Nakayama v. Tesla Inc Document 1: Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening)

California Central District Court
Case No. 2:23-cv-00062-MRW
Filed January 5, 2023

NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Los Angeles County Superior Court, case number 22STCV33909 Receipt No: ACACDC-34572835 - Fee: $402, filed by Defendant Tesla Inc. (Attorney Kiran Singh Lopez added to party Tesla Inc(pty:dft))(Lopez, Kiran)

BackBack to Nakayama v. Tesla Inc

Tags No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.

  Formatted Text Tab Overlap Raw Text Right End
Page 1 Page ID #:
KIRAN S. LOPEZ (SBN 252467)
Tesla, INC.
901 Page Avenue
Fremont, California Telephone: (510) 239-kirlopez@tesla.com

Attorney for Defendant
TESLA, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRAIG NAKAYAMA, an individual,
Plaintiff,

v.
TESLA, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:23-cv-DEFENDANT TESLA, INC.’S
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Los Angeles County Superior Court
Case No. 22STCVComplaint Filed: October 19,
DEFENDANT TESLA, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Page 2 Page ID #:
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND IN STATE COURT..........................................
II.
TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL ................................................................................
III.
THIS COURT HAS DIVERSITY JURISDICTION OVER THIS CASE ............... A.

There Is Complete Diversity Of Citizenship In This Case .............................
1.
Plaintiff Is A Citizen Of California ......................................................
2.
Tesla Is Not A Citizen Of California ....................................................
3.
Doe Defendants Should Be Disregarded ..............................................
B.

The Amount In Controversy Requirement Has Been Met .............................
1.
Standard To Demonstrate Amount In Controversy ..............................
2.
General And Punitive Damages Exceed $75,000.................................
3.
Verdicts In Cases With Similar Claims Exceed $75,000 .....................
4.
Attorneys' Fees Exceed $75,000 ..........................................................
IV.
VENUE .....................................................................................................................
V.
SERVICE OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL ON PLAINTIFF AND THE
CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT ....................................................................
VI.
PRAYER FOR REMOVAL .....................................................................................
i
DEFENDANT TESLA, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
1
Page 3 Page ID #:
TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT

OF CALIFORNIA AND TO PLAINTIFF AND HIS COUNSEL OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendant Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla” or “Defendant”)

hereby removes the above-referenced action from the Superior Court of the State of

California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central

District of California. This removal is made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1441 and 1446,

asserting diversity jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §1332, codified in relevant part at
U.S.C. §1332. Tesla states that removal is proper for the following reasons.

I.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND IN STATE COURT

On October 19, 2022, Plaintiff Craig Nakayama (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint

entitled, “CRAIG NAKAYAMA, Plaintiff v. TESLA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and

DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants,” Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.

22STCV33909 (the “Complaint”). The Complaint alleged six causes of action for: (1)

Disability Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act

(“FEHA”); (2) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Violation of FEHA; (3)

Failure to Engage in a Good Faith Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA; (4) Retaliation

in Violation of FEHA; (5) Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation

of FEHA; and (6) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy. A true and correct

copy of the Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

On December 7, 2022 Tesla was served with copies of the Summons, Complaint,

Civil Case Cover Sheet, and attendant documents through its agent for service of process,

CT Corporation, in Glendale, California. See concurrently filed Declaration of Kiran S.

Lopez (“Lopez Decl.”) at ¶2 and Exhibit A (service package).

Exhibit 1 attached hereto and Exhibit A to the concurrently filed Lopez Declaration

constitute all of the pleadings served on Tesla and/or filed by Tesla in the Los Angeles

County Superior Court prior to filing of this Notice of Removal. Lopez Decl. at ¶4. A Case

Management Conference has been scheduled for February 16, 2023. Id.
DEFENDANT TESLA, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
1
Page 4 Page ID #:
II.
TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL

This Notice of Removal is timely filed as it is filed less than one year from the date

this action was commenced and within 30 days of service of the Complaint on Tesla, the

moving Defendant. 28 U.S.C. §1446(b); Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc.

(1999) 119 S. Ct. 1322, 1325 (thirty-day deadline to remove commences upon service of

the summons and complaint).

III.
THIS COURT HAS DIVERSITY JURISDICTION OVER THIS CASE

Subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship requires that: (1)

there is complete diversity of citizenship between plaintiff and defendants; and (2) “the

matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.”

28 U.S.C. §1332. A Notice of Removal is sufficient “if it alleges that the parties are of

diverse citizenship and that the matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and

costs, the sum specified by 28 U.S.C. §1332 …” Ellenburg v. Spartan Motos Chassis, Inc.

(4th Cir. 2008) 519 F.3d 192, 200 (internal quotes and brackets omitted).

A.

The complete diversity requirement merely means that all plaintiffs must be of

different citizenship than all defendants, and any instance of common citizenship “deprives

the district court of original diversity jurisdiction over the entire action.” Exxon Mobil

Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc. (2005) 545 U.S. 546, 553. A party’s citizenship is

determined at the time the lawsuit was filed. In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig. (9th

Cir. 2008) 549 F.3d 1223, 1236 (“[T]he jurisdiction of the court depends upon the state of

things at the time of the action [was] brought.”). In the present case, the parties had

complete diversity of citizenship at the time the lawsuit was filed because Plaintiff’s

citizenship is diverse from Tesla’s.

There Is Complete Diversity Of Citizenship In This Case
1.
Plaintiff Is A Citizen Of California

For diversity purposes, a person is a “citizen” of the state in which he or she is

domiciled. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd. (9th Cir. 1983) 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (“To

show state citizenship for diversity purposes under federal common law a party must . . .
DEFENDANT TESLA, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
1
Page 5 Page ID #:
be domiciled in the state.”). A person’s domicile is the place he resides with the intent to

remain indefinitely. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co. (9th Cir. 2001) 265 F.3d 853, 857 (“A

person’s domicile is her permanent home, where she resides with the intention to remain

or to which she intends to return.”). Residence is prima facie evidence of domicile. State

Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Dyer (10th Cir. 1994) 19 F.3d 514, 520 (“the place of residence

is prima facie the domicile”).

Plaintiff alleges that he, “at all time relevant to this action, resided in Culver City,

California.” Complaint at ¶1. Therefore, Tesla is informed and believes that at all relevant

times for the purposes of this removal, Plaintiff is and has been a citizen of the State of

California.

2.
Tesla Is Not A Citizen Of California

For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a

citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its

principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1); see also Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada,

N.A. (9th Cir. 2009) 557 F.3d 1026, 1028 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)).

The Supreme Court of the United States in The Hertz Corp. v. Friend held that a

corporate entity’s “principal place of business” for determining its citizenship is its “nerve

center”:
We conclude that “principal place of business” is best read as
referring to the place where a corporation’s officers direct,
control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities. It is the place
that Courts of Appeals have called the corporation’s “nerve
center.” And in practice it should normally be the place where
the corporation maintains its headquarters -- provided that
the headquarters is the actual center of direction, control,
and coordination, i.e., the “nerve center” ....

(2010) 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (emphasis added).

Tesla is now, and was at the time of the filing of this action, a corporation organized

and formed under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business
DEFENDANT TESLA, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
1
Page 6 Page ID #:
and headquarters in Austin, Texas.1 Therefore, at all times since Plaintiff commenced this

lawsuit, Tesla is and has been a citizen of a state other than California within the meaning

of 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1). At all relevant times, Tesla is and has been a citizen of the States

of Delaware and Texas.
3.

Doe Defendants Should Be Disregarded

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), the residence of fictitious and unknown defendants

should be disregarded for purposes of establishing removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§133; Fristos v. Reynolds Metals Co. (9th Cir. 1980) 615 F.2d 1209, 1213 (unnamed

defendants are not required to join in a removal petition). Thus, the existence of Doe

defendants in this case does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction. Accordingly, pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §1332(c), Plaintiff and the real Defendant, Tesla, have diverse citizenship.
B.

The Amount In Controversy Requirement Has Been Met
1.
Standard To Demonstrate Amount In Controversy

While Tesla denies any liability as to Plaintiff’s claims, the amount in controversy

requirement is satisfied because “it is more likely than not” that the amount exceeds the

jurisdictional minimum of $75,000. See Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. (9th Cir. 1996)

102 F.3d 398, 403-404) (“the defendant must provide evidence establishing that it is ‘more

likely than not’ that the amount in controversy exceeds [the threshold] amount.”) (internal

citation omitted). As explained by the Ninth Circuit, “the amount-in-controversy inquiry

in the removal context is not confined to the face of the complaint.” Valdez v. Allstate Ins.

Co. (9th Cir. 2004) 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (finding that the Court may consider facts

presented in the removal petition). In determining the amount in controversy, the Court

must consider the aggregate of general damages, special damages, compensatory damages,

punitive damages and attorneys’ fees where recoverable by law. See Guglielmino v. McKee

Foods Corp. (9th Cir. 2007) 506 F.3d 696, 700 (“Section 1332(a)’s amount-in-controversy

Tesla’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 21, 2021, which is a public document and publicly
accessible through the United States Securities and Exchange Commission’s website, lists Delaware as
Tesla’s State of Incorporation and 13101 Tesla Road, Austin, Texas as Tesla’s principal executive offices:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000095017022000796/tsla-20211231.htm.
DEFENDANT TESLA, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
1
Page 7 Page ID #:
requirement excludes only ‘interest and costs.’”); see also Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia (9th

Cir. 1998) 142 F.3d 1150, 1156 (claims for statutory attorneys’ fees to be included in

amount in controversy, regardless of whether such an award is discretionary or mandatory);

Davenport v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass’n. (9th Cir. 1963) 325 F.2d 785,
(punitive damages must be taken into account where recoverable under state law); Conrad

Assocs. v. Hartford Accident & Ind. Co. (N.D. Cal. 1998) 994 F. Supp. 1196,
(“amount in controversy” includes claims for general and special damages).

In the Complaint Plaintiff requests (1) past and future economic damages; (2) past

and future non-economic damages; (3) pre-judgement interest; (4) post-judgement interest;

(5) costs of suit and attorneys’ fees; and (6) punitive damages. Complaint at Prayer for

Relief, 13:22-14:6. In light of the expansive categories of damages sought by Plaintiff, the

amount in controversy in this action is more likely than not to exceed the $75,
jurisdictional minimum.

2.
General And Punitive Damages Exceed $75,
Although Tesla denies that it should be liable for any damages whatsoever in this

case, assuming arguendo for the purposes of removal that Plaintiff prevails, Plaintiff is

seeking an award of both general and punitive damages. Complaint at Prayer for Relief,

13:22-14:6. Plaintiff alleges he has “suffered general damages as he was psychologically

injured. Such injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff great mental pain and

suffering in an amount in excess of this Court’s minimal jurisdiction.” Id. at ¶26. Plaintiff

also seeks to recover punitive damages. Requests for punitive damages must be taken into

account in ascertaining the amount in controversy. Davenport, 325 F.2d at 787. The amount

of punitive damages awarded is based on the financial worth of the defendant, and is meant

to punish the defendant in such a way that it will have a tangible financial consequence.

Without conceding that punitive damages are appropriate or applicable here, for a

defendant of Tesla’s size, it is probable that a punitive damages award, if assessed, would

exceed $75,000.00.
DEFENDANT TESLA, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
1
Page 8 Page ID #:
3.

Verdicts In Cases With Similar Claims Exceed $75,
To establish the amount in controversy, a defendant may rely on jury verdicts in

cases involving similar facts. Simmons v. PCR Tech. (N.D. Cal. 2002) 209 F. Supp. 2d

1029, 1033; Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp. (9th Cir. 2005) 432 F.3d 976, 980. California jury

verdicts in cases involving claims similar to Plaintiff’s often exceed $75,000. See, e.g., Ko

v. The Square Group LLC dba The Square Supermarket (June 16, 2014) Los Angeles Sup.

Ct., Case No. BC487739 ($190,712.36 verdict on plaintiff’s claims for discrimination,

retaliation, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and wage and hour claims

and $500,000 in punitive damages); Kamali v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp. (Dec. 20, 2012) Los

Angeles Sup. Ct., Case No. BC426247 (verdict for $663,983 on plaintiff’s claims for

national origin and disability discrimination); Hernandez v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.

(June 29, 2010) Alameda County Sup. Ct., Case No. RG06272564 (verdict for $266,
on disability discrimination, national origin discrimination, and retaliation claims).

Because Plaintiff’s allegations that he was discriminated against, retaliated against,

and wrongfully terminated based upon his alleged disability are similar to the claims and

issues raised in the cases cited above, these awards demonstrate that, for diversity purposes,

it is probable that any verdict in this matter in Plaintiff’s favor would award damages

exceeding $75,000.

4.
Attorneys’ Fees Exceed $75,
Plaintiff also seeks attorneys’ fees. Verdicts in comparable cases show that

attorneys’ fees typically exceed $75,000.00. See Denenberg v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp. (San

Diego County Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2006) 2007 WL 2827715 (attorney’s fees award of

$490,000.00 in case alleging discrimination, harassment, and retaliation); McMillan v. City

of Los Angeles (Los Angeles County Sup. Ct. March 21, 2005) 2005 WL 3729094, Case

No. BC298898 (attorney’s fees award of $504,926.00 in case alleging discrimination and

retaliation for filing lawsuit to redress discrimination); Gallegos v. Los Angeles City

College (Los Angeles County Sup. Ct. Oct. 16, 2003) (attorney’s fees award of

$159,277.00 for claim of discrimination and retaliation). Therefore, the inclusion of a claim
DEFENDANT TESLA, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
1
Page 9 Page ID #:
for attorneys’ fees also supports the conclusion that the amount in controversy in this matter

exceeds $75,000.00.

Consequently, because there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in

controversy clearly exceeds $75,000, this Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §§1332(a) and 1441(b).

IV.
VENUE

Venue lies in the United States District Court for the Central District of California,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§84(c)(2), 1441, and 1446. This action originally was brought in

the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County, which is located within

the Central District of California. Therefore, venue is proper because it is the “district and

division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. §1441(a).

V.
SERVICE OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL ON PLAINTIFF AND THE CLERK

OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1446(d), written notice of the filing of this Notice of Removal

will be given promptly to Plaintiff and his counsel, and together with a copy of the Notice

of Removal, will be filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of California,

Los Angeles County.

VI.
PRAYER FOR REMOVAL

WHEREFORE, Tesla prays that this civil action be removed from the Superior

Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court

for the Central District of California.

DATED: January 5,
Respectfully submitted,

TESLA, INC.

By: /s/ Kiran S. Lopez
Kiran S. Lopez
Attorney for Defendant TESLA, INC.

DEFENDANT TESLA, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
1
Page 10 Page ID #:
EXHIBIT
1
Page 11 Case 2:23-cv-00062-MRW Document 1 Filed 01/05/Page 11 of 24 Page ID #:•
22STCV3390°Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Armen Tamzarian
Electronically FIL
by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 10/19/2022 04:54 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by E. Galicia,Deputy Clerk
A. Jacob Nalbandyan, Esq. (SBN 272023)
jnalbandyan@LNtriallawyers.com
2 Charlene Nercess, Esq. (SBN 334943)
3 cnercess@LNtriallawyers.com
Levin & Nalbandyan,LLP
4 811 Wilshire Blvd, Suite Los Angeles, CA 5 Tel:(213)232-6 Fax:(213)232-
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
CRAIG NAKAYAMA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

CRAIG NAKAYAMA,an individual,

Plaintiff,
Case No.:
22ST CV
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN
VIOLATION OF THE FAIR
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT
2. FAILURE TO PROVIDE
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS
IN VIOLATION OF THE FAIR
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT
3. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN A GOOD
FAITH INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN
VIOLATION OF THE FAIR
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT
4. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND
HOUSING ACT
5. FAILURE TO PREVENT
DISCRIMINATION AND
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND
HOUSING ACT
6. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN
VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
VS.

TESLA,INC., a Delaware Corporation, and
DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive,
Defendants.

Demand over $25,000.DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
L&N File 4:
-1COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 12 Page ID #:
CRAIG NAKAYAMA ("Plaintiff') is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, the following:
I
PARTIES, VENUE AND JURISDICTION

1.
Plaintiff, at all times relevant to this action, resided in Culver City, California.

2.
Defendant TESLA,INC.("Defendant") is a Delaware corporation with its principal

place of business in Santa Monica, California.

3.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant is engaged in the
business of manufacturing and selling motor vehicles.

4.
The unlawful acts pleaded herein occurred in Los Angeles County, California.

5.
Venue is proper in Los Angeles County, California pursuant to California Government

Code § 12965.

6.
Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

and therefore sues these defendant by their fictitious name. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to

allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.

7.
At all times relevant to this action, each of the fictitiously named defendants was an

employee, agent, servant, partner, member, shareholder, officer, director, co-conspirator, or alter ego

of Defendant, and was acting within the course and scope of such agency or employment.

8.
Each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the

occurrences herein alleged, and such defendants directly and proximately caused Plaintiffs' injuries as

herein alleged.

9.
Pursuant to CAL. GOV'T CODE §§12960, et seq., Plaintiff filed a charge against

Defendants with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing("DFEH")on September

19, 2022, less than one year from the date of most occurrence. On September 19, 2022,Plaintiff

received a Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue Letter from the DFEH.

///

///

///

///
IAN File

-2COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 13 Page ID #:
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
10.

Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.

Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, all allegations in the above paragraphs of this
1 1.
Plaintiff began his employment with Defendant on or about July 5, 2016, as a senior
technician. Plaintiff's primary job duty was repairing cars.

12.
On or about September 25, 2020,Plaintiff suffered an injury to his right knee at work.

Plaintiff was placed on work restrictions of no bending, no squatting, no walking around uneven

ground, and no going up stairs.

1 3.
about December 8, 2021. Plaintiff continued to work during this time with modified duty.
14.

1 5.
1 6.
On or about May 15, 2022, Plaintiff's restrictions were lifted which resulted in Plaintiff
going back to work full duty.

On or about February 17, 2022, Plaintiff returned to work with the same restrictions as
the first time around.

Plaintiff had a knee injury on or about December 8, 2021, and was out on medical leave
until February 17, 2022.

Plaintiff had these work restrictions from on or about September 25, 2020, to on or
1 7.
On or about June 17, 2022, Plaintiff was pulled aside by his supervisor Amanda
Manning who told Plaintiff he was being terminated.

18.
Plaintiff was left embarrassed, ashamed, emotionally hurt, and in financial desperation

for having been terminated due to his disability, perceived disability, and/or history of disability and

for having been directly discriminated and retaliated against for his disability, perceived disability,

and/or history of disability and request/need for reasonable accommodation.

///

///

///

///

///

///
LAN File #:
-3COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 14 Page ID #:
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
I
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF

THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT

19.
Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, all allegations in the above paragraphs of this
Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.

20.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant.

21.
At all times relevant to this action, Defendant was an employer who regularly

employed five or more persons within the meaning of CAL. GOV'T CODE §12926(d).
22.

At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was a member of a protected class within

the meaning of CAL. GOV'T CODE §§ 12940(a) and I2926(m) because of his disability, perceived

disability, and/or history of disability.

23.
At all times relevant to this action, Defendant unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff
on the basis of his disability, perceived disability, and/or history of disability by terminating his
employment.

24.
Defendant was substantially motivated to terminate Plaintiff because of his disability,
perceived disability, and/or history of disability.

25.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer losses in earnings and other benefits and will for a period of time in the future be

unable to obtain gainful employment, as his ability to obtain such employment and earning capacity

have been diminished. The exact amount of such expenses and losses is presently unknown, and

Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to set forth the exact amount when it is

ascertained.
26.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff suffered general

damages as he was psychologically injured. Such injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff

great mental pain and suffering in an amount in excess of this Court's minimal jurisdiction.

///

///

///
L&N File #:
-4COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 15 Page ID #:
27.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff, for a period of time

in the future, will be required to employ physicians and incur additional medical and incidental

expenses. The exact amount of such expenses is presently unknown to Plaintiff and he will seek leave

of court to amend this Complaint to set forth the exact amount when it has been ascertained.

28.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the employees, officers,

directors, and/or managing agents of Defendant acted with malice and oppression as their unlawful

acts were carried out with full knowledge ofthe extreme risk of injury involved and with willful and

conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights. They also acted fraudulently, as they willfully concealed the

fact that Plaintiff's employment rights were being violated, with the intent to deprive him of

employment benefits. Accordingly, an award of punitive damages is warranted.
29.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the actions of Defendant's

employees, officers, directors, and/or managing agents were undertaken with the prior approval,

consent, and authorization of Defendant and was subsequently authorized and ratified by them as well
LXN

by and through its officers, directors, and/or managing agents.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS IN VIOLATION OF
1.
THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT

30.
Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, all allegations in the above paragraphs of this
Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.

31.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant.

32.
At all times relevant to this action, Defendant was an employer who regularly

employed five or more persons within the meaning of CAL. GOV'T CODE §12926(d).
33.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was a member of a protected class within

the meaning of CAL. GOV'T CODE § 12926(m) because of his disability, perceived disability, and/or

history of disability.

34.
At all times relevant to this action, Defendant unlawfully failed to provide Plaintiff
reasonable accommodations, in violation of CAL. GOV'T CODE § 12940(m), despite the fact that it had
I..&N File 4:
-5COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 16 Page ID #:
actual and/or constructive knowledge of his disability, need for accommodations, and Plaintiff's actual

and/or constructive requests for accommodations.

35.
Defendant's failure to accommodate Plaintiff was substantially motivated by his
disability, perceived disability, and/or history of disability, as previously pled herein.
36.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer losses in earnings and other benefits and will for a period of time in the future be

unable to obtain gainful employment, as his ability to obtain such employment and earning capacity

have been diminished. The exact amount of such expenses and losses is presently unknown, and

Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to set forth the exact amount when it is

ascertained.

37.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff suffered general

damages as he was psychologically injured. Such injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff

great mental pain and suffering in an amount in excess of this Court's minimal jurisdiction.
"
38.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff, for a period of time
in the future, will be required to employ physicians and incur additional medical and incidental

expenses. The exact amount of such expenses is presently unknown to Plaintiff and he will seek leave

of court to amend this Complaint to set forth the exact amount when it has been ascertained.

39.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the employees, officers,

directors, and/or managing agents of Defendant acted with malice and oppression as their unlawful

acts were carried out with full knowledge ofthe extreme risk of injury involved and with willful and

conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights. They also acted fraudulently, as they willfully concealed the

fact that Plaintiff's employment rights were being violated, with the intent to deprive him of

employment benefits. Accordingly, an award of punitive damages is warranted.
40.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the actions of Defendant's

employees, officers, directors, and/or managing agents were undertaken with the prior approval,

consent, and authorization of Defendant and were subsequently authorized and ratified by them as

well by and through its officers, directors, and/or managing agents.

///
LAN File #:
-6COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 17 Page ID #:
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
I
FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN A GOOD FAITH INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF

THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT

41.
Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, all allegations in the above paragraphs of this
Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.

42.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant.

43.
At all times relevant to this action, Defendant was an employer who regularly

employed five or more persons within the meaning of CAL. GOV'T CODE §12926(d).
44.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was a member of a protected class within

the meaning of CAL. GOV'T CODE § 12926(m) because of his disability, perceived disability, and/or

history of disability.

45.
Defendant unlawfully failed to engage in a good-faith, interactive process with Plaintiff

to determine effective reasonable accommodations despite the fact that it had actual and/or

constructive knowledge of his disability, perceived disability, and/or history of disability, in violation

of CAL. GOV'T CODE §§ 12940(n) and 12926.1(e), as previously pled herein.

46.
Defendant's failure to engage in a good-faith interactive process with Plaintiff was

substantially motivated by his disability, perceived disability, and/or history of disability, as previously

pled herein.

47.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer losses in earnings and other benefits and will for a period of time in the future be

unable to obtain gainful employment, as his ability to obtain such employment and earning capacity

have been diminished. The exact amount of such expenses and losses is presently unknown, and

Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to set forth the exact amount when it is

ascertained.

48.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff suffered general

damages as he was psychologically injured. Such injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff

great mental pain and suffering in an amount in excess of this Court's minimal jurisdiction.

IAN File #:
-7COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 18 Page ID #:
49.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff, for a period of time

in the future, will be required to employ physicians and incur additional medical and incidental

expenses. The exact amount of such expenses is presently unknown to Plaintiff and he will seek leave

of court to amend this Complaint to set forth the exact amount when it has been ascertained.

50.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the employees, officers,

directors, and/or managing agents of Defendant acted with malice and oppression as their unlawful

acts were carried out with full knowledge ofthe extreme risk of injury involved and with willful and

conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights. They also acted fraudulently, as they willfully concealed the

fact that Plaintiff's employment rights were being violated, with the intent to deprive him of

employment benefits. Accordingly, an award of punitive damages is warranted.

51.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the actions of Defendant's

employees, officers, directors, and/or managing agents were undertaken with the prior approval,

consent, and authorization of Defendant and was subsequently authorized and ratified by them as well

by and through its officers, directors, and/or managing agents.
*,
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT
52.

Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, all allegations in the above paragraphs of this
Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.

53.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant.

54.
At all times relevant to this action, CAL. GOV'T CODE §12900 et seq. were in full force

and effect and were binding upon Defendant. These sections, inter alia, require Defendant to refrain

from discriminating and retaliating against any employee on the basis of a disability, perceived

disability, and/or history of disability, requests/need for accommodation, and opposition to conduct

related thereto.
55.

Defendant engaged in conduct that, taken as a whole, materially and adversely affected

the teems and conditions of Plaintiff's employment.

///
L&N File II:
-8COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 19 Page ID #:
56.
Plaintiff's assertion of his rights under CAL. GOV'T CODE §12900 et seq. was a

substantial motivating reason for Defendant's decision to retaliate against him. Defendant's conduct

was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff, as set forth herein.
57.

At all times relevant to this action, Defendant unlawfully retaliated against Plaintiff, in
violation of CAL. GOV'T CODE §§ 12940(h) and 12940(m)(2) by terminating his employment.
58.

Defendant's retaliatory termination of Plaintiff's employment was substantially

motivated by his disability, perceived disability, and/or history of disability, requests/need for

accommodation, and opposition to Defendant's conduct related thereto, as previously pled herein.
59.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer losses in earnings and other benefits and will for a period of time in the future be

unable to obtain gainful employment, as his ability to obtain such employment and earning capacity

have been diminished. The exact amount of such expenses and losses is presently unknown, and

Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to set forth the exact amount when it is

ascertained.
60.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff suffered general

damages as he was psychologically injured. Such injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff

great mental pain and suffering in an amount in excess of this Court's minimal jurisdiction.
61.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff, for a period of time

in the future, will be required to employ physicians and incur additional medical and incidental

expenses. The exact amount of such expenses is presently unknown to Plaintiff and he will seek leave

of court to amend this Complaint to set forth the exact amount when it has been ascertained.
62.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the employees, officers,

directors, and/or managing agents of Defendant acted with malice and oppression as their unlawful

acts were carried out with full knowledge of the extreme risk of injury involved and with willful and

conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights. They also acted fraudulently, as they willfully concealed the

fact that Plaintiff's employment rights were being violated, with the intent to deprive him of

employment benefits. Accordingly, an award of punitive damages is warranted.

///
L&N File #:
-9COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 20 Page ID #:
63.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the actions of Defendant's

employees, officers, directors, and/or managing agents were undertaken with the prior approval,

consent, and authorization of Defendant and was subsequently authorized and ratified by them as well

by and through its officers,.directors, and/or managing agents.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF

THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT
64.

Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, all allegations in the above paragraphs of this
Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.

65.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant.

66.
At all times relevant to this action, Defendant was an employer who regularly

employed five or more persons within the meaning of CAL. GOV'T CODE § 12926(d).

67.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was a member of a protected class within

the meaning of CAL. Gov'T CODE §§ 12940(a) and 12926(m) because of his disability, perceived

disability, and/or history of disability.

68.
At all times relevant to this action, Defendant unlawfully discriminated and retaliated

against Plaintiff, as previously alleged, on the basis of his disability, perceived disability, and/or

history of disability, requests/need for accommodation, and opposition to related conduct by

terminating his employment.

69.
Defendant was substantially motivated to terminate Plaintiff because of his disability,

perceived disability, and/or history of disability, requests/need for accommodation, and opposition to

related conduct, as previously pled herein.
70.

Defendant failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the unlawful discrimination and

retaliation during Plaintiff's employment, as previously pled, in violation of CAL. GOV'T CODE

§12940(k), even when management level employees of Defendant became aware of the discriminatory

and retaliatory conduct. Instead, Defendant terminated Plaintiff in bad faith.

///
IAN File

-10COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 21 Page ID #:
71.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer losses in earnings and other benefits and will for a period oftime in the future be

unable to obtain gainful employment, as his ability to obtain such employment and earning capacity

have been diminished. The exact amount of such expenses and losses is presently unknown, and

Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to set forth the exact amount when it is

ascertained.

72.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff suffered general

damages as he was psychologically injured. Such injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff

great mental pain and suffering in an amount in excess of this Court's minimal jurisdiction.

73.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff, for a period of time

in the future, will be required to employ physicians and incur additional medical and incidental

expenses. The exact amount of such expenses is presently unknown to Plaintiff and he will seek leave

of court to amend this Complaint to set forth the exact amount when it has been ascertained.

74.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the employees, officers,

directors, and/or managing agents of Defendant acted with malice and oppression as their unlawful

acts were carried out with full knowledge of the extreme risk of injury involved and with willful and

conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights. They also acted fraudulently, as they willfully concealed the

fact that Plaintiff's employment rights were being violated, with the intent to deprive him of

employment benefits. Accordingly, an award of punitive damages is warranted.

75.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the actions of Defendant's

employees, officers, directors, and/or managing agents were undertaken with the prior approval,

consent, and authorization of Defendant and was subsequently authorized and ratified by them as well

by and through its officers, directors, and/or managing agents.

///

/1/

///

///
L&N File 4:
-11COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 22 Page ID #:
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
76.

Plaintiff incorporates, by reference, all allegations in the above paragraphs of this
Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.

77.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant.

78.
At all times relevant to this action, CAL. GOV'T CODE §12900 et seq. were in full force

and effect and were binding upon Defendant. These sections, inter alia, require Defendant to refrain

from discriminating, retaliating against, or terminating any employee on the basis of a disability,-

perceived disability, and/or history of disability, request/need for accommodation, and opposition to

conduct related thereto.

79.
Defendant's conduct, as previously alleged, was in retaliation for Plaintiff's assertion of
rights under CAL. GOV'T CODE §§12900 et seq.

80.
Plaintiff's assertion of his rights under CAL. GOV'T CODE §§12900 et seq. was a

substantial motivating reason for Defendant's decision to discriminate, retaliate against, and terminate

Plaintiff. Defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff as set forth herein.
81.

CAL. GOV'T CODE §§12900 et seq. evinces a policy that benefits society at large, was
well-established at the time of Plaintiff's discharge, and is substantial and fundamental.

82.
Defendant's wrongful termination of Plaintiffs employment was substantially

motivated by his disability, perceived disability, and/or history of disability, requests/need for

accommodation, and opposition to conduct related thereto.

83.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer losses in earnings and other benefits and will for a period of time in the future be

unable to obtain gainful employment, as his ability to obtain such employment and earning capacity

have been diminished. The exact amount of such expenses and losses is presently unknown, and

Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to set forth the exact amount when it is

ascertained.

///

///
IAN File 4:
-12COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 23 Page ID #:
84.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff suffered general

damages as he was psychologically injured. Such injuries have caused, and continue to cause, Plaintiff

great mental pain and suffering in an amount in excess of this Court's minimal jurisdiction.

85.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff, for a period of time

in the future, will be required to employ physicians and incur additional medical and incidental

expenses. The exact amount of such expenses is presently unknown to Plaintiff and he will seek leave

of court to amend this Complaint to set forth the exact amount when it has been ascertained.

86.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the employees, officers,
directors, and/or managing agents of Defendant acted with malice and oppression as their unlawful

acts were carried out with full knowledge of the extreme risk of injury involved and with willful and

conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights. They also acted fraudulently, as they willfully concealed the

fact that Plaintiff's employment rights were being violated, with the intent to deprive him of

employment benefits. Accordingly, an award of punitive damages is warranted.

87.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the actions of Defendant's

employees, officers, directors, and/or managing agents were undertaken with the prior approval,

consent, and authorization of Defendant and was subsequently authorized and ratified by them as well

by and through its officers, directors, and/or managing agents.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE,Plaintiff CRAIG NAKAYAMA,prays for judgment against Defendant

TESLA,INC., and DOES 1 through 20, as follows:

1. Past and future economic and non-economic damages according to proof;

2. Pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, costs of suit and attorney's fees according to

proof;
3. Injunctive relief compelling Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to his previous position,

prohibiting Defendant from engaging in similar unlawful conduct as complained of herein, and

ordering Defendant to establish effective preventive mechanisms to ensure that the conduct

complained of herein does not continue in the future;
IAN File #:
-13COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Page 24 Page ID #:
4. Declaratory relief that Defendant's conduct as complained of herein was a violation of
Plaintiff's rights;

5. Punitive damages; and

6. All other relief that the Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all claims as provided by California law.

Dated: October 19,
LEVIN & NALBANDVAN,LLP

By:
A. Jacob Nalbandyan, Esq.
Charlene Nercess, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
CRAIG NAKAYAMA

L&N.File 4:
-14COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Space
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
 
PlainSite
Sign Up
Need Password Help?