Preview
22CV403359
Santa Clara — Civil
PETER J. WOZNIAK (CA SBN 332470)
pwozniak@kslaw.com
KING & SPALDING LLP
110 N Wacker Drive, Suite 3800
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 764-6948
Facsimile: (312) 995-6330
ADRIA K. HARRIS (CA SBN 324333)
akharris@kslaw.com
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree Street N.E. Ste. 1600
Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
Telephone: (404) 572-4600
Facsimile: (404) 572 5100
Attorneys for Defendants
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC and
AMAZON.COM, INC.
Y. Chavez
Electronically Filed
by Superior Court of CA,
County of Santa Clara,
on 10/24/2022 8:25 PM
Reviewed By: Y. Chavez
Case #22CV403359
Envelope: 10300177
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
NICK MILETAK,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC,
AMAZON.COM, INC., AND DOES 1-100
INCLUSIVE,
Defendants.
Case No. 22CV403359
DEFENDANT AMAZON.COM
SERVICES LLC’S NOTICE OF FILING
OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO
FEDERAL COURT (NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE
DIVISION
Complaint Filed: Sept. 21, 2022
Removal to Federal Court: Oct. 24, 2022
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Case No. 22CV403359YD ws
TO THE CLERK OF COURT AND PLAINTIFF:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 24, 2022 Defendant AMAZON.COM
SERVICES LLC (“Amazon”), by and through its attorneys, King & Spalding LLP, filed a
Notice of Removal, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 205, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and § 1441 et seq., of the
above captioned action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a true and correct copy of the Notice of
Removal and accompanying documents that was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), the filing of the
Notice of Removal with the clerk of the United States District Court together with the giving of
this Notice “shall effect the removal and the State court shall proceed no further unless and until
the case is remanded” by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
These representations are made to enable the Court to evaluate possible disqualification or
recusal.
DATED: October 24, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
KING & SPALDING LLP
By: /s/ Adria K. Harris
PETER J. WOZNIAK
ADRIA K. HARRIS
Attorneys for Defendants
Amazon.com Services LLC and
Amazon.com, Inc.
NOTICE OF REMOVAL 1 Case No. 22CV403359EXHIBIT ACase 5:22-cv-06435 Document1 Filed 10/24/22 Page 1 of 10
PETER J. WOZNIAK (CA SBN 332470)
pwozniak@kslaw.com
KING & SPALDING LLP
110 N Wacker Drive, Suite 3800
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 764-6948
Facsimile: (312) 995-6330
ADRIA K. HARRIS (CA SBN 324333)
akharris@kslaw.com
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1600
Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
Telephone: (404) 572-4600
Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
Attorneys for Defendants
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC and
AMAZON.COM, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
NICK MILETAK, Case No. 5:22-cv-6435
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT AMAZON.COM
SERVICES LLC’S NOTICE OF
a REMOVAL
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No.
AMAZON.COM, INC., AND DOES 1-100 22CV403359)
INCLUSIVE,
Action Filed: September 21, 2022
Detendanls: Trial Date: None Set
NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case No. 5:22-cv-6435Case 5:22-cv-06435 Document1 Filed 10/24/22 Page 2 of 10
TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, AND TO PLAINTIFF IN PRO PER:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441, Defendant
Amazon.com Services LLC (“Amazon”) hereby removes to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California the above-captioned state court action, originally filed as Case
No. 22CV403359 in Santa Clara County Superior Court, State of California. Removal is proper
on the following grounds:
L TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL
1. Plaintiff Nick Miletak (“Plaintiff”) filed his Complaint in the State Court Action
on September 21, 2022 against Defendants Amazon.com Services LLC and Amazon.com, Inc.
(together, “Defendants”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), true and correct copies of the
(a) Summons, (b) Complaint, (c) Civil Case Cover Sheet, (d) Civil Lawsuit Notice, and (e) Proof
of Service on Amazon.com Services LLC are attached hereto as Exhibits A through E to the
Declaration of Adria K. Harris (“Harris Decl.”), filed concurrently herewith.
2. According to the Proof of Service Plaintiff filed in the State Court action, the
Summons and Complaint were served on Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC on September
23, 2022. Harris Decl., Ex. E. Removal is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) because this Notice
of Removal is filed “within 30 days after the service of summons upon” Amazon was completed.
Il. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS AND GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL
3. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges four causes of action against Amazon.com
Services LLC and Amazon.com, Inc.: (1) Wrongful Termination of Employment in Violation of
Public Policy; (2) Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy; (3) Intentional Interference with
Prospective Economic Advantage; and (4) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. See
Complaint, Harris Decl., Ex. B (“Compl.”).
4. Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that he “has been unlawfully denied direct
employment with [Amazon] through the Defendants [sic] Amazon Flex app and/or any of their
DSPs” since February 2021. See, e.g., Compl. § 3.
NOTICE OF REMOVAL 1 Case No. 5:22-cv-6435Case 5:22-cv-06435 Document1 Filed 10/24/22 Page 3 of 10
oe For purposes of this removal only, Amazon assumes Plaintiff's allegations are
true.'
6. Removal is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because there is complete
diversity between Plaintiff and Defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See
28 U.S.C. § 1332. Amazon denies Plaintiff's factual allegations and deny that he is entitled to
the relief requested. However, based on the allegations in the Complaint, the prayer for relief,
and the Declarations of Adria K. Harris and Zane Brown, all requirements for federal jurisdiction
under section 1332 have been met, and this Court accordingly has original jurisdiction over this
action.
A. There Is Complete Diversity of Citizenship
7. Plaintiff and Defendants are “citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
1. Plaintiffs Citizenship
8. For diversity purposes, a person is a citizen of the state in which he is domiciled.
Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983). A party’s residence is
prima facie evidence of his domicile. Ayala v. Cox Auto., Inc., 2016 WL 6561284, at *4 (C.D.
Cal. Nov. 4, 2016) (citing State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Dyer, 19 F.3d 514, 520 (10th Cir.
1994)). A party is domiciled where she “resides with the intention to remain or to which she
intends to return.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001).
9. Plaintiff alleges that he “is an adult residing in San Jose, California County of
Santa Clara.” Compl. § 7. Accordingly, Plaintiff is domiciled in Santa Clara County, California
and thus is a citizen of the State of California for purposes of removal. See id.; Kanter, 265 F.3d
at 857.
| Amazon denies that liability or damages can be established as to Plaintiff. Amazon does not
concede and reserves the right to contest, at the appropriate time, that any of Plaintiffs
allegations constitute a cause of action against it under applicable California law. Amazon
further reserves the right to argue that Plaintiff's claims must be adjudicated in individual
arbitration under the terms of his arbitration agreement with Amazon. No statement or reference
contained herein shall constitute an admission of liability or a suggestion that Plaintiff will or
could actually recover any damages based upon the allegations contained in the Complaint or
otherwise. Amazon’s notice seeks only to establish that the amount in controversy is more likely
than not in excess of the jurisdictional minimum.
NOTICE OF REMOVAL 2 Case No, 5:22-cv-6435Case 5:22-cv-06435 Document1 Filed 10/24/22 Page 4 of 10
2. Defendants’ Citizenship
10. “[A]n LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.”
Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006).
Amazon.com Services LLC has only one member, Amazon.com, Inc. See Brown Decl. § 2.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and
foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its
principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). The “principal place of business” for the
purpose of determining diversity subject matter jurisdiction refers to “the place where a
corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities.” Hertz Corp. v.
Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010). Amazon.com, Inc. is incorporated under the laws of
Delaware and has its headquarters in Seattle, Washington. Brown Decl. § 2. Accordingly,
Amazon.com, Inc., and Amazon.com Services LLC, are citizens of the states of Washington and
Delaware for purposes of determining diversity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
11. Accordingly, because no Defendant had the same citizenship as Plaintiff at the
time the Complaint was filed and at the time of removal, there was and is complete diversity of
citizenship between Plaintiff and both Defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
B. The Amount in Controversy Exceeds $75,000
12. Courts evaluate a removing defendant’s assertion of the amount in controversy
under a “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102
F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996); 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B). Although “[u]sually, ‘preponderance
of the evidence’ is a phrase used for determining whether a factual allegation is, in fact, true,” “
defendant is not required to admit, and is certainly not required to prove, the truth of plaintiffs
assertions before invoking diversity jurisdiction.” Patel v. Nike Retail Servs., Inc., 58 F. Supp.
3d 1032, 1040 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (emphasis in original). “The amount in controversy is simply an
estimate of the total amount in dispute, not a prospective assessment of defendant’s liability.”
Lewis v. Verizon Commce'ns, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 400 (9th Cir. 2010); see also McPhail v. Deere
& Co., 529 F.3d 947, 956 (10th Cir. 2008) (cited with approval in Lewis) (“The amount in
controversy is not proof of the amount the plaintiff will recover. Rather, it is an estimate of the
NOTICE OF REMOVAL 3 Case No. 5:22-cv-6435Case 5:22-cv-06435 Document1 Filed 10/24/22 Page 5 of 10
amount that will be put at issue in the course of the litigation.”).
13. A removing defendant is not required to “research, state, [or attempt to] prove
the plaintiffs claims for damages.’” Lippold v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 2010 WL 1526441, at
*3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2010). “Generally, the amount in controversy is determined from the face
of the pleadings . . . [and] [t]he swm claimed by the plaintiff controls so long as the claim is
made in good faith.” Crum v. Circus Circus Enterprises, 231 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000)
(emphasis added) (citing St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288
(1938)); see also Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 376-77 (9th Cir. 1997)
(“The plaintiff, after all, creates the controversy and is the master of the claim, and decides how
much money to demand. ... The district court may consider whether it is ‘facially apparent’
from the complaint that the jurisdictional amount is in controversy.”).
4. Ifthe complaint does not claim a specific sum of damages, a removing defendant
may make a “reasonable extrapolation[] from the plaintiff's allegations suffic[ient] to establish
the amount in controversy.” Patel, 58 F. Supp. 3d at 1041; see also, e.g., Lippold, 2010 WL
1526441, at *3 (finding it reasonable for defendant to assume that plaintiff worked “13 hours a
day every day that plaintiff worked for” defendant, because plaintiff alleged that he “regularly
and/or consistently worked in excess of 12 hours per day”); Archuleta v. Avcorp Composite
Fabrication, Inc., 2018 WL 6382049, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2018) (noting that “defendants
who prepare a ‘well-founded evidentiary record’ are entitled to make ‘reasonable extrapolations’
from the allegations in the complaint”).
1S: Moreover, in assessing whether the amount in controversy requirement has been
satisfied, “a court must ‘assume that the allegations of the complaint are true and assume that a
jury will return a verdict for the plaintiff on all claims made in the complaint.”” Campbell v.
Vitran Exp., Inc., 471 F. App’x 646, 648 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Kenneth Rothschild Tr. v.
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 199 F. Supp. 2d 993, 1001 (C.D. Cal. 2002)). In other words, the
focus of the Court’s inquiry must be on “what amount is put ‘in controversy’ by the plaintiff's
complaint, not what a defendant will actually owe.” Korn v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., 536 F.
Supp. 2d 1199, 1205 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (citing Rippee v. Boston Mkt. Corp., 408 F. Supp. 2d 982,
NOTICE OF REMOVAL 4 Case No. 5:22-cv-6435Case 5:22-cv-06435 Document1 Filed 10/24/22 Page 6 of 10
986 (S.D. Cal. 2005)).
1. The Amount in Controversy Requirement Is Established Through Plaintiff’s
Own Demand for Relief in Excess of $75,000
16. The amount in controversy in this action exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of
interest and costs, because Plaintiff expressly seeks damages in excess of that jurisdictional
minimum. Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to lost wages, which “since February 2021
continue to accrue at around $5500 monthly.” Compl. {§ 35, 41 (emphasis added).
17. At least nineteen (19) months passed between February 2021 (the date Plaintiff
alleges his lost wages began to accrue) and September 2022 (the date Plaintiff filed the
Complaint alleging the continuous accrual of these damages). Even without taking into account
the time that has passed since the Complaint’s filing or any other claimed damages, Plaintiffs
Complaint alleges lost wages that place, at minimum, $104,500.00 in controversy (19 months x
$5,500 per month). Accordingly, Plaintiff's own allegations that he is owed $5,500 per month,
accruing since February 2021, make it “facially apparent” that the amount in controversy
exceeds the $75,000 minimum threshold. Singer, 116 F.3d 373, 376-77; see also Crum, 231
F.3d at 1131.
2. Alternatively, the Amount in Controversy Requirement Is Satisfied by
Showing a Reasonable Estimate of Potential Recovery Based on Plaintiff’s
Allegations
18. However, should the Court require further evidence that the amount in
controversy requirement is met, beyond Plaintiff's own demands and allegations, Amazon
provides the following out of an abundance of caution.
19. In determining whether the jurisdictional minimum is met, courts consider all
recoverable damages, including emotional distress damages, punitive damages, statutory
penalties, and attorneys’ fees. Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S.
333 (1977); Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 1998).
NOTICE OF REMOVAL 5 Case No, 5:22-cv-6435Case 5:22-cv-06435 Document1 Filed 10/24/22 Page 7 of 10
a) Plaintiff's Claimed Lost Wages Place At Least $92,430 in Controversy
20. Plaintiff seeks lost wages for his retaliation, wrongful termination, and intentional
interference with prospective economic damages claims. Using the Santa Clara County
minimum wage in effect when Plaintiff alleges he was terminated in February 2021 (see, e.g.,
Compl. 34), his alleged lost wages would have to be paid at no less than $15.65 per hour in
2021, $16.40 in 2022, and $17.20 in 2023. See City of Santa Clara Minimum Wage Ordinance
Frequently Asked Questions, available at https://www.santaclaraca.gov/business-
development/business-services/minimum-wage-ordinance.
21. — Again, Plaintiff alleges he was “terminated” in February 2021. Jd. 4 34. For
removal purposes, backpay is typically calculated by multiplying an employee’s hourly wage by
the number of workweeks between his termination date and the date of removal. See Chambers
v. Penske Truck Leasing Corp., 2011 WL 1459155, *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2011), report and
recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 1739913 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2011). But it is also appropriate
to consider “lost wages up until the date of a potential trial.” Reyes v. Staples Office Superstore,
LLC, 2019 WL 4187847, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2019); Fisher v. HNTB Corp., 2018 WL
6323077, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2018) (same). Plaintiff alleges that his lost wages “continue to
accrue.” Id. JJ 35, 41. Accordingly, it is appropriate to consider lost wages for an additional
“one year from the date of removal,” which reflects a “‘conservative estimate of the trial date’ in
employment cases.” Reyes, 2019 WL 4187847, at *3 (quoting Fisher, 2018 WL 6323077, at
*5),
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
NOTICE OF REMOVAL 6 Case No. 5:22-cv-6435Case 5:22-cv-06435 Document1 Filed 10/24/22 Page 8 of 10
22. Based on Plaintiff’s claims that (i) he applied for positions on a “full-time” basis
(see Compl. Jf 16, 22, 25, 26), and (ii) he accrued lost wages from the purported date of
termination (February 2021), his total earnings for a standard five-day, forty-hour workweek
through one year following the date of removal (October 24, 2023) would be:
Weekly Earnings Number of Weeks | Amount in Controversy
2021 $626 47 $29,422
($15.65/hour x 40 hours)
2022 $656 52 $34,112
($16.40/hour x 40 hours)
2023 $688 42 $28,896
($17.20/hour x 40 hours)
TOTAL $92,430
23. Accordingly, using that conservative figure of backpay from the purported date of
termination through one year following the date of removal, this request for lost wages alone
places an estimated $92,430 in controversy.
b) Plaintiff's Prayer for Punitive Damages Places an Additional $184,860 in
Controversy
24. This Court may also consider Plaintiff's request for punitive damages in
determining the amount in controversy. Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 945 (9th Cir.
2001). Indeed, “[i]t is well established that punitive damages are part of the amount in
controversy in a civil action.” Amado v. US Bancorp, 2015 WL 5618877, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept.
24, 2015); Molnar v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., 2009 WL 481618, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2009)
(“In general, claims for punitive damages are considered in determining the amount in
controversy, as long as punitive damages are available under the applicable law.”).
25. Here, Plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount in punitive damages. See Compl. {]
36, 42, 48, 60. However, courts in this district have applied a “conservative” 1:1 ratio between
compensatory and punitive damages in determining punitive damages at removal. See Bayol v.
Zipcar, Inc., 2015 WL 4931756, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2015) (assuming “‘a conservative”
NOTICE OF REMOVAL 7 Case No, 5:22-cv-6435Case 5:22-cv-06435 Document1 Filed 10/24/22 Page 9 of 10
one-to-one ratio for punitive to compensatory damages for determining whether amount in
controversy threshold was met (citing Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 701
(9th Cir. 2007)); see also Cuevas v. Lowes Home Ctrs., LLC, No. CV 20-2755 PSG (KSx), 2020
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206629, at *15-16 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2020). Here, assuming a conservative
punitive damages award based upon a 1:1 ratio based on the estimated back pay damages (see
supra § 22) would place at least an additional $92,430 in controversy. Thus, the amount in
controversy requirement is met even without factoring in Plaintiff's alleged emotional distress
damages, or his requests for attorneys’ fees’ and costs, which would further add to the amount in
controversy. See Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 1998).
26. In sum, even without Plaintiff having specified the exact amount of damages he
seeks and without taking into account alleged emotional distress or litigation costs, the amount of
controversy requirement is easily satisfied. Plaintiffs claimed lost wages and prayer for punitive
damages alone place far more than $75,000 in controversy. Thus, based on Plaintiff's
characterizations of his damages set forth in the Complaint, the amount Plaintiff has placed in
controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum.
IH. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION AND REMOVAL IS PROPER
27. Based on the foregoing facts and allegations, this Court has diversity jurisdiction
over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because:
a. This is a civil action within the meaning of § 1332(a);
b. The named parties are citizens of different states as required by § 1332(a)(1); and
c. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 as required by § 1332(a).
2 Although Plaintiff is currently pro se, his Complaint also seeks to recover attorneys’ fees. See
Compl. {{§ 36, 42, 48, 60. Courts have held that an award of attorney’s fees, if such fees are
authorized, may be considered for purposes of calculating the amount in controversy. Galt G/S,
142 F.3d at 1155-56. Assuming Plaintiff subsequently obtains counsel in this matter, Amazon
may conservatively estimate at least $30,000 of attorneys’ fees to be in controversy, based on a
judicially supported “conservative” estimate of 100 hours at a rate of $300 spent by Plaintiff's
counsel. See, e.g., Avila v. P and L Development, LLC, No. CV 18-01211 SJO (AS), 2018 WL
1870422, at *3 (stating that a “conservative” approach estimates fees corresponding to
approximately 100 hours to prepare for an employment litigation and finding that attorneys’ fees
increased total amount in controversy to over $75,000, establishing diversity jurisdiction).
NOTICE OF REMOVAL 8 Case No. 5:22-cv-6435Case 5:22-cv-06435 Document1 Filed 10/24/22 Page 10 of 10
Accordingly, this action is properly removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.
28. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California is the
federal judicial district in which the Santa Clara County Superior Court sits. This action was
originally filed in the Santa Clara County Superior Court (see generally Compl.), rendering
venue in this federal judicial district and division proper. 28 U.S.C. § 84(c); see also 28 U.S.C. §
1441(a).
29. True and correct copies of the (a) Summons, (b) Complaint, (c) Civil Case Cover
Sheet, (d) Civil Lawsuit Notice, and (e) Proof of Service on Amazon.com Services LLC, are
attached as Exhibits A through E to the Harris Declaration, filed concurrently herewith. These
filings constitute the complete record of all records and proceedings in the state court.
30. Upon filing the Notice of Removal, Amazon will furnish written notice to
Plaintiff, and will file and serve a copy of this Notice with the Clerk of the Santa Clara County
Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).
DATED: October 24, 2022 KING & SPALDING LLP
By: /s/ Adria K. Harris
PETER J. WOZNIAK
ADRIA K. HARRIS
Attorneys for Defendants
Amazon.com Services LLC and
Amazon.com, Inc.
NOTICE OF REMOVAL 9
Case No. 5:22-cv-6435JS-CAND 44 (Rev. 10/2020) Case 5:22-cv-06435, Dopument th Giles ty/24i22 Page 1 of 1
The JS-CAND.44 civil caver sheet andthe information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or oles papers as required by la,
except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of
Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS.
Nick Miletak Amazon.com Services LLC; Amazon.com, Inc.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive.
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff’ Santa Clara, CA County of Residence of First Listed Defendant ing County, WA
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: _ INLAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
‘THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED,
(€) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
N/A (in propria persona) King & Spalding LLP | Peter J. Wozniak & Adria K. Harris
404.572.4600 | 1180 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 1600, Atlanta, GA 30309
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Ptace an “x” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
PTF DEF PTF DEF
1 U.S. Government Plaintiff 3 Federal Question 1 Nota Party) Citizen of This State x! 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 oS
2 U.S, Government Defendant % 4 pivesiy ee fen of Business In Another State
ee Citizen or Subject of a 3 3. Foreign Nation 6 6
Foreign Country
IV. | NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “x” in One Box Only)
CONTRACT TORTS FORPEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES:
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure of | 422 Appeal 28 USC § 138 | 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury — Product Property 21 USC § 881 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Liability Liabili eos § 157 §372a))
140 Negotiable Instrument 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 367 Health Carey TABOR PROPERTY RIGHTS 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of 330 Federal Employers Pharmaceutical Personal "719 Fair Labor Standards Act | 820 Copyrights M10 Antitrast
Overpayment Of Injury Product Liability I 430 Banks and Banking
Pay Liability 720 Labor/Management 830 Patent es
Veteran’s Benefits, Laon 368 Asbestos Personal Injury | 7° Rp } 1450 Commerce
nee farine Product Liability elations 835 Patent—Abbreviated New
hon, * petal 345 Marine Product Liability pe econaL PROPERTY | 740 Railway Labor Act Drug Application 460 Deportation
~ Sepa aes 350 Motor Vehicle ae : . 751 Family and Medical 840 Trademark 470 Racketeer Influenced &
veces 355 Motor Vehicle Product 270 Other Frau Leave Act 880 Defend Trade Secrets Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Liability 371 Truth in Lending 790 Other Labor Litigation Act of 2016 480 Consumer Credit
3 ee 360 Other Personal Injury au oe Personal Property | 791 Employee Retirement SOCIAL SECURITY 85 Telephone a
y umage : : nase Protection Act
; 362 Personal Injury -Medical 8 Income Security Act "
tetera Eetenis Malpractice 385 Property Damage Product } —————_____—___,_ 861 HIA(1395f1) 490 Cable/Sat TV
160 Stockholders’ Suits Liability UMMIGRAION| 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities
190 Other Contract gS RISO NIN TTONS IMO? Naturalization 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
195 Contract Product Liability Application 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
196 Franchise a HABEAS CORPUS M65 Other Immigration 865 RSI (405(2)) 291 Agricultura Acs
441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Actions i
REAL PROPERTY 4142 Employment Eig Makea Vaca: FEDERAL TAX SUITS 893 Environmental Matters
210 Land Condemnation 443 Housing! Sentence 870 Taxes (US. Painitfor | 895 Fresdom of formation
220 Foreclosure Accommodations 530 General Defendant) ct
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment | 445 Amer. wiDisabilities 535 Death Penalty 871 IRSThird Party 26 USC - ae reed
Employment § 7609 iministrative Procedure
peterpan 446 Amer. w/Disabilties-Other oni ; Pou en clits Ole
243 Tort Product Liability 540 Mandamus & Other Agency Decision
290 All Other Real Property | 448 Education 550 Civil Rights 950 Constitutionality of State
535 Prison Condition Statutes
560 Civil Detainee
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X" in One Box Only)
1 Original 2. Removed from 3. Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5. Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District (specifi) Litigation—Transfer _Litigation-Direct File
ite the ‘vil Statute under which you are filing _D_ rd aren:
i Cite the U.S. Civil S \der which fil
ACTION Employment litigation removed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441; amount placed in controversy exceeds $75,000
Brief description of cause:
Diversity jurisdiction
VII. REQUESTEDIN — CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VII. RELATED CASE), JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
IF ANY | (See instructions):
IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2)
(Place an *X” in One Box Only) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND * SAN JOSE EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE
DATE 10/24/2022 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD _/S/ Adria K. HarrisCase 5:22-cv-06435 Document 1-2 Filed 10/24/22 Page 1 of 3
PETER J. WOZNIAK (CA SBN 332470)
pwozniak@kslaw.com
KING & SPALDING LLP.
110 N Wacker Drive, Suite 3800
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 764-6948
Facsimile: (312) 995-6330
ADRIA K. HARRIS (CA SBN 324333)
akharris@kslaw.com
King & Spalding LLP
1180 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1600
Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
Telephone: (404) 572-4600
Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
Attorneys for Defendants
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC and
AMAZON.COM, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
NICK MILETAK,
Plaintiff,
Vv.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC,
AMAZON.COM, INC., AND DOES 1-100
INCLUSIVE,
Defendants.
Case No. 5:22-cv-6435
DECLARATION OF ADRIA K. HARRIS
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC’S
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
(Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No.
22CV403359)
Action Filed: September 21, 2022
Trial Date: — None Set
HARRIS DECLARATION ISO
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Case No. 5:22-cv-6435Case 5:22-cv-06435 Document 1-2 Filed 10/24/22 Page 2 of 3
I, Adria K. Harris, declare as follows:
l. Tam an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all the courts of the State of
California as well as the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. [am
an associate at the law firm of King & Spalding LLP, and am one of the attorneys representing
Defendants Amazon.com. Inc. and Amazon.com Services (collectively, “Amazon’) in the above-
entitled action. Unless otherwise stated, | have personal knowledge of the matters stated here,
and if asked to testify to them, I would do so competently.
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Summons in
Miletak v. Amazon.com Services LLC et al., Santa Clara Case No. 22CV403359, filed on
September 21, 2022.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Complaint in
Miletak v. Amazon.com Services LLC et al., Santa Clara Case No. 22CV403359, filed on
September 21, 2022.
4, Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Civil Case Cover
Sheet in Miletak v. Amazon.com Services LLC et al., Santa Clara Case No. 22CV403359, filed
on September 21, 2022.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the Civil Lawsuit
Notice in Miletak v, Amazon.com Services LLC et al., Santa Clara Case No. 22CV403359, filed
on September 21, 2022.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Service of
Process on Amazon.com Services LLC in Miletak v. Amazon.com Services LLC et al.. Santa
Clara Case No. 22CV403359. reflecting that Plaintiff effected service of the Summons and
Complaint on Amazon.com Services LLC on September 23, 2022.
7. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), Exhibits A-E constitute “all process,
pleadings, and orders served upon” Amazon.com Services LLC in this action.
HARRIS DECLARATION ISO 1 Case No, 5:22-cv-6435
NOTICE OF REMOVAL,Case 5:22-cv-06435 Document 1-2 Filed 10/24/22 Page 3 of 3
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the
United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 24th day of
October, 2022, at Atlanta, Georgia.
/s/ Adria K. Harris
Adria K, Harris
HARRIS DECLARATION ISO. 2 Case No. 5:22-cv-6435|
NOTICE OF REMOVALSUMMONS
(CITACION JUDICIAL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
(AVISO AL DEMANDADO):
.com Services, LLC., Amazon.com, Inc., AND DOES 1
THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(ENDORSED)
SEP 21 2022
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): Clerk of the Court
Nick Miletak BY. f of Sant Clara
[-NOTICET You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information
below.
‘You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a 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 coutt forms and more information at the Califomia Courts
Online Self-Help Center (vavw.cqurtinfo.cé.gov/setihelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you, Ifyou 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 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 attomey right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorey
referral service. If you cannot afford an attomey, 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 site (www.lawhelpealiforia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center
(www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: ‘The court has a statutory liert for waived fees and
costs on any settlement or arbitration award ‘of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
JAVISO! Lo hen demandatio. Sino respande dentro de 30 dias, fa corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versién. Lea la informacion a
que fe dé un formulario de exencién de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tempo, puede perder el caso por Incumplimiento y le corte le
Hay otros requisites legales. Es recomendable que lame a un abogado Inmediatamente. Sino conoce @ un abogado, puede llamar a un sérvicio de
gratuitos de un
The name and address of the court is: [CASE NUMBER: 7
(El nombre y direccién de la corte es): Santa Clara County Superior Court Soe y 4 0 3 3 59
191 North First Street, San Jose, California 95113 =
The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attomey, or plaintiff without an attomey, is:
(El nombre, la direccién y el namero de teléfono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
Nick Miletak-In Pro Se 14745 Conway Avenue, San Jose, California 95124 (408)533-5689
DATE: September 21, 2022 Clerk, by D. ALFARO , Deputy
(Fecha) (Secretario) (Adjunto)
(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).)
(Para prueba de entrega de esta citatién use e! formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).
ea NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
4. (7 as an individual defendant.
2. [[_]] as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
sya ‘on behalf of (specify): Amizon. Com Se eu aS, We
under: [CCP 416.10 (corporation) [1 cep 416.60 (minor)
[J CCP'416.20 (defunct corporation) [=] Cop 416.70 (conservatee)
[C] CGP 416.40 (association or par ip) [__] CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
LE] other (speci): -C_
NR ore delivery on (date): q 4 Zo7te page tort
SUMMONS Code ot Civil Procedure §§ 412.20, 465
‘wins courtinfo.c8.90v
‘SUM-100 [Rev. July 1, 2009]
reeno
Nn WN NY NHN NH YH ee a
®BRRAREBRESEeREDVABDEBEHE ES
om YW DH HW BF WwW DN
Nick Miletak — In Pro Se i LL E
14745 Conway Avenue ’
San Jose, California 95124 °
408-533-5689-mobile SEP 2 1 2022
nmiletak(@msn.com
D. ALFARO
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
92¢6V408359 |
CASE NO.: “ a
NICK MILETAK, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Plaintiff 1. WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF
, EMPLOYMENT IN VIOLATION OF
vs. PUBLIC POLICY — CALIFORNIA
LABOR CODE SEC. § 1102.5(B)
AMAZO 2. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
N.COM SERVICES, LLC., PUBLIC POLICY CALIFORNIA
AMAZON.COM, INC., AND DOES 1-100 CQDE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE §
3. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
INCLUSIVE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE
Defendant, 4. NEGLIGENT INELICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
UNLIMITED
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Bro vy. Glaser (1994) 22 Cal. App.4th 1398, 1441.)....ccsssssesssssssssccsessssssseesssessssssssessersneeessnseeeanoee 15
Buckaloo v. Johnson (1975) 14 Cal.3d 815, 827 [122 Cal.Rptr.745,537 P.2d 865)]....ccsssssseessoeee 12
Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1072.) ........-sscscsesccesccsssececesssasenssenssossatennsenees 14
Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1090-1091 .........ssssssssssssnsssssessecsssseessennenseane 10
Haney v. Aramark Uniform Services, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 623, 641 ...sccsscseccseeseerecee 10
Holmes v. General Dynamics Corp. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1418, 1426, fin. 8.......csccecssecsseeneess 10
Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal. 4 1153
Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, 889-890 ........-.-ssccsscsescsessscseceseneeseeesnseasese 10
Wong v. Jing, 189 Cal. App. 4th 1354, 1377 (2010) ......sessssesseccseeccecsessneesnessereere seetsnsecaeersneeneeare 14
Statutes
§ 1002.5. (a).
§ LLO2.5 (D) secsscscssssssessensssseseecsessssssesonsssssssseseecssssssssussesssssnsuassessssssunsacessgesesussesessennssnsetsssanecesesessenee 2
§ 1102.5(b)
California Civil Code §3294(a) & 3294(D)...esssssssssssesssessessssssscsereesecsessnsrsssssssssuenissssssssneneresensise 10
California Civil Code section § 1786.10 — § 1786.40......ssscsssssssssessssssessssneecsesaesessusesrteeesssseee 2
California Civil Code section § 1786.10 — § 1786.40... .scssssessssecsescssceecotssotsnnecnensvsssneaeensesensees 5
California Code of Civil Procedure section § 1002.5 ....essssscsssssscssscssesensessssecsssseestessuessnnesensesssnses 2
California Labor Code section § 1102.5(b)...... 2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
iPlaintiff, Nick Miletak submits this complaint for damages and respectfully alleges as
follows:
I NATURE OF ACTION
Ll. This is an individual consumer complaint against Amazon.com Services, LLC and
Amazon.com, Inc., (hereinafter “Defendants”) for wrongful termination of employment in
violation of public policy of California Labor Code section § 1102.5(b) and Califomia Code of
Civil Procedure section § 1002.5 in which the Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiff, Nick
Miletak, for engaging in litigation against Rejoice Delivers, LLC, an Amazon Delivery Service
Partner (hereinafter “DSP”), for violations of the California Investigative Consumer Reporting
Agency Act contained in California Civil Code section § 1786.10— § 1786.40 (hereinafter
“ICRAA”) by their investigative consumer reporting agency (hereinafter “ICRA”) which state:
§ 1102.5 (b) An employer, or any person acting on behalf
of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for
disclosing information, or because the employer believes
that the employee disclosed or may disclose information, to
a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with
authority over the employee or another employee who has
the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation
or noncompliance, or for providing information to, or
testifying before, any public body conducting an
investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has
reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a
violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or
noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or
regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information
is part of the employee’s job duties.
And:
§ 1002,5. (a) An agreement to settle an employment dispute
shall not contain a provision prohibiting, preventing, or
otherwise restricting a settling party that is an aggrieved
person from obtaining future employment with the employer
against which the aggrieved person has filed a claim, or any
parent company, subsidiary, division, affiliate, or contractor
of the employer. A provision in an agreement entered into
on or after January 1, 2020, that violates this section is void
as a matter of law and against public policy.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
2OD Oe YN DA HW PB Ww NY
yoN NNN BY Be eB eB eB Be eB Be se
BNURREBBRRBESECREDWABEBERE STS
2. Plaintiff, Nick Miletak, alleges that his employment as a driver with the
Defendants commenced around November of 2016 and continued until around February of 2021
through the Amazon Flex App and with the Plaintiff providing transportation services for goods
needing transport.
3. Since February of 2021 the Plaintiff has been unlawfully denied direct
employment with the Defendants and employment through the Defendants Amazon Flex app
and/or any of their DSPs throughout the United States.
Il. JURISDICTION
4, This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Constitution
Article VI, § 10, which grants the Superior Court “original jurisdiction in all causes except those
given by statute to other courts.” The statutes under which this action is brought do not specify
any other basis for jurisdiction.
5. This Court has jurisdiction over all Defendant because, based on information and
belief, each party is either a citizen of California, has sufficient minimum contacts in California,
or otherwise intentionally avails itself of the Califomia market so as to render the exercise of
jurisdiction over it by the California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.
Wt. VENUE
6. Venue is proper in this Court because, upon information and belief, one or more
of the named Defendants reside, transact business, or have offices in this county and the acts and
omissions alleged herein took place in this county.
Iv. PARTIES
7. Plaintiff, Nick Miletak is an adult residing in San Jose, California County of Santa
Clara.
8. Defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC, is a limited liability corporation
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
3yo Oem NY DH RF Ww NY
RB NM N NY NY N NR NN Be ee Be Be Be Be Re
eo QA Hw BY NH KF SBD we MN DH RW NY YK SG
dominating the logistics industry, with its principal place of business located at 410 Terry Avenue
North, Seattle, Washington, 98109 and is a Delaware Domestic Corporation filed under File:
3482342 and incorporated on January 18, 2022. Defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC is
registered with the California Secretary of State under File: 202001010303 and registered on
January 10, 2020 and transacts business throughout the State of California, including the County
of Santa Clara.
9. Defendant Amazon.com, Inc., is a corporation dominating the logistics industry,
with its principal place of business similarly located at 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle,
Washington, 98109 and is a Delaware Domestic Corporation filed under File: 2620453 and
incorporated on May 28, 1996. The Defendant does not appear to be registered with the California
Secretary but has confirmed that this Defendant similarly transacts business throughout the State
of California, including the County of Santa Clara.
10. At all relevant times herein, Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, and each of
them, were the agents, partners, joint venturers, representatives, servants, employees, successors-
in-interest, co-conspirators and assignees, of each other, and at all times relevant hereto were
acting within the course and scope of their authority as such agents, partners, joint venturers,
representatives, servants, employees, successors, co-conspirators and assignees, and that all acts
or omissions alleged were duly committed with the ratification, knowledge, permission,
encouragement, authorization and consent of each defendant designated.
11. The true names and capacities, whether corporate, associate, individual or
otherwise, of defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who sues said
defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes
Vv. STATEMENT OF FACTS
12. Defendants operate the largest and most dominant logistics company in the world.
As part of the operations the Defendants created an on-demand delivery app called Amazon Flex
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
4CD Oe YN DH WH FF YW NY HY
RP NNN NR NY NY BY Be Fe Be Be se Se Be Be
SB @eRRE SRR BES eS AURKEE BSR AS
that lets people order and quickly receive purchased items. To do this, Defendants contracts with
drivers to deliver packages to people in their local area. Defendants also use Delivery Service
Partners (hereinafter “DSP”) to complete deliveries which also require utilization of the Amazon
Flex app.
13. To carry out its business activities and objectives, Defendants, market to
individuals, such as this Plaintiff, seeking flexible employment schedules to become drivers
utilizing the Amazon Flex app to transport purchased items utilizing their own private vehicle.
Defendants also assign a majority of the required deliveries to their DSP’s where employment
candidates, such as this Plaintiff, can work directly for the DSP but requires registration and use
of the Amazon Flex app.
14. To be eligible for employment with the Defendants or any of their DSP’s as a
delivery driver an employment candidate is required to register an Amazon Flex account. In
either employment with the Defendants directly as a delivery driver or at a DSP the employee is
required to use the Amazon Flex app to make deliveries.
The Facts Pertaining to Plaintiff Nick Miletak
15. Around November of 2016 the Plaintiff became employed with the Defendants as
an on-demand driver using the Amazon Flex app. The Plaintiff's employment in this capacity
continued until around February of 2021 on a part-time basis.
16. Around December 18, 2020 the Plaintiff applied for employment as a full-time
delivery driver with Rejoice Delivers, a DSP for the Defendants, and was offered the position and
accepted.
17, Inearly January of 2021 and during the onboarding process with Rejoice Delivers
the Plaintiff discovered violations by the DSP of the California Investigative Consumer Reporting
Agency Act contained in California Civil Code section § 1786.10 — § 1786.40 (hereinafter
“ICRAA”).
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
518. Because of the ICRAA violations the Plaintiff and Rejoice Delivers entered into a
settlement negotiation around January 8, 2021.
19. Around early February of 2021 and at the early stages of settlement negotiations
with Rejoice Delivers the Plaintiff discovered that his Amazon Flex account was deliberately
deactivated by the Defendants without any explanation.
20. A settlement agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and Rejoice Delivers
for the ICRAA violations alleged during onboarding. The executed settlement agreement
between the Plaintiff and Rejoice Delivers contained an unlawful waiver of rights in section 5.1
which was unnoticed by the Plaintiff at the time of execution of the settlement agreement. The
original settlement agreement is included with the Declaration of Plaintiff Nick Miletak attached
thereto as Exhibit “1”
21. Because of the initiation of lawfully protected settlement negotiations with their
DSP and the unlawful settlement agreement between Rejoice Delivers and the Plaintiff the
Defendants deliberately retaliated against the Plaintiff and have restricted him from using or
reactivating his Amazon Flex account, working for Amazon directly and working for any of the
thousands of DSPs throughout the United States.
22. Around June of 2021 the Plaintiff applied for employment as a full-time delivery
driver with MetroStar Express, a DSP for the Defendants, and was offered employment and
accepted but was unable to complete the onboarding because of the restrictions placed by the
Defendants.
23. Around September of 2021 the Plaintiff discovered section 5.1 of his settlement
agreement with Rejoice Delivers containing the unlawful waiver of rights. Upon discovering the
unlawful provision negotiations with counsel of record for Rejoice Delivers, Defendants DSP,
commenced.
24. Around October 2021 a revised settlement agreement was agreed to which
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES.
6oO ee YN DH HW FF BW NHN =
a ae
Co PN DH HH F&F YW NH | CS
removed the unlawful waiver of rights pertaining to any work restrictions with the Defendants
and all other DSP’s contained in the previous unlawful no-rehire provision. The revised
settlement agreement is included with the Declaration of Plaintiff Nick Miletak attached thereto
as Exhibit “2”
25. Around November of 2021 the Plaintiff applied for employment as a full-time
delivery driver with Delivery Works, a DSP for the Defendants, and was offered employment and
accepted but was unable to complete the onboarding because of the restrictions placed by the
Defendants.
26. On August 22, 2022 the Plaintiff applied for employment as a full-time delivery
driver with OnPoint Logistics, Inc., a DSP for the Defendants, and was offered employment and
accepted but was unable to complete the onboarding because of the restriction placed by the
Defendants.
27. From February 6, 2021 through January 31, 2022 the Plaintiff has communicated
electronically with the Defendants a minimum of fifteen (15) times advising that the deactivation
of his Amazon Flex account and restriction on employment was likely retaliatory and unlawful
with the electronic communications listed in the table below:
DAEOREMAL | EMALGEIT FROM EMAL TO
" 6-Feb-21 nmiletak@msn.com amazonflex-support@amazon.com
nmiletak@msn.com amazonflex-support@amazon.com
nmiletak@msn.com amazonflex-support@amazon.com
nmiletak@msn.com david.a.zapolsky@amazon.com
david.zapolsky@amazon.com
david_zapolsky@amazon.com
david_a_zapolsky@amazon.com
dzapolsky@amazon.com
Preview
22CV403359 Santa Clara — Civil PETER J. WOZNIAK (CA SBN 332470) pwozniak@kslaw.com KING & SPALDING LLP 110 N Wacker Drive, Suite 3800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 764-6948 Facsimile: (312) 995-6330 ADRIA K. HARRIS (CA SBN 324333) akharris@kslaw.com KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street N.E. Ste. 1600 Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572 5100 Attorneys for Defendants AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC and AMAZON.COM, INC. Y. Chavez Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 10/24/2022 8:25 PM Reviewed By: Y. Chavez Case #22CV403359 Envelope: 10300177 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA NICK MILETAK, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, AMAZON.COM, INC., AND DOES 1-100 INCLUSIVE, Defendants. Case No. 22CV403359 DEFENDANT AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC’S NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT (NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION Complaint Filed: Sept. 21, 2022 Removal to Federal Court: Oct. 24, 2022 NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case No. 22CV403359YD ws TO THE CLERK OF COURT AND PLAINTIFF: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 24, 2022 Defendant AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC (“Amazon”), by and through its attorneys, King & Spalding LLP, filed a Notice of Removal, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 205, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and § 1441 et seq., of the above captioned action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a true and correct copy of the Notice of Removal and accompanying documents that was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), the filing of the Notice of Removal with the clerk of the United States District Court together with the giving of this Notice “shall effect the removal and the State court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded” by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. These representations are made to enable the Court to evaluate possible disqualification or recusal. DATED: October 24, 2022 Respectfully submitted, KING & SPALDING LLP By: /s/ Adria K. Harris PETER J. WOZNIAK ADRIA K. HARRIS Attorneys for Defendants Amazon.com Services LLC and Amazon.com, Inc. NOTICE OF REMOVAL 1 Case No. 22CV403359EXHIBIT ACase 5:22-cv-06435 Document1 Filed 10/24/22 Page 1 of 10 PETER J. WOZNIAK (CA SBN 332470) pwozniak@kslaw.com KING & SPALDING LLP 110 N Wacker Drive, Suite 3800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 764-6948 Facsimile: (312) 995-6330 ADRIA K. HARRIS (CA SBN 324333) akharris@kslaw.com KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 Attorneys for Defendants AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC and AMAZON.COM, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NICK MILETAK, Case No. 5:22-cv-6435 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC’S NOTICE OF a REMOVAL AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. AMAZON.COM, INC., AND DOES 1-100 22CV403359) INCLUSIVE, Action Filed: September 21, 2022 Detendanls: Trial Date: None Set NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case No. 5:22-cv-6435Case 5:22-cv-06435 Document1 Filed 10/24/22 Page 2 of 10 TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, AND TO PLAINTIFF IN PRO PER: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441, Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC (“Amazon”) hereby removes to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California the above-captioned state court action, originally filed as Case No. 22CV403359 in Santa Clara County Superior Court, State of California. Removal is proper on the following grounds: L TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL 1. Plaintiff Nick Miletak (“Plaintiff”) filed his Complaint in the State Court Action on September 21, 2022 against Defendants Amazon.com Services LLC and Amazon.com, Inc. (together, “Defendants”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), true and correct copies of the (a) Summons, (b) Complaint, (c) Civil Case Cover Sheet, (d) Civil Lawsuit Notice, and (e) Proof of Service on Amazon.com Services LLC are attached hereto as Exhibits A through E to the Declaration of Adria K. Harris (“Harris Decl.”), filed concurrently herewith. 2. According to the Proof of Service Plaintiff filed in the State Court action, the Summons and Complaint were served on Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC on September 23, 2022. Harris Decl., Ex. E. Removal is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) because this Notice of Removal is filed “within 30 days after the service of summons upon” Amazon was completed. Il. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS AND GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL 3. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges four causes of action against Amazon.com Services LLC and Amazon.com, Inc.: (1) Wrongful Termination of Employment in Violation of Public Policy; (2) Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy; (3) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; and (4) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. See Complaint, Harris Decl., Ex. B (“Compl.”). 4. Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that he “has been unlawfully denied direct employment with [Amazon] through the Defendants [sic] Amazon Flex app and/or any of their DSPs” since February 2021. See, e.g., Compl. § 3. NOTICE OF REMOVAL 1 Case No. 5:22-cv-6435Case 5:22-cv-06435 Document1 Filed 10/24/22 Page 3 of 10 oe For purposes of this removal only, Amazon assumes Plaintiff's allegations are true.' 6. Removal is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because there is complete diversity between Plaintiff and Defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Amazon denies Plaintiff's factual allegations and deny that he is entitled to the relief requested. However, based on the allegations in the Complaint, the prayer for relief, and the Declarations of Adria K. Harris and Zane Brown, all requirements for federal jurisdiction under section 1332 have been met, and this Court accordingly has original jurisdiction over this action. A. There Is Complete Diversity of Citizenship 7. Plaintiff and Defendants are “citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 1. Plaintiffs Citizenship 8. For diversity purposes, a person is a citizen of the state in which he is domiciled. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983). A party’s residence is prima facie evidence of his domicile. Ayala v. Cox Auto., Inc., 2016 WL 6561284, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2016) (citing State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Dyer, 19 F.3d 514, 520 (10th Cir. 1994)). A party is domiciled where she “resides with the intention to remain or to which she intends to return.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). 9. Plaintiff alleges that he “is an adult residing in San Jose, California County of Santa Clara.” Compl. § 7. Accordingly, Plaintiff is domiciled in Santa Clara County, California and thus is a citizen of the State of California for purposes of removal. See id.; Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857. | Amazon denies that liability or damages can be established as to Plaintiff. Amazon does not concede and reserves the right to contest, at the appropriate time, that any of Plaintiffs allegations constitute a cause of action against it under applicable California law. Amazon further reserves the right to argue that Plaintiff's claims must be adjudicated in individual arbitration under the terms of his arbitration agreement with Amazon. No statement or reference contained herein shall constitute an admission of liability or a suggestion that Plaintiff will or could actually recover any damages based upon the allegations contained in the Complaint or otherwise. Amazon’s notice seeks only to establish that the amount in controversy is more likely than not in excess of the jurisdictional minimum. NOTICE OF REMOVAL 2 Case No, 5:22-cv-6435Case 5:22-cv-06435 Document1 Filed 10/24/22 Page 4 of 10 2. Defendants’ Citizenship 10. “[A]n LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Amazon.com Services LLC has only one member, Amazon.com, Inc. See Brown Decl. § 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). The “principal place of business” for the purpose of determining diversity subject matter jurisdiction refers to “the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010). Amazon.com, Inc. is incorporated under the laws of Delaware and has its headquarters in Seattle, Washington. Brown Decl. § 2. Accordingly, Amazon.com, Inc., and Amazon.com Services LLC, are citizens of the states of Washington and Delaware for purposes of determining diversity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). 11. Accordingly, because no Defendant had the same citizenship as Plaintiff at the time the Complaint was filed and at the time of removal, there was and is complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and both Defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). B. The Amount in Controversy Exceeds $75,000 12. Courts evaluate a removing defendant’s assertion of the amount in controversy under a “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996); 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B). Although “[u]sually, ‘preponderance of the evidence’ is a phrase used for determining whether a factual allegation is, in fact, true,” “ defendant is not required to admit, and is certainly not required to prove, the truth of plaintiffs assertions before invoking diversity jurisdiction.” Patel v. Nike Retail Servs., Inc., 58 F. Supp. 3d 1032, 1040 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (emphasis in original). “The amount in controversy is simply an estimate of the total amount in dispute, not a prospective assessment of defendant’s liability.” Lewis v. Verizon Commce'ns, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 400 (9th Cir. 2010); see also McPhail v. Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947, 956 (10th Cir. 2008) (cited with approval in Lewis) (“The amount in controversy is not proof of the amount the plaintiff will recover. Rather, it is an estimate of the NOTICE OF REMOVAL 3 Case No. 5:22-cv-6435Case 5:22-cv-06435 Document1 Filed 10/24/22 Page 5 of 10 amount that will be put at issue in the course of the litigation.”). 13. A removing defendant is not required to “research, state, [or attempt to] prove the plaintiffs claims for damages.’” Lippold v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 2010 WL 1526441, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2010). “Generally, the amount in controversy is determined from the face of the pleadings . . . [and] [t]he swm claimed by the plaintiff controls so long as the claim is made in good faith.” Crum v. Circus Circus Enterprises, 231 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added) (citing St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288 (1938)); see also Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 376-77 (9th Cir. 1997) (“The plaintiff, after all, creates the controversy and is the master of the claim, and decides how much money to demand. ... The district court may consider whether it is ‘facially apparent’ from the complaint that the jurisdictional amount is in controversy.”). 4. Ifthe complaint does not claim a specific sum of damages, a removing defendant may make a “reasonable extrapolation[] from the plaintiff's allegations suffic[ient] to establish the amount in controversy.” Patel, 58 F. Supp. 3d at 1041; see also, e.g., Lippold, 2010 WL 1526441, at *3 (finding it reasonable for defendant to assume that plaintiff worked “13 hours a day every day that plaintiff worked for” defendant, because plaintiff alleged that he “regularly and/or consistently worked in excess of 12 hours per day”); Archuleta v. Avcorp Composite Fabrication, Inc., 2018 WL 6382049, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2018) (noting that “defendants who prepare a ‘well-founded evidentiary record’ are entitled to make ‘reasonable extrapolations’ from the allegations in the complaint”). 1S: Moreover, in assessing whether the amount in controversy requirement has been satisfied, “a court must ‘assume that the allegations of the complaint are true and assume that a jury will return a verdict for the plaintiff on all claims made in the complaint.”” Campbell v. Vitran Exp., Inc., 471 F. App’x 646, 648 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Kenneth Rothschild Tr. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 199 F. Supp. 2d 993, 1001 (C.D. Cal. 2002)). In other words, the focus of the Court’s inquiry must be on “what amount is put ‘in controversy’ by the plaintiff's complaint, not what a defendant will actually owe.” Korn v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., 536 F. Supp. 2d 1199, 1205 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (citing Rippee v. Boston Mkt. Corp., 408 F. Supp. 2d 982, NOTICE OF REMOVAL 4 Case No. 5:22-cv-6435Case 5:22-cv-06435 Document1 Filed 10/24/22 Page 6 of 10 986 (S.D. Cal. 2005)). 1. The Amount in Controversy Requirement Is Established Through Plaintiff’s Own Demand for Relief in Excess of $75,000 16. The amount in controversy in this action exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, because Plaintiff expressly seeks damages in excess of that jurisdictional minimum. Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to lost wages, which “since February 2021 continue to accrue at around $5500 monthly.” Compl. {§ 35, 41 (emphasis added). 17. At least nineteen (19) months passed between February 2021 (the date Plaintiff alleges his lost wages began to accrue) and September 2022 (the date Plaintiff filed the Complaint alleging the continuous accrual of these damages). Even without taking into account the time that has passed since the Complaint’s filing or any other claimed damages, Plaintiffs Complaint alleges lost wages that place, at minimum, $104,500.00 in controversy (19 months x $5,500 per month). Accordingly, Plaintiff's own allegations that he is owed $5,500 per month, accruing since February 2021, make it “facially apparent” that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 minimum threshold. Singer, 116 F.3d 373, 376-77; see also Crum, 231 F.3d at 1131. 2. Alternatively, the Amount in Controversy Requirement Is Satisfied by Showing a Reasonable Estimate of Potential Recovery Based on Plaintiff’s Allegations 18. However, should the Court require further evidence that the amount in controversy requirement is met, beyond Plaintiff's own demands and allegations, Amazon provides the following out of an abundance of caution. 19. In determining whether the jurisdictional minimum is met, courts consider all recoverable damages, including emotional distress damages, punitive damages, statutory penalties, and attorneys’ fees. Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977); Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 1998). NOTICE OF REMOVAL 5 Case No, 5:22-cv-6435Case 5:22-cv-06435 Document1 Filed 10/24/22 Page 7 of 10 a) Plaintiff's Claimed Lost Wages Place At Least $92,430 in Controversy 20. Plaintiff seeks lost wages for his retaliation, wrongful termination, and intentional interference with prospective economic damages claims. Using the Santa Clara County minimum wage in effect when Plaintiff alleges he was terminated in February 2021 (see, e.g., Compl. 34), his alleged lost wages would have to be paid at no less than $15.65 per hour in 2021, $16.40 in 2022, and $17.20 in 2023. See City of Santa Clara Minimum Wage Ordinance Frequently Asked Questions, available at https://www.santaclaraca.gov/business- development/business-services/minimum-wage-ordinance. 21. — Again, Plaintiff alleges he was “terminated” in February 2021. Jd. 4 34. For removal purposes, backpay is typically calculated by multiplying an employee’s hourly wage by the number of workweeks between his termination date and the date of removal. See Chambers v. Penske Truck Leasing Corp., 2011 WL 1459155, *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 1739913 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2011). But it is also appropriate to consider “lost wages up until the date of a potential trial.” Reyes v. Staples Office Superstore, LLC, 2019 WL 4187847, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2019); Fisher v. HNTB Corp., 2018 WL 6323077, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2018) (same). Plaintiff alleges that his lost wages “continue to accrue.” Id. JJ 35, 41. Accordingly, it is appropriate to consider lost wages for an additional “one year from the date of removal,” which reflects a “‘conservative estimate of the trial date’ in employment cases.” Reyes, 2019 WL 4187847, at *3 (quoting Fisher, 2018 WL 6323077, at *5), i i i i i i i i NOTICE OF REMOVAL 6 Case No. 5:22-cv-6435Case 5:22-cv-06435 Document1 Filed 10/24/22 Page 8 of 10 22. Based on Plaintiff’s claims that (i) he applied for positions on a “full-time” basis (see Compl. Jf 16, 22, 25, 26), and (ii) he accrued lost wages from the purported date of termination (February 2021), his total earnings for a standard five-day, forty-hour workweek through one year following the date of removal (October 24, 2023) would be: Weekly Earnings Number of Weeks | Amount in Controversy 2021 $626 47 $29,422 ($15.65/hour x 40 hours) 2022 $656 52 $34,112 ($16.40/hour x 40 hours) 2023 $688 42 $28,896 ($17.20/hour x 40 hours) TOTAL $92,430 23. Accordingly, using that conservative figure of backpay from the purported date of termination through one year following the date of removal, this request for lost wages alone places an estimated $92,430 in controversy. b) Plaintiff's Prayer for Punitive Damages Places an Additional $184,860 in Controversy 24. This Court may also consider Plaintiff's request for punitive damages in determining the amount in controversy. Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 945 (9th Cir. 2001). Indeed, “[i]t is well established that punitive damages are part of the amount in controversy in a civil action.” Amado v. US Bancorp, 2015 WL 5618877, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2015); Molnar v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., 2009 WL 481618, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2009) (“In general, claims for punitive damages are considered in determining the amount in controversy, as long as punitive damages are available under the applicable law.”). 25. Here, Plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount in punitive damages. See Compl. {] 36, 42, 48, 60. However, courts in this district have applied a “conservative” 1:1 ratio between compensatory and punitive damages in determining punitive damages at removal. See Bayol v. Zipcar, Inc., 2015 WL 4931756, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2015) (assuming “‘a conservative” NOTICE OF REMOVAL 7 Case No, 5:22-cv-6435Case 5:22-cv-06435 Document1 Filed 10/24/22 Page 9 of 10 one-to-one ratio for punitive to compensatory damages for determining whether amount in controversy threshold was met (citing Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 2007)); see also Cuevas v. Lowes Home Ctrs., LLC, No. CV 20-2755 PSG (KSx), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206629, at *15-16 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2020). Here, assuming a conservative punitive damages award based upon a 1:1 ratio based on the estimated back pay damages (see supra § 22) would place at least an additional $92,430 in controversy. Thus, the amount in controversy requirement is met even without factoring in Plaintiff's alleged emotional distress damages, or his requests for attorneys’ fees’ and costs, which would further add to the amount in controversy. See Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 1998). 26. In sum, even without Plaintiff having specified the exact amount of damages he seeks and without taking into account alleged emotional distress or litigation costs, the amount of controversy requirement is easily satisfied. Plaintiffs claimed lost wages and prayer for punitive damages alone place far more than $75,000 in controversy. Thus, based on Plaintiff's characterizations of his damages set forth in the Complaint, the amount Plaintiff has placed in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. IH. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION AND REMOVAL IS PROPER 27. Based on the foregoing facts and allegations, this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because: a. This is a civil action within the meaning of § 1332(a); b. The named parties are citizens of different states as required by § 1332(a)(1); and c. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 as required by § 1332(a). 2 Although Plaintiff is currently pro se, his Complaint also seeks to recover attorneys’ fees. See Compl. {{§ 36, 42, 48, 60. Courts have held that an award of attorney’s fees, if such fees are authorized, may be considered for purposes of calculating the amount in controversy. Galt G/S, 142 F.3d at 1155-56. Assuming Plaintiff subsequently obtains counsel in this matter, Amazon may conservatively estimate at least $30,000 of attorneys’ fees to be in controversy, based on a judicially supported “conservative” estimate of 100 hours at a rate of $300 spent by Plaintiff's counsel. See, e.g., Avila v. P and L Development, LLC, No. CV 18-01211 SJO (AS), 2018 WL 1870422, at *3 (stating that a “conservative” approach estimates fees corresponding to approximately 100 hours to prepare for an employment litigation and finding that attorneys’ fees increased total amount in controversy to over $75,000, establishing diversity jurisdiction). NOTICE OF REMOVAL 8 Case No. 5:22-cv-6435Case 5:22-cv-06435 Document1 Filed 10/24/22 Page 10 of 10 Accordingly, this action is properly removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. 28. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California is the federal judicial district in which the Santa Clara County Superior Court sits. This action was originally filed in the Santa Clara County Superior Court (see generally Compl.), rendering venue in this federal judicial district and division proper. 28 U.S.C. § 84(c); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 29. True and correct copies of the (a) Summons, (b) Complaint, (c) Civil Case Cover Sheet, (d) Civil Lawsuit Notice, and (e) Proof of Service on Amazon.com Services LLC, are attached as Exhibits A through E to the Harris Declaration, filed concurrently herewith. These filings constitute the complete record of all records and proceedings in the state court. 30. Upon filing the Notice of Removal, Amazon will furnish written notice to Plaintiff, and will file and serve a copy of this Notice with the Clerk of the Santa Clara County Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). DATED: October 24, 2022 KING & SPALDING LLP By: /s/ Adria K. Harris PETER J. WOZNIAK ADRIA K. HARRIS Attorneys for Defendants Amazon.com Services LLC and Amazon.com, Inc. NOTICE OF REMOVAL 9 Case No. 5:22-cv-6435JS-CAND 44 (Rev. 10/2020) Case 5:22-cv-06435, Dopument th Giles ty/24i22 Page 1 of 1 The JS-CAND.44 civil caver sheet andthe information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or oles papers as required by la, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS. Nick Miletak Amazon.com Services LLC; Amazon.com, Inc.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive. (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff’ Santa Clara, CA County of Residence of First Listed Defendant ing County, WA (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: _ INLAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF ‘THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED, (€) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known) N/A (in propria persona) King & Spalding LLP | Peter J. Wozniak & Adria K. Harris 404.572.4600 | 1180 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 1600, Atlanta, GA 30309 II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Ptace an “x” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF PTF DEF 1 U.S. Government Plaintiff 3 Federal Question 1 Nota Party) Citizen of This State x! 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4 of Business In This State Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 oS 2 U.S, Government Defendant % 4 pivesiy ee fen of Business In Another State ee Citizen or Subject of a 3 3. Foreign Nation 6 6 Foreign Country IV. | NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “x” in One Box Only) CONTRACT TORTS FORPEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES: 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure of | 422 Appeal 28 USC § 138 | 375 False Claims Act 120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury — Product Property 21 USC § 881 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Liability Liabili eos § 157 §372a)) 140 Negotiable Instrument 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 367 Health Carey TABOR PROPERTY RIGHTS 400 State Reapportionment 150 Recovery of 330 Federal Employers Pharmaceutical Personal "719 Fair Labor Standards Act | 820 Copyrights M10 Antitrast Overpayment Of Injury Product Liability I 430 Banks and Banking Pay Liability 720 Labor/Management 830 Patent es Veteran’s Benefits, Laon 368 Asbestos Personal Injury | 7° Rp } 1450 Commerce nee farine Product Liability elations 835 Patent—Abbreviated New hon, * petal 345 Marine Product Liability pe econaL PROPERTY | 740 Railway Labor Act Drug Application 460 Deportation ~ Sepa aes 350 Motor Vehicle ae : . 751 Family and Medical 840 Trademark 470 Racketeer Influenced & veces 355 Motor Vehicle Product 270 Other Frau Leave Act 880 Defend Trade Secrets Corrupt Organizations 153 Recovery of Liability 371 Truth in Lending 790 Other Labor Litigation Act of 2016 480 Consumer Credit 3 ee 360 Other Personal Injury au oe Personal Property | 791 Employee Retirement SOCIAL SECURITY 85 Telephone a y umage : : nase Protection Act ; 362 Personal Injury -Medical 8 Income Security Act " tetera Eetenis Malpractice 385 Property Damage Product } —————_____—___,_ 861 HIA(1395f1) 490 Cable/Sat TV 160 Stockholders’ Suits Liability UMMIGRAION| 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities 190 Other Contract gS RISO NIN TTONS IMO? Naturalization 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange 195 Contract Product Liability Application 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions 196 Franchise a HABEAS CORPUS M65 Other Immigration 865 RSI (405(2)) 291 Agricultura Acs 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Actions i REAL PROPERTY 4142 Employment Eig Makea Vaca: FEDERAL TAX SUITS 893 Environmental Matters 210 Land Condemnation 443 Housing! Sentence 870 Taxes (US. Painitfor | 895 Fresdom of formation 220 Foreclosure Accommodations 530 General Defendant) ct 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment | 445 Amer. wiDisabilities 535 Death Penalty 871 IRSThird Party 26 USC - ae reed Employment § 7609 iministrative Procedure peterpan 446 Amer. w/Disabilties-Other oni ; Pou en clits Ole 243 Tort Product Liability 540 Mandamus & Other Agency Decision 290 All Other Real Property | 448 Education 550 Civil Rights 950 Constitutionality of State 535 Prison Condition Statutes 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of Confinement V. ORIGIN (Place an “X" in One Box Only) 1 Original 2. Removed from 3. Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5. Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District (specifi) Litigation—Transfer _Litigation-Direct File ite the ‘vil Statute under which you are filing _D_ rd aren: i Cite the U.S. Civil S \der which fil ACTION Employment litigation removed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441; amount placed in controversy exceeds $75,000 Brief description of cause: Diversity jurisdiction VII. REQUESTEDIN — CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No VII. RELATED CASE), JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER IF ANY | (See instructions): IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2) (Place an *X” in One Box Only) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND * SAN JOSE EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE DATE 10/24/2022 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD _/S/ Adria K. HarrisCase 5:22-cv-06435 Document 1-2 Filed 10/24/22 Page 1 of 3 PETER J. WOZNIAK (CA SBN 332470) pwozniak@kslaw.com KING & SPALDING LLP. 110 N Wacker Drive, Suite 3800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 764-6948 Facsimile: (312) 995-6330 ADRIA K. HARRIS (CA SBN 324333) akharris@kslaw.com King & Spalding LLP 1180 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 Attorneys for Defendants AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC and AMAZON.COM, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NICK MILETAK, Plaintiff, Vv. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, AMAZON.COM, INC., AND DOES 1-100 INCLUSIVE, Defendants. Case No. 5:22-cv-6435 DECLARATION OF ADRIA K. HARRIS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 22CV403359) Action Filed: September 21, 2022 Trial Date: — None Set HARRIS DECLARATION ISO NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case No. 5:22-cv-6435Case 5:22-cv-06435 Document 1-2 Filed 10/24/22 Page 2 of 3 I, Adria K. Harris, declare as follows: l. Tam an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all the courts of the State of California as well as the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. [am an associate at the law firm of King & Spalding LLP, and am one of the attorneys representing Defendants Amazon.com. Inc. and Amazon.com Services (collectively, “Amazon’) in the above- entitled action. Unless otherwise stated, | have personal knowledge of the matters stated here, and if asked to testify to them, I would do so competently. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Summons in Miletak v. Amazon.com Services LLC et al., Santa Clara Case No. 22CV403359, filed on September 21, 2022. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Complaint in Miletak v. Amazon.com Services LLC et al., Santa Clara Case No. 22CV403359, filed on September 21, 2022. 4, Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Civil Case Cover Sheet in Miletak v. Amazon.com Services LLC et al., Santa Clara Case No. 22CV403359, filed on September 21, 2022. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the Civil Lawsuit Notice in Miletak v, Amazon.com Services LLC et al., Santa Clara Case No. 22CV403359, filed on September 21, 2022. 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Service of Process on Amazon.com Services LLC in Miletak v. Amazon.com Services LLC et al.. Santa Clara Case No. 22CV403359. reflecting that Plaintiff effected service of the Summons and Complaint on Amazon.com Services LLC on September 23, 2022. 7. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), Exhibits A-E constitute “all process, pleadings, and orders served upon” Amazon.com Services LLC in this action. HARRIS DECLARATION ISO 1 Case No, 5:22-cv-6435 NOTICE OF REMOVAL,Case 5:22-cv-06435 Document 1-2 Filed 10/24/22 Page 3 of 3 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 24th day of October, 2022, at Atlanta, Georgia. /s/ Adria K. Harris Adria K, Harris HARRIS DECLARATION ISO. 2 Case No. 5:22-cv-6435| NOTICE OF REMOVALSUMMONS (CITACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): .com Services, LLC., Amazon.com, Inc., AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (ENDORSED) SEP 21 2022 (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): Clerk of the Court Nick Miletak BY. f of Sant Clara [-NOTICET You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below. ‘You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a 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 coutt forms and more information at the Califomia Courts Online Self-Help Center (vavw.cqurtinfo.cé.gov/setihelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you, Ifyou 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 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 attomey right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorey referral service. If you cannot afford an attomey, 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 site (www.lawhelpealiforia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: ‘The court has a statutory liert for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award ‘of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. JAVISO! Lo hen demandatio. Sino respande dentro de 30 dias, fa corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versién. Lea la informacion a que fe dé un formulario de exencién de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tempo, puede perder el caso por Incumplimiento y le corte le Hay otros requisites legales. Es recomendable que lame a un abogado Inmediatamente. Sino conoce @ un abogado, puede llamar a un sérvicio de gratuitos de un The name and address of the court is: [CASE NUMBER: 7 (El nombre y direccién de la corte es): Santa Clara County Superior Court Soe y 4 0 3 3 59 191 North First Street, San Jose, California 95113 = The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attomey, or plaintiff without an attomey, is: (El nombre, la direccién y el namero de teléfono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Nick Miletak-In Pro Se 14745 Conway Avenue, San Jose, California 95124 (408)533-5689 DATE: September 21, 2022 Clerk, by D. ALFARO , Deputy (Fecha) (Secretario) (Adjunto) (For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).) (Para prueba de entrega de esta citatién use e! formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)). ea NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 4. (7 as an individual defendant. 2. [[_]] as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): sya ‘on behalf of (specify): Amizon. Com Se eu aS, We under: [CCP 416.10 (corporation) [1 cep 416.60 (minor) [J CCP'416.20 (defunct corporation) [=] Cop 416.70 (conservatee) [C] CGP 416.40 (association or par ip) [__] CCP 416.90 (authorized person) LE] other (speci): -C_ NR ore delivery on (date): q 4 Zo7te page tort SUMMONS Code ot Civil Procedure §§ 412.20, 465 ‘wins courtinfo.c8.90v ‘SUM-100 [Rev. July 1, 2009] reeno Nn WN NY NHN NH YH ee a ®BRRAREBRESEeREDVABDEBEHE ES om YW DH HW BF WwW DN Nick Miletak — In Pro Se i LL E 14745 Conway Avenue ’ San Jose, California 95124 ° 408-533-5689-mobile SEP 2 1 2022 nmiletak(@msn.com D. ALFARO SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 92¢6V408359 | CASE NO.: “ a NICK MILETAK, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Plaintiff 1. WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF , EMPLOYMENT IN VIOLATION OF vs. PUBLIC POLICY — CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE SEC. § 1102.5(B) AMAZO 2. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF N.COM SERVICES, LLC., PUBLIC POLICY CALIFORNIA AMAZON.COM, INC., AND DOES 1-100 CQDE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 3. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE INCLUSIVE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE Defendant, 4. NEGLIGENT INELICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS UNLIMITED DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Bro vy. Glaser (1994) 22 Cal. App.4th 1398, 1441.)....ccsssssesssssssssccsessssssseesssessssssssessersneeessnseeeanoee 15 Buckaloo v. Johnson (1975) 14 Cal.3d 815, 827 [122 Cal.Rptr.745,537 P.2d 865)]....ccsssssseessoeee 12 Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1072.) ........-sscscsesccesccsssececesssasenssenssossatennsenees 14 Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1090-1091 .........ssssssssssssnsssssessecsssseessennenseane 10 Haney v. Aramark Uniform Services, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 623, 641 ...sccsscseccseeseerecee 10 Holmes v. General Dynamics Corp. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1418, 1426, fin. 8.......csccecssecsseeneess 10 Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal. 4 1153 Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, 889-890 ........-.-ssccsscsescsessscseceseneeseeesnseasese 10 Wong v. Jing, 189 Cal. App. 4th 1354, 1377 (2010) ......sessssesseccseeccecsessneesnessereere seetsnsecaeersneeneeare 14 Statutes § 1002.5. (a). § LLO2.5 (D) secsscscssssssessensssseseecsessssssesonsssssssseseecssssssssussesssssnsuassessssssunsacessgesesussesessennssnsetsssanecesesessenee 2 § 1102.5(b) California Civil Code §3294(a) & 3294(D)...esssssssssssesssessessssssscsereesecsessnsrsssssssssuenissssssssneneresensise 10 California Civil Code section § 1786.10 — § 1786.40......ssscsssssssssessssssessssneecsesaesessusesrteeesssseee 2 California Civil Code section § 1786.10 — § 1786.40... .scssssessssecsescssceecotssotsnnecnensvsssneaeensesensees 5 California Code of Civil Procedure section § 1002.5 ....essssscsssssscssscssesensessssecsssseestessuessnnesensesssnses 2 California Labor Code section § 1102.5(b)...... 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iPlaintiff, Nick Miletak submits this complaint for damages and respectfully alleges as follows: I NATURE OF ACTION Ll. This is an individual consumer complaint against Amazon.com Services, LLC and Amazon.com, Inc., (hereinafter “Defendants”) for wrongful termination of employment in violation of public policy of California Labor Code section § 1102.5(b) and Califomia Code of Civil Procedure section § 1002.5 in which the Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiff, Nick Miletak, for engaging in litigation against Rejoice Delivers, LLC, an Amazon Delivery Service Partner (hereinafter “DSP”), for violations of the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agency Act contained in California Civil Code section § 1786.10— § 1786.40 (hereinafter “ICRAA”) by their investigative consumer reporting agency (hereinafter “ICRA”) which state: § 1102.5 (b) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information, or because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or may disclose information, to a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or for providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties. And: § 1002,5. (a) An agreement to settle an employment dispute shall not contain a provision prohibiting, preventing, or otherwise restricting a settling party that is an aggrieved person from obtaining future employment with the employer against which the aggrieved person has filed a claim, or any parent company, subsidiary, division, affiliate, or contractor of the employer. A provision in an agreement entered into on or after January 1, 2020, that violates this section is void as a matter of law and against public policy. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 2OD Oe YN DA HW PB Ww NY yoN NNN BY Be eB eB eB Be eB Be se BNURREBBRRBESECREDWABEBERE STS 2. Plaintiff, Nick Miletak, alleges that his employment as a driver with the Defendants commenced around November of 2016 and continued until around February of 2021 through the Amazon Flex App and with the Plaintiff providing transportation services for goods needing transport. 3. Since February of 2021 the Plaintiff has been unlawfully denied direct employment with the Defendants and employment through the Defendants Amazon Flex app and/or any of their DSPs throughout the United States. Il. JURISDICTION 4, This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Constitution Article VI, § 10, which grants the Superior Court “original jurisdiction in all causes except those given by statute to other courts.” The statutes under which this action is brought do not specify any other basis for jurisdiction. 5. This Court has jurisdiction over all Defendant because, based on information and belief, each party is either a citizen of California, has sufficient minimum contacts in California, or otherwise intentionally avails itself of the Califomia market so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over it by the California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Wt. VENUE 6. Venue is proper in this Court because, upon information and belief, one or more of the named Defendants reside, transact business, or have offices in this county and the acts and omissions alleged herein took place in this county. Iv. PARTIES 7. Plaintiff, Nick Miletak is an adult residing in San Jose, California County of Santa Clara. 8. Defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC, is a limited liability corporation COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 3yo Oem NY DH RF Ww NY RB NM N NY NY N NR NN Be ee Be Be Be Be Re eo QA Hw BY NH KF SBD we MN DH RW NY YK SG dominating the logistics industry, with its principal place of business located at 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, Washington, 98109 and is a Delaware Domestic Corporation filed under File: 3482342 and incorporated on January 18, 2022. Defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC is registered with the California Secretary of State under File: 202001010303 and registered on January 10, 2020 and transacts business throughout the State of California, including the County of Santa Clara. 9. Defendant Amazon.com, Inc., is a corporation dominating the logistics industry, with its principal place of business similarly located at 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, Washington, 98109 and is a Delaware Domestic Corporation filed under File: 2620453 and incorporated on May 28, 1996. The Defendant does not appear to be registered with the California Secretary but has confirmed that this Defendant similarly transacts business throughout the State of California, including the County of Santa Clara. 10. At all relevant times herein, Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, were the agents, partners, joint venturers, representatives, servants, employees, successors- in-interest, co-conspirators and assignees, of each other, and at all times relevant hereto were acting within the course and scope of their authority as such agents, partners, joint venturers, representatives, servants, employees, successors, co-conspirators and assignees, and that all acts or omissions alleged were duly committed with the ratification, knowledge, permission, encouragement, authorization and consent of each defendant designated. 11. The true names and capacities, whether corporate, associate, individual or otherwise, of defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who sues said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes Vv. STATEMENT OF FACTS 12. Defendants operate the largest and most dominant logistics company in the world. As part of the operations the Defendants created an on-demand delivery app called Amazon Flex COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 4CD Oe YN DH WH FF YW NY HY RP NNN NR NY NY BY Be Fe Be Be se Se Be Be SB @eRRE SRR BES eS AURKEE BSR AS that lets people order and quickly receive purchased items. To do this, Defendants contracts with drivers to deliver packages to people in their local area. Defendants also use Delivery Service Partners (hereinafter “DSP”) to complete deliveries which also require utilization of the Amazon Flex app. 13. To carry out its business activities and objectives, Defendants, market to individuals, such as this Plaintiff, seeking flexible employment schedules to become drivers utilizing the Amazon Flex app to transport purchased items utilizing their own private vehicle. Defendants also assign a majority of the required deliveries to their DSP’s where employment candidates, such as this Plaintiff, can work directly for the DSP but requires registration and use of the Amazon Flex app. 14. To be eligible for employment with the Defendants or any of their DSP’s as a delivery driver an employment candidate is required to register an Amazon Flex account. In either employment with the Defendants directly as a delivery driver or at a DSP the employee is required to use the Amazon Flex app to make deliveries. The Facts Pertaining to Plaintiff Nick Miletak 15. Around November of 2016 the Plaintiff became employed with the Defendants as an on-demand driver using the Amazon Flex app. The Plaintiff's employment in this capacity continued until around February of 2021 on a part-time basis. 16. Around December 18, 2020 the Plaintiff applied for employment as a full-time delivery driver with Rejoice Delivers, a DSP for the Defendants, and was offered the position and accepted. 17, Inearly January of 2021 and during the onboarding process with Rejoice Delivers the Plaintiff discovered violations by the DSP of the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agency Act contained in California Civil Code section § 1786.10 — § 1786.40 (hereinafter “ICRAA”). COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 518. Because of the ICRAA violations the Plaintiff and Rejoice Delivers entered into a settlement negotiation around January 8, 2021. 19. Around early February of 2021 and at the early stages of settlement negotiations with Rejoice Delivers the Plaintiff discovered that his Amazon Flex account was deliberately deactivated by the Defendants without any explanation. 20. A settlement agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and Rejoice Delivers for the ICRAA violations alleged during onboarding. The executed settlement agreement between the Plaintiff and Rejoice Delivers contained an unlawful waiver of rights in section 5.1 which was unnoticed by the Plaintiff at the time of execution of the settlement agreement. The original settlement agreement is included with the Declaration of Plaintiff Nick Miletak attached thereto as Exhibit “1” 21. Because of the initiation of lawfully protected settlement negotiations with their DSP and the unlawful settlement agreement between Rejoice Delivers and the Plaintiff the Defendants deliberately retaliated against the Plaintiff and have restricted him from using or reactivating his Amazon Flex account, working for Amazon directly and working for any of the thousands of DSPs throughout the United States. 22. Around June of 2021 the Plaintiff applied for employment as a full-time delivery driver with MetroStar Express, a DSP for the Defendants, and was offered employment and accepted but was unable to complete the onboarding because of the restrictions placed by the Defendants. 23. Around September of 2021 the Plaintiff discovered section 5.1 of his settlement agreement with Rejoice Delivers containing the unlawful waiver of rights. Upon discovering the unlawful provision negotiations with counsel of record for Rejoice Delivers, Defendants DSP, commenced. 24. Around October 2021 a revised settlement agreement was agreed to which COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES. 6oO ee YN DH HW FF BW NHN = a ae Co PN DH HH F&F YW NH | CS removed the unlawful waiver of rights pertaining to any work restrictions with the Defendants and all other DSP’s contained in the previous unlawful no-rehire provision. The revised settlement agreement is included with the Declaration of Plaintiff Nick Miletak attached thereto as Exhibit “2” 25. Around November of 2021 the Plaintiff applied for employment as a full-time delivery driver with Delivery Works, a DSP for the Defendants, and was offered employment and accepted but was unable to complete the onboarding because of the restrictions placed by the Defendants. 26. On August 22, 2022 the Plaintiff applied for employment as a full-time delivery driver with OnPoint Logistics, Inc., a DSP for the Defendants, and was offered employment and accepted but was unable to complete the onboarding because of the restriction placed by the Defendants. 27. From February 6, 2021 through January 31, 2022 the Plaintiff has communicated electronically with the Defendants a minimum of fifteen (15) times advising that the deactivation of his Amazon Flex account and restriction on employment was likely retaliatory and unlawful with the electronic communications listed in the table below: DAEOREMAL | EMALGEIT FROM EMAL TO " 6-Feb-21 nmiletak@msn.com amazonflex-support@amazon.com nmiletak@msn.com amazonflex-support@amazon.com nmiletak@msn.com amazonflex-support@amazon.com nmiletak@msn.com david.a.zapolsky@amazon.com david.zapolsky@amazon.com david_zapolsky@amazon.com david_a_zapolsky@amazon.com dzapolsky@amazon.com