Preview
170V318162
Santa Clara — Civil
L. Zanzen
Electronically Filed
ILG Legal Office, P.C. by Superior Court of CA,
Stephen Noel Ilg (SBN 275599) County of Santa Clara,
George Lin (SBN 287873) on 3/9/2022 5:21 PM
156 South Spruce Ave., Unit 206A Reviewed By: L. Zenzen
South San Francisco, CA 94080 Case #17CV318162
Tel: (415)580-2574 Envelope: 8473142
Fax: (415)735-3454
Email: silg@ilglegal.com
Email: glin@ilglegal.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Jawahar Jain
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
10
gr
fo
eS
sa ll
So
as
gs
ese 12
pet Jawahar Jain, on behalf of himself, Case No. 17CV318162
Ba7e 13
=m OS Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF JAWAHAR JAIN’S
Bou
ag 14 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT
vs.
=e
qm
BB CONFERENCE BRIEF
15
ce Samsung Research America, Inc., a
Reg 16 California Corporation, Pranav Mistry, an Date: March 16, 2022
oe Time: 9:00 a.m.
individual, Sajid Sadi, an individual, and
17 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Location: Zoom Conference
Mediator: Kevin Bedolla, Esq.
18
Defendants.
19 Complaint Filed: October 26, 2017
Trial Date: March 21, 2022
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-i-
Jain vs. Samsung Research America, et al.
Plaintiff Jawahar Jain’s MSC Brief
PLAINTIFF JAWAHAR JAIN’S MSC BRIEF
I INTRODUCTION
In early 2017, Dr. Jawahar Jain (“Plaintiff’ or “Dr. Jain”) was named the Lead Inventor
of Samsung Research America, Inc. (“Samsung”)—a research and development subsidiary of the
well-known Samsung parent company. By the end of 2017, Dr. Jain was permanently disabled
and unable to hold any job. (Exh. 1', Treating Physician Dr. Prescop Report {| 8; Exh. 2,
Vocational Expert Dr. Koobatian’s Report March 2021.) In fact, the Social Security Department
declared him permanently disabled as of October 1, 2017—five days before his last day with
Samsung. (Exh. 3, Vocational Expert Dr. Koobatian’s Supplemental Report.)
10 Dr. Jain’s experiences with Samsung were marked with evidence planting (Exh. 6,
gr
fo
eS
ga ll Excerpts of Report by Physics Expert Dr. Pravica; Exh. 7, Excerpts of Report by Food Chemistry
So
as
gs
ese 12 Expert Dr. Rosenberg), a sloppy investigation (Exh. 4, Human Resources Expert Susan Daniel
pet
Ba7e 13 Report), and blatant misrepresentations (Exh. 8, Patent Expert Dr. Brian Stanton Report).
aBow
SE Consequently, Dr. Jain suffered a likely Transient Ischemic Attack, otherwise known as a mini-
14
=e
qm
BS 15 stroke, due to stress and trauma. He has lost significant cognitive function which will never return.
aa
ce
Reg 16 (Exh. 1, Treating Physician Dr. Prescop Report 7 4, 15.)
oe
17 His pre-existing depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder and suicidal ideations, which
18 had been well under control for years, took over his life. Every day now, Dr. Jain now must suffer
19 through ten (10) to twelve (12) hours of compulsive rituals centered on harm avoidance to survive;
20 otherwise, his suicidal ideations take over. (Exh. 5, Psychologist Dr. Meier Report; Exh. 2,
21 Vocational Expert Dr. Koobatian Report.) He remains locked in a room at home and cannot leave
22 or do anything. Dr. Jain’s physicians can testify that the evidence planting in the form of exploding
23 juice and the false allegation of a gift of chocolate (Exhs. 6 and 7) is at the core of his rituals to
24 avoid the repeat of such a cruel fate. (Exh. 1, Prescop Decl. {{] 5-14.) The trauma of the final
25 stage of his Samsung tenure has been crippling to his obsessive mind. Today, his family does not
26 think he is capable of simple tasks like driving or even purchasing groceries.
27 ' Plaintiff has submitted Exhibits 1-8 via a separate filing submitted concurrently herewith.
28
-1-
Jain vs. Samsung Research America, et al.
Plaintiff Jawahar Jain’s MSC Brief
Dr. Jain’s injuries caused by IED are catastrophic and permanent, and the treating
physician has opined that these events are a primary cause of his emotional distress injuries. (Exh.
1, Prescop Decl. {| 9-13.) Those injuries are a critical part of the permanent disability which
rendered Dr. Jain unable to keep even a basic job. Dr. Jain retained a vocational rehabilitation
expert who determined, before the Social Security Department did, that Dr. Jain—once the lead
inventor at Samsung—was incapable of holding down any job. (Exh. 2, Dr. Koobatian Report.)
In 2021, the Social Security Department completed its independent investigation of Dr. Jain’s
condition; this governmental entity reached the same conclusion Dr. Koobatian had—Dr. Jain is
unemployable. More specifically, the government determined his permanent disability began
10 October 1, 2017. (Exh. 3, Dr. Koobatian Report October 2021.)
gr
fo
eS
ga ll Samsung did not conduct any Independent Medical Examination, nor did it retain any
So
as
gs
ese 12 expert witness with a medical background. Thus, while the parties can debate various legal issues,
pet
Ba7e 13 the undisputed fact is that Dr. Jain’s mental and physical health have been destroyed permanently.
aBow
SE Trial is set to begin on March 21, 2022. The damages at issue are astronomical. For
14
=e
qm
BS 15 instance, post-employment future lost wages were calculated by Plaintiffs forensic economist to
aa
ce
Reg 16 be $5,655,525.00. Dr. Jain has two categories of claims that could yield these economic damages.
oe
17 First, Dr. Jain could prevail on one of several wrongful termination theories, including wrongful
18 termination in violation of FEHA based on disability discrimination or breach of contract. Second,
19 Dr. Jain could recover these economic damages through his Intentional Infliction of Emotional
20 Distress claim (“IIED”).
21 IL. LIST OF CLAIMS AT ISSUE
22 Dr. Jain’s operative complaint plead fifteen (15) claims. Samsung filed a Demurrer, a
23 Motion for Summary Judgment, a Motion for Clarification of the Summary Judgment Order and
24 made other attempts to reduce the claims at issue but had minimal success. No component of
25 damages was removed from the case”; however, Samsung did reduce the number of wrongful
26 2
Samsung has taken a strange legal position by arguing that all wrongful termination claims
27 have been dismissed. This position is strange because the relevant Order explicitly states that
certain termination claims survived. Samsung filed a “Motion for Clarification” of the MSJ Order.
28 Plaintiff even stipulated that the Court was permitted to clarify its order. The ruling on Samsung’s
-2-
Jain vs. Samsung Research America, et al.
Plaintiff Jawahar Jain’s MSC Brief
termination claims at issue (e.g. Whistleblower Retaliation was dismissed’).
The claims asserted in the operative complaint are listed below; those shown in
strikethrough text were dismissed pursuant to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication.
1 FAILURE TO REIMBURSE BUSINESS EXPENSES (Lab. Code § 2802);
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION (Gov’t. Code §§ 12940 et seq.);
AGE DISCRIMINATION (Gov’t. Code §§ 12940 et seq.);
HARASSMENT (Gov’t. Code §§ 12940 et seq.);
FAILURE TO PREVENT AND INVESTIGATE DISCRIMINATION AND
HARASSMENT (Gov’t. Code §§ 12940 et seq.; Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Company);
8 FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION (Gov’t. Code §
10
sy
fe 12940 et seq.);
ey
11 9. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN INTERACTIVE PROCESS (Gov’t. Code § 12940);
ou
go
ae 10 VIOLATION OF CFRA/FMLA (Gov’t. Code § 12945.2; 29 CFR § 825.302);
gs
ose 12 11 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
af
& na
= 13
12 BREACH OF CONTRACT (Civil Code);
13 BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING;
ase
Bo 14. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.); and
14
#9
aS 4+5.—_UNJUST ENRICHMENT.
Ww £8 15
ce
ge Ti. CATEGORIES OF DAMAGES4
=< 16
oe A. Economic Damages
17
Dr. Jain’s economic damages from future lost wages equals $5,655,525.00. Other
18
economic damages are also at issue, but for brevity’s sake they will be omitted from this brief.
19
B. Non-Economic Damages
20
Motion on this very issue was that the Court denied Samsung’s Motion “IN ITS ENTIRETY.” At
21
mediation, Plaintiff's counsel will be happy to explain the analytical errors in Samsung’s position.
22 3 Tf unsuccessful at trial, Dr. Jain will almost certainly win the appeal to reverse dismissal of the
Retaliation claim because the Court relied on the wrong legal test in dismissing this claim. Earlier
23 this year, the California Supreme Court described legal error many judges have made when
24 analyzing this claim. See Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., 2022 DJDAR 967 (Cal.
Jan. 27, 2022). The Supreme Court explicitly mentioned the same legal test (“McDonnel Douglas”
25 test) and case law (e.g. Patten v. Grant Joint Union High School Dist.) relied on by this Court in
dismissing the Retaliation claim. Plaintiff's counsel published an article on the subject in the Daily
26 Journal and will be ready to brief the issue should an appeal be necessary. See
27 Attps://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/365880-ruling-ends-decades-of-improper-whistleblower-
burden-shifting.
28 * This is not exhaustive of the damages that will be sought at trial.
3.
Jain vs. Samsung Research America, et al.
Plaintiff Jawahar Jain’s MSC Brief
Dr. Jain’s emotional distress is the rare variety that caused actual physical manifestations
in the form of a likely Transient Ischemic Attack, otherwise known as a mini-stroke, caused by
stress. This led to permanent cognitive impairments which converted the once-lead inventor of
Samsung into an individual that cannot hold down a job.
Cc. Exemplary Damages
Dr. Jain Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 could trigger punitive damages. The
parties have stipulated to bifurcate trial and assess punitive damages separately if Plaintiff prevails
and proves malice, oppression, or fraud as to any of these claims.
D. Attorney Fees
10 Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 all trigger the right to attorney fees. Because Dr. Jain sent
gr
fo
eS
ga ll statutory 998 offers to each of the three defendants, recovery of fees and costs may be possible
So
as
gs
ese 12 on any claim. Plaintiff’s counsel’s lodestar to date is $1,116,950.00 based on an hourly rate of
pet
Ba7e 13 $475 for lead counsel and $350 to $400 for associates that have worked on the case; this does not
aBow
SE include paralegal time which would also be compensable. All claims listed (except Claim 1:
14
=e
qm
BS 15 Reimbursement) are inextricably intertwined factually which means that a victory on any one of
aa
ce
Reg 16 the claims can result in recovery of all attorney fees.
oe
17 E. Legal Costs
18 Legal costs have been advanced by Plaintiffs counsel. Expenses logged into the firm’s
19 accounting system at this time equal $318,811.11. Significant expenses have not yet been entered
20 into the accounting system while more are being incurred to prepare for trial.
21 IV. DISCUSSION OF EXEMPLAR CLAIMS
22 A. Samsung’s Liability for FEHA, CFRA, and FMLA Claims
23 Dr. Jain asserts FEHA claims related to age and disability. Age bias pervaded the
24 workplace at Samsung so much so that Samsung’s leaders actually published a video in 2017
25 bragging about how they have built a “very young” team. In addition to Samsung, two individuals
26 have been named as defendants, Pranav Mistry—Dr. Jain’s official manager—and Sajid Sadi—
27 Dr. Jain’s de facto supervisor. In the video, Sajid Sadi praises the “Think Tank Team” and one of
28 the first characteristics he wants the world to know is it is a “very young” team.
4.
Jain vs. Samsung Research America, et al.
Plaintiff Jawahar Jain’s MSC Brief
Dr. Jain was ridiculed for his age and was denied resources for his disabilities. Plaintiff's
Human Resources expert has analyzed all depositions in this case and prepared a detailed report
about many clear violations of FEHA, CFRA, and FMLA. (Exh. 4, Human Resources Expert
Susan Daniel.) Samsung does not have any expert on point.
The individual defendants have significant liability for FEHA harassment claims as well.
Samsung stated it terminated Dr. Jain for “excessive emails.” Plaintiff's psychology expert
has evaluated him and prepared a report on his condition. She also concluded that “excessive
emails” is a symptom of his OCD, a recognized disability. FEHA disability claims have a different
legal analysis than other FEHA claims in that an employer who inadvertently terminates a worker
10 because of a symptom of a disability is liable for wrongful termination even if there was no intent
11 to discriminate. (Exh. 5, Psychologist Dr. Meier Report.)
os 12 B. Samsung’s Liability for ITED Claim
& 13 Intentional infliction of emotional distress is proven by: (1) outrageous conduct, (2)
= So 6 14 intended to cause emotional distress; (3) severe emotional distress; and (4) substantial factor in
15 causing severe emotional distress. Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal. 4th 1035, 1050 (2009).
16 F. Samsung’s Liability for Unfair Business Practices
17 Dr. Jain alleged a claim under the UCL. One basis for this claim is that Samsung had
18 fraudulent business practices related to patents. (Exh. 8, Patent Expert Brian Stanton Report.)
19 Vv. CONCLUSION
20 Dr. Jain is confident in his chances to succeed at trial; however, he will be coming to this
21 settlement conference with an open mind.
22
23 DATED: March 9, 2022 ILG LEGAL OFFICE, PC
24
25
My. y)
lok f
op
eg
a
Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff Jawahar Jain
26
27
28
-5-
Jain vs. Samsung Research America, et al.
Plaintiff Jawahar Jain’s MSC Brief
Preview
170V318162 Santa Clara — Civil L. Zanzen Electronically Filed ILG Legal Office, P.C. by Superior Court of CA, Stephen Noel Ilg (SBN 275599) County of Santa Clara, George Lin (SBN 287873) on 3/9/2022 5:21 PM 156 South Spruce Ave., Unit 206A Reviewed By: L. Zenzen South San Francisco, CA 94080 Case #17CV318162 Tel: (415)580-2574 Envelope: 8473142 Fax: (415)735-3454 Email: silg@ilglegal.com Email: glin@ilglegal.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Jawahar Jain SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 10 gr fo eS sa ll So as gs ese 12 pet Jawahar Jain, on behalf of himself, Case No. 17CV318162 Ba7e 13 =m OS Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF JAWAHAR JAIN’S Bou ag 14 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT vs. =e qm BB CONFERENCE BRIEF 15 ce Samsung Research America, Inc., a Reg 16 California Corporation, Pranav Mistry, an Date: March 16, 2022 oe Time: 9:00 a.m. individual, Sajid Sadi, an individual, and 17 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Location: Zoom Conference Mediator: Kevin Bedolla, Esq. 18 Defendants. 19 Complaint Filed: October 26, 2017 Trial Date: March 21, 2022 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -i- Jain vs. Samsung Research America, et al. Plaintiff Jawahar Jain’s MSC Brief PLAINTIFF JAWAHAR JAIN’S MSC BRIEF I INTRODUCTION In early 2017, Dr. Jawahar Jain (“Plaintiff’ or “Dr. Jain”) was named the Lead Inventor of Samsung Research America, Inc. (“Samsung”)—a research and development subsidiary of the well-known Samsung parent company. By the end of 2017, Dr. Jain was permanently disabled and unable to hold any job. (Exh. 1', Treating Physician Dr. Prescop Report {| 8; Exh. 2, Vocational Expert Dr. Koobatian’s Report March 2021.) In fact, the Social Security Department declared him permanently disabled as of October 1, 2017—five days before his last day with Samsung. (Exh. 3, Vocational Expert Dr. Koobatian’s Supplemental Report.) 10 Dr. Jain’s experiences with Samsung were marked with evidence planting (Exh. 6, gr fo eS ga ll Excerpts of Report by Physics Expert Dr. Pravica; Exh. 7, Excerpts of Report by Food Chemistry So as gs ese 12 Expert Dr. Rosenberg), a sloppy investigation (Exh. 4, Human Resources Expert Susan Daniel pet Ba7e 13 Report), and blatant misrepresentations (Exh. 8, Patent Expert Dr. Brian Stanton Report). aBow SE Consequently, Dr. Jain suffered a likely Transient Ischemic Attack, otherwise known as a mini- 14 =e qm BS 15 stroke, due to stress and trauma. He has lost significant cognitive function which will never return. aa ce Reg 16 (Exh. 1, Treating Physician Dr. Prescop Report 7 4, 15.) oe 17 His pre-existing depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder and suicidal ideations, which 18 had been well under control for years, took over his life. Every day now, Dr. Jain now must suffer 19 through ten (10) to twelve (12) hours of compulsive rituals centered on harm avoidance to survive; 20 otherwise, his suicidal ideations take over. (Exh. 5, Psychologist Dr. Meier Report; Exh. 2, 21 Vocational Expert Dr. Koobatian Report.) He remains locked in a room at home and cannot leave 22 or do anything. Dr. Jain’s physicians can testify that the evidence planting in the form of exploding 23 juice and the false allegation of a gift of chocolate (Exhs. 6 and 7) is at the core of his rituals to 24 avoid the repeat of such a cruel fate. (Exh. 1, Prescop Decl. {{] 5-14.) The trauma of the final 25 stage of his Samsung tenure has been crippling to his obsessive mind. Today, his family does not 26 think he is capable of simple tasks like driving or even purchasing groceries. 27 ' Plaintiff has submitted Exhibits 1-8 via a separate filing submitted concurrently herewith. 28 -1- Jain vs. Samsung Research America, et al. Plaintiff Jawahar Jain’s MSC Brief Dr. Jain’s injuries caused by IED are catastrophic and permanent, and the treating physician has opined that these events are a primary cause of his emotional distress injuries. (Exh. 1, Prescop Decl. {| 9-13.) Those injuries are a critical part of the permanent disability which rendered Dr. Jain unable to keep even a basic job. Dr. Jain retained a vocational rehabilitation expert who determined, before the Social Security Department did, that Dr. Jain—once the lead inventor at Samsung—was incapable of holding down any job. (Exh. 2, Dr. Koobatian Report.) In 2021, the Social Security Department completed its independent investigation of Dr. Jain’s condition; this governmental entity reached the same conclusion Dr. Koobatian had—Dr. Jain is unemployable. More specifically, the government determined his permanent disability began 10 October 1, 2017. (Exh. 3, Dr. Koobatian Report October 2021.) gr fo eS ga ll Samsung did not conduct any Independent Medical Examination, nor did it retain any So as gs ese 12 expert witness with a medical background. Thus, while the parties can debate various legal issues, pet Ba7e 13 the undisputed fact is that Dr. Jain’s mental and physical health have been destroyed permanently. aBow SE Trial is set to begin on March 21, 2022. The damages at issue are astronomical. For 14 =e qm BS 15 instance, post-employment future lost wages were calculated by Plaintiffs forensic economist to aa ce Reg 16 be $5,655,525.00. Dr. Jain has two categories of claims that could yield these economic damages. oe 17 First, Dr. Jain could prevail on one of several wrongful termination theories, including wrongful 18 termination in violation of FEHA based on disability discrimination or breach of contract. Second, 19 Dr. Jain could recover these economic damages through his Intentional Infliction of Emotional 20 Distress claim (“IIED”). 21 IL. LIST OF CLAIMS AT ISSUE 22 Dr. Jain’s operative complaint plead fifteen (15) claims. Samsung filed a Demurrer, a 23 Motion for Summary Judgment, a Motion for Clarification of the Summary Judgment Order and 24 made other attempts to reduce the claims at issue but had minimal success. No component of 25 damages was removed from the case”; however, Samsung did reduce the number of wrongful 26 2 Samsung has taken a strange legal position by arguing that all wrongful termination claims 27 have been dismissed. This position is strange because the relevant Order explicitly states that certain termination claims survived. Samsung filed a “Motion for Clarification” of the MSJ Order. 28 Plaintiff even stipulated that the Court was permitted to clarify its order. The ruling on Samsung’s -2- Jain vs. Samsung Research America, et al. Plaintiff Jawahar Jain’s MSC Brief termination claims at issue (e.g. Whistleblower Retaliation was dismissed’). The claims asserted in the operative complaint are listed below; those shown in strikethrough text were dismissed pursuant to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication. 1 FAILURE TO REIMBURSE BUSINESS EXPENSES (Lab. Code § 2802); DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION (Gov’t. Code §§ 12940 et seq.); AGE DISCRIMINATION (Gov’t. Code §§ 12940 et seq.); HARASSMENT (Gov’t. Code §§ 12940 et seq.); FAILURE TO PREVENT AND INVESTIGATE DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT (Gov’t. Code §§ 12940 et seq.; Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Company); 8 FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION (Gov’t. Code § 10 sy fe 12940 et seq.); ey 11 9. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN INTERACTIVE PROCESS (Gov’t. Code § 12940); ou go ae 10 VIOLATION OF CFRA/FMLA (Gov’t. Code § 12945.2; 29 CFR § 825.302); gs ose 12 11 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; af & na = 13 12 BREACH OF CONTRACT (Civil Code); 13 BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING; ase Bo 14. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.); and 14 #9 aS 4+5.—_UNJUST ENRICHMENT. Ww £8 15 ce ge Ti. CATEGORIES OF DAMAGES4 =< 16 oe A. Economic Damages 17 Dr. Jain’s economic damages from future lost wages equals $5,655,525.00. Other 18 economic damages are also at issue, but for brevity’s sake they will be omitted from this brief. 19 B. Non-Economic Damages 20 Motion on this very issue was that the Court denied Samsung’s Motion “IN ITS ENTIRETY.” At 21 mediation, Plaintiff's counsel will be happy to explain the analytical errors in Samsung’s position. 22 3 Tf unsuccessful at trial, Dr. Jain will almost certainly win the appeal to reverse dismissal of the Retaliation claim because the Court relied on the wrong legal test in dismissing this claim. Earlier 23 this year, the California Supreme Court described legal error many judges have made when 24 analyzing this claim. See Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., 2022 DJDAR 967 (Cal. Jan. 27, 2022). The Supreme Court explicitly mentioned the same legal test (“McDonnel Douglas” 25 test) and case law (e.g. Patten v. Grant Joint Union High School Dist.) relied on by this Court in dismissing the Retaliation claim. Plaintiff's counsel published an article on the subject in the Daily 26 Journal and will be ready to brief the issue should an appeal be necessary. See 27 Attps://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/365880-ruling-ends-decades-of-improper-whistleblower- burden-shifting. 28 * This is not exhaustive of the damages that will be sought at trial. 3. Jain vs. Samsung Research America, et al. Plaintiff Jawahar Jain’s MSC Brief Dr. Jain’s emotional distress is the rare variety that caused actual physical manifestations in the form of a likely Transient Ischemic Attack, otherwise known as a mini-stroke, caused by stress. This led to permanent cognitive impairments which converted the once-lead inventor of Samsung into an individual that cannot hold down a job. Cc. Exemplary Damages Dr. Jain Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 could trigger punitive damages. The parties have stipulated to bifurcate trial and assess punitive damages separately if Plaintiff prevails and proves malice, oppression, or fraud as to any of these claims. D. Attorney Fees 10 Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 all trigger the right to attorney fees. Because Dr. Jain sent gr fo eS ga ll statutory 998 offers to each of the three defendants, recovery of fees and costs may be possible So as gs ese 12 on any claim. Plaintiff’s counsel’s lodestar to date is $1,116,950.00 based on an hourly rate of pet Ba7e 13 $475 for lead counsel and $350 to $400 for associates that have worked on the case; this does not aBow SE include paralegal time which would also be compensable. All claims listed (except Claim 1: 14 =e qm BS 15 Reimbursement) are inextricably intertwined factually which means that a victory on any one of aa ce Reg 16 the claims can result in recovery of all attorney fees. oe 17 E. Legal Costs 18 Legal costs have been advanced by Plaintiffs counsel. Expenses logged into the firm’s 19 accounting system at this time equal $318,811.11. Significant expenses have not yet been entered 20 into the accounting system while more are being incurred to prepare for trial. 21 IV. DISCUSSION OF EXEMPLAR CLAIMS 22 A. Samsung’s Liability for FEHA, CFRA, and FMLA Claims 23 Dr. Jain asserts FEHA claims related to age and disability. Age bias pervaded the 24 workplace at Samsung so much so that Samsung’s leaders actually published a video in 2017 25 bragging about how they have built a “very young” team. In addition to Samsung, two individuals 26 have been named as defendants, Pranav Mistry—Dr. Jain’s official manager—and Sajid Sadi— 27 Dr. Jain’s de facto supervisor. In the video, Sajid Sadi praises the “Think Tank Team” and one of 28 the first characteristics he wants the world to know is it is a “very young” team. 4. Jain vs. Samsung Research America, et al. Plaintiff Jawahar Jain’s MSC Brief Dr. Jain was ridiculed for his age and was denied resources for his disabilities. Plaintiff's Human Resources expert has analyzed all depositions in this case and prepared a detailed report about many clear violations of FEHA, CFRA, and FMLA. (Exh. 4, Human Resources Expert Susan Daniel.) Samsung does not have any expert on point. The individual defendants have significant liability for FEHA harassment claims as well. Samsung stated it terminated Dr. Jain for “excessive emails.” Plaintiff's psychology expert has evaluated him and prepared a report on his condition. She also concluded that “excessive emails” is a symptom of his OCD, a recognized disability. FEHA disability claims have a different legal analysis than other FEHA claims in that an employer who inadvertently terminates a worker 10 because of a symptom of a disability is liable for wrongful termination even if there was no intent 11 to discriminate. (Exh. 5, Psychologist Dr. Meier Report.) os 12 B. Samsung’s Liability for ITED Claim & 13 Intentional infliction of emotional distress is proven by: (1) outrageous conduct, (2) = So 6 14 intended to cause emotional distress; (3) severe emotional distress; and (4) substantial factor in 15 causing severe emotional distress. Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal. 4th 1035, 1050 (2009). 16 F. Samsung’s Liability for Unfair Business Practices 17 Dr. Jain alleged a claim under the UCL. One basis for this claim is that Samsung had 18 fraudulent business practices related to patents. (Exh. 8, Patent Expert Brian Stanton Report.) 19 Vv. CONCLUSION 20 Dr. Jain is confident in his chances to succeed at trial; however, he will be coming to this 21 settlement conference with an open mind. 22 23 DATED: March 9, 2022 ILG LEGAL OFFICE, PC 24 25 My. y) lok f op eg a Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff Jawahar Jain 26 27 28 -5- Jain vs. Samsung Research America, et al. Plaintiff Jawahar Jain’s MSC Brief