective where personal feelings are getting in the way of a resolution. This is because mediation normally gives the parties a chance to let out their feelings and find out how they each see things. Mediation may not be a good idea when one party is unwilling to discuss a resolution or when one party has been a victim of the other or has unequal bargaining power in the mediation. However, mediation can be successful for victims seeking restitution from offenders. A mediator can meet with the parties separately when there has been violence between them.
Arbitration

-e^

In arbitration, a neutral (the arbitrator) reviews evidence, hears arguments, and makes a decision (award) to resolve the dispute. Arbitration normally is more informal and much speedier and less expensive than a lawsuit Often a case that may take a week to try in court can be heard by an arbitrator in a matter of hours, because evidence can be submitted by documents (like medical reports and bills and business records) rather than by testimony. There are two kinds of arbitration in California. (1) Private arbitration, by agreement of the parties involved in the dispute, takes plane outside of the courts and is normally binding, In most cases "binding" means that the arbitrator's decision (award) is final and there will not be a trial or an appeal of that decision. (2) "Judicial arbitration" takes place within the court process and is not binding unless the parties agree at the outset to be bound:. A party to this kind of arbitration who does not like a judicial arbitration award may file a request for trial with the court within a specified time. However, if that party does not do better in the trial than in arbitration, he or she may have to pay a penalty. Arbitration is best for cases where the parties want a decision without the expense of a trial. Arbitration may be better than mediation when the parties have no relationship except for the dispute. Arbitration may not be a good idea when the parties want to decide on the outcome of their dispute themselves.
Neutral ;"valuation

In evaluation, a neutral (the evaluator) gives an opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of each party's evidence and arguments and makes an evaluation of the case. Each party gets a chance to present his or her side and hear the other side. This may lead to a settlement or at least help the parties prepare to resolve the dispute later on. if the neutral evaluation does not resolve the dispute, the parties may go to court or try another forma of ADR. Neutral evaluation, like mediation, can come early in the dispute and save time and money. Neutral evaluation is most effective when a party has an unrealistic view of the dispute, when the only real issue is what the case is worth, or when there are technical or scientific questions to be worked out. Neutral evaluation may not be a good idea when it is too soon to tell what the case is worth or if the dispute is about something besides money, like a neighbor playing loud music late at night.

Rev 410 S

-23-

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 25 of 38

Other Types of Alternative Dispute Resolution watiqr . Some of tties_ are summary r^e^e^! Som cohncilliiation, settlement conferences, fact-finding, mire-trial, and strand jury trials.-- climes pa es wr^^^. combination of AUR methods. The important thing is to try to find the type or types of A13R that are most likely to resolve your dispute. The selection of a neutral is an important decision. There is no legal requirement that the neutral be licensed or hold any particular certificate, However, some programs have establishers qualification requirements for neutrals: You may wish to inquire about the qualifications of any neutral you are considering. Agreements reached through AOR normally are put in writing by the neutral and, if the parties wish, may become binding contracts that can be enforced by a judge. You may wish to seek the advice of an attorney about your legal rights and other matters relating to the dispute.

Help Finding an Alternative Dispute Resolution Provider in Your Community To locate a dispute resolution program or private neutral in your community:
« Visit the Court's Web site. The-Atameda County Superior Court maintains a list of court-connected mediators, neutral evaluators, and private arbitrators at htto:llwww.co,alameda.ca.us/courts/adr.htm, · Contact the Small Claims Court Legal Advisor. The small claims legal advisor for Alameda County is located at the Wiley W_ Manuel Courthouse, Self-Help Center. The phone number is 510-268-7666. · Visit the California Department of Consumer Affairs' Web site. The Department of Consumer Affairs (also called the ©CA) has posted a fist of conflict resolution programs throughout the state. The list can be found at http://www.dca,ce,govlr r/mediat l.htm You can also call the Department of Consumer Affairs, Consumer Information Center, at 800-952-5210. · Contact your total bar association. You can find a list of local bar associations in California on the State Bar Wets site at http:/twww.ralbar,org/2]in/2bar.htm. If you cannot find a bar association for your area on the State Bar Web site, check the yellow pages of your telephone book under "Associations." · Look in the yellow pages of your telephone book under "Arbitrators" or "Mediators." · Automotive Repair, Smog Check: The California Bureau of Automotive Repair (also known as BAR) offers a free mediation service for consumers who are dissatisfied with an auto repair or a smog check, or who dispute an invoice for such services. BAR registers and regulates California automotive repair facifities and licenses smog, lamp, and brake inspection stations. Learn more at httpJlsmogcheck,ca.gov/smogweb/geninlo/otherinfo/
mediation.htm or call 800-952-5210.

· Attorney Fees: The State Bar of California administers a mandatory fee arbitration program to resolve attorney fee disputes between lawyers and their clients. The program is an informal, low-cost forum and is mandatory for a lawyer if a client requests it. Mediation of attorney fees disputes may also be available in some areas of California. Leam more at http:ihvww,calbar.org/2barl3arb]3arbndx.htm or call 415-538-2020.

0
Rev 4105

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 26 of 38

DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAMS IN ALAMEDA COUNTY

Mediation Services 222278 Redwood Road, Castro Valle y, CA 94546 Phone: 51 0733.4940 fax: 570 733-4945 Provides a panel of mediators to assist in the process of reaching an agreement in the areas of Neighborhood Disputes, Child Custody, Divorce, ParenVreel Conflicts, Home Owners Association, Business, Real Estate, Employer/Employee, and Fremont Rent Increases. East Bay Community Mediation 1968 San Pablo Avenue, Berk eley, CA 94702-1612 Phone: (510) 548-2377 fax: (510) 548-405 f. E3CM is a community-based mediation program created by the union of Berkeley Dispute Resolution Service and Conciliation Forums of Oakland. EBCM offers counseling on options and approaches to resolving a dispute, mediation, large-group conflict facilitation, and conflict resolution skills workshops. Catholic Charities of the East Bay: Oakland- Main Office 433 Jefferson Street, Oakland CA 9460'
hone: 510 768-3100 fax: 19)451-6911"21

Mediators are responsible for mediation sessions involving the youth, victim and family members to work towards a mutually agreeable restitution agreement. Also provide free workshops in anger management and mediation. Center for Community Dispute Settlement 1789 Barcelona Street, Livermore, CA 94550
hone: 925 373-103

Provides services in Tri-Valley for all of Alameda County. Program goals are to increase the number of court cases resolved, mediating small claims cases four days per week, and training youth in listening and conflict resolution skills.
0

California Lawyers for the Arts: Oakland Office 1212 Broadway Street, Suite 837, Oakland, CA 94612 hone: 5l0) 444-5_35 ] fax: (510) 444-6352, This program increases the resolution of arts related disputes such as artistic control, ownership of intellectual property, credit for work performed or produced and contract issues, tbrougb the use of alternative dispute resolution. It also increases the capacity to provide services for counseling, conciliation and administration of mediation, arbitration and meeting facilitation.

9
RV, 4105

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 27 of 38

ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ADR PROGRAM

49MR Program Administrator Pursuant to California Rule of Court 1580.3, the presiding judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda has designated Benjamin D. Stough, Berkeley Trial Court Administrator, to serve as ADR.program administrator. A Plaintiff may elect, the parties may stipulate or a judge may refer a case to Judicial Arbitration. The Judicial Arbitration Program Coordinator may be contacted at (510) 570-6645. The Judicial Arbitration Process
i'a [Yiilii llili 0i i;*Ib halal 1111^i5a us; -w uaii ailg iCIL'iI'w ^.kl:[
Lsa^,,1_. Ut{J

Parties mailed list of five names from which to select. (List mailed within referral).

iD business days after receipt of

Each party may reject one of the names listed (LO calendar days per CRC 1605x) The administrator randomly appoints the arbitrators from the games remaining on the list. If only one remains then is deemed appointed. Assignment of Case (!LRC 1605a(4)) Within 15 days of notice of the appointment, the arbitrator shall contact parties in writing about time, date, and place of the hearing. The parties shall receive at least 30 days notice prior to the hearing. Hearings (CRC 1611) =:> Shall be scheduled so as to be completed net less than 35 days nor more than 90 days from the date the arbitrator was assigned. For good cause shown, the case may be continued an additional 90 days by the Case Management Judge. Award of Arbitrator (CRC 1615b 8c c) =:> Arbitrator must file an award within 10 days after conclusion of the arbitration hearing. 7'he court may allow 20 additional days upon application of arbitrator is cases of unusual length or complexity. Within 30 days of the filing of the award the parties may file a Request for Trial de Novo. The clerk shall enter the award as a judgment after 30 days provided a Trial de Novo has not been filed. Return of Case t Court Upon Filing of Trial de Novo the action is returned to Case Management Judge for further proceedings. (CRC 1616 & Local Rule 6.4) If Trial de Novo is not filed then judgment is entered and the Case Management Judge is notified (CRC 1615c & Local Rule 6.6) if parties indicate a settlement then case is returned to Case Management Judge and case is continued 45 days for an Order to Show Cause RE filing a dismissal. (Local Rule b.6)

Rev 4195

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 28 of 38

·

Allen E. Broussard Justice Center Y!ast! _ ton Sleet53ak^and C&94707 _ Frwow ball of justice 39439 Paseo Padre Parkway. Fremont CA 94538 Hayward Hall of Justice
24405 Amador

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA George E. McDonald Hall of Justice C Berkeley Courthouse R. Berke4. CA 94704 2239 Shoreline Bove. Alameda. CA 94501 2000 Canter Street 2fe
ale chol"Ralt aF"dos ce en 5672 Starer' s Oirve, Pleasanton, CA 94588 Rend C. Davifton Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street, Oakienrl. CA 94612

-

"___ _ iley V7 'i^iaii e7 Cbuiti riirie 664 Washing ton Street, Oakland. CA 94607

Sirset. HzTqard, CA 94544

Case No.: Plaintiff
vs.

STIPULATION FOR ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR)
Defendant Ile parties by and through their attorneys of record hereby stipulate to submit the within controversy to the following Alternative Dispute Resolution process:

ORDER The foregoing stipulation having been read and considered, and good cause appearing, now therefore, IT IS SO ORDERED.

IT 1S FURTHER ORDERED that the matter be set for Order to Show Cause Hearing RE:
Dismissal on at a .mJ-p_m. in Department

Dated:

JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

(SEAL)

E
Rev 410

-27-

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 29 of 38

I 11 SHEPPARD, ULI.,7iN, RICHTER & HANTTON LU A United Liability Partnership 2 Inch wing Professional corporations RICHAW J. SAMt7NS., Cal, Bar No. 72666 I)Mt' K R HA EL, Cal Bay' No. 193464 CEQFI I EY D. DEB0SKEY, Cal. Bar No. 211557 411 LAUREN D. TWBODEAUX, CaL Bar No. 239997 333 South Hope Street, 48th Flom 511 Los Angeles, California 90071-1448 Telhone: 213--620-1780
61 t Facsr :ie: 2'13-620-1338

ENDORSED FILE-D ALAMEDA COUtq TY
MAY 2 4 ZG37
CLERK .C7F THE SUPERIOR COURT

By t(MEL_ 13^i-1014 ^Deputy

711+ qwv c .p='-Uau hn-wm e demos eys eppard nullin.com

i l^cnons eppardw llin-om

8. ltlw^tleauiheppardmullirLcom

.911Attorneys for Defendant: KELLY SERVICES,

SUPEOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
CATHERINE E. SULLIVAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
Case No. RG 07321759

DEFENDANT ]KELLY SERVICES, INC.'S ANS ER'TO PLALXTUV'S B R ED CON& AINT ' (Compliant Filed April 20, 20071
Trial Date: None Set

KELLY SERVICES,:INC., and DOES I to

11

10, inclusive,, Defendants.

BY FAX

Kelly Services, bc_ ("Defendant"), for itself and no other defendants, hereby answers plaintiff Catherine E. Sullivan 's unverif Complaint ('Complaint") as follows: ied

62-' sr_ I [ b rl 1n 31^zs8. ]

KELLY SERVICES, INC: S ANSWER To pLAUiTWpS UNVERIFWD COMPLAINT

-28-

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 30 of 38

GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30, Defendant denies generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively, each and every allegation of the Complaint, and denies Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever as against Defendant.

7

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

9 10 II 12
13 14 15 16

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Cause of Action) I. Neither the Complaint, nor any purported cause of action alleged

therein, state facts sufficient to constitute; a cause of action upon which relief can be granted against Defendant.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) 2. The Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are

17 18 19
20

barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of limitations, including but not limited to California Labor Code Section 203; California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 337, 338, 339, 340, and 343; and California Business and Professions Code Section 17208.

21 22 23 4 25 26
27

THIRD AFFIRMA'T'IVE DEFENSE (Lathes)
3.

Defendant is informed and believes, and based upon such information

and belief alleges, that the Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein, are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine of laches.

28
Q:-WESTA LIDTIWG319288 .I
-29-

-2KELLY SERVICES, INC.`S ANSWER TO PLAN TIFF'S UNNERIFIED COMPLAIN

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 31 of 38

I 2 3 4.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) Defendant is informed and believes, and based upon such infbnnation

4 and belief alleges, that Plaintiff is estopped by her conduct from asserting the claims upon 5 which she seeks relief.
b

7
8

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(W aiver)

9

5.

Defendant is informed and believes, and based upon such information

10 and belief alleges, that the Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein l l are barred by the doctrine of waiver. 12 13 14 15 6SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Nandi) Defendant is informed and believes, and based upon such information

16 and belief alleges, that Plaintiff has or had unclean hands with respect to the matters 17 alleged in the Complaint and is, therefore, barred from recovering any relief on the 18 Complaint or any purported cause of action alleged therein. 19 20 21 22 7. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies) Plaintiffs Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged

23 therein, is barred because Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies under the 24 appropriate statutory provisions, including but not limited to Labor Code sections 2599 et 25 sec .
26 27 28
of02-u'EST A LDTIi400319288 .1 -30KELLY SERVICES, TNC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINITFF'S UNVERIFIED CONIPL,AINT

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW

Document 1

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 32 of 38

I 2 3 8.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine) The Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, should be

4 abated in the Court's discretion, and Plaintiff must pursue her administrative remedies 5 under the appropriate statutory provisions, including but not limited to Labor Code 5 sections 2599 et sue., with the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, which 7 has primary jurisdic