Case 5:22-cv-00319-NC Document 1 Filed 01/15/22 Page 1 of 7
`
`EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
`Ian S. Shelton (SBN 264863)
`ianshelton@eversheds-sutherland.com
`500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1750
`Sacramento, CA 95814
`Telephone:
`(916) 844-2965
`Facsimile:
`(916) 241-0501
`
`EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
`Gail Westover (PHV forthcoming)
`gailwestover@eversheds-sutherland.com
`John Hays (PHV forthcoming)
`johnhays@eversheds-sutherland.com
`700 Sixth Street, NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20001-3980
`Telephone: (202) 383-0882
`Facsimile: (202) 637-3593
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Cognizant Technology
`Solutions, U.S. Corporation
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`KAJAL PRASAD,
`
`CASE NO.: 5:22-cv-319
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS
`US CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation
`and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive.
`
`Defendants.
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL BY
`DEFENDANT COGNIZANT
`TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, US
`CORPORATION
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00319-NC Document 1 Filed 01/15/22 Page 2 of 7
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446, Defendant
`
`Cognizant Technology Solutions US Corporation (“Cognizant” or “Defendant”) gives notice of
`
`removal of the action captioned Kajal Prasad v. Cognizant Technology Solutions, US
`
`Corporation, a Delaware Corporation and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. 21-cv-392117,
`
`on the docket of the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara (“California
`
`Action”). Plaintiff Kajal Prasad (“Prasad” or “Plaintiff”), filed her complaint in the California
`
`Action on December 7, 2021 (“California Complaint”). Cognizant received service of the
`
`California Complaint on December 17, 2021. The present notice of removal is supported by the
`
`Declaration of Jvonne Telfair (“Telfair Decl.”). In support of this removal, Cognizant states as
`
`follows:
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff filed the California Complaint against Cognizant on or about December 7,
`1.
`2021. See Ex. 3, California Complaint.
` 2.
`Plaintiff served Cognizant on December 17, 2021. Ex. 4, State Court Pleadings
`including Proof of Service of the California Complaint; see also, Telfair Decl. at ¶ 6.
`3.
`Plaintiff is a resident of Santa Clara County California. California Complaint at ¶ 2.
`4.
`Cognizant is incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware. Telfair Decl. at ¶
`3. Cognizant’s principal place of business is in College Station, Texas because that is where its
`corporate headquarters is located, and its executive functions, including day-to-day decision
`making for the Company, are performed there. Telfair Decl. at ¶ 4.
`5.
`Plaintiff alleges that in February 2019, her employer Net2source, assigned her to an
`IT Support role for Nvidia as a contractor. California Complaint at ¶¶ 6-8 and Telfair Dec. at ¶ 5.
`6.
`Plaintiff alleges that Ramesh Pulagam (“Pulagam”) offered her a full-time role with
`Cognizant in exchange for an intimate relationship. California Complaint at ¶ 12. Plaintiff further
`alleges that after she declined Pulagam’s advance he became hostile towards her and critical of her
`work for Nvidia. California Complaint at ¶¶ 14-15.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`-1-
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-00319-NC Document 1 Filed 01/15/22 Page 3 of 7
`
`7.
`Plaintiff alleges her employment terminated on February 7, 2020. California
`Complaint at ¶ 16.
`8.
`Plaintiff seeks the following damages related to her allegations in the California
`Complaint:
`
`a. Loss of past and future earnings;
`b. Non-economic damages for emotional harm in excess of the minimum
`jurisdictional amount of the Superior Court of Santa Clara California; and
`
`c. Punitive and exemplary damages.
`See California Complaint “Prayer for Relief” at p. 5.
`9.
`Plaintiff provided contract work for Cognizant through Net2source. Telfair Decl. at
`¶ 5. Although Cognizant did not pay Plaintiff directly, her annual compensation based on the
`contract work she performed was approximately $76,960.00. Telfair Decl. at ¶ 5.
`GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL
`10.
`This case is removable because there is complete diversity between the parties and
`the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
`A.
`Complete Diversity Exists
`
`11.
`In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1332, there is complete diversity between the
`parties. At the time of filing the California Action on December 7, 2021, Plaintiff was a California
`citizen. At the time of filing the California Action on December 7, 2021, Defendant Cognizant was
`a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in College Station, Texas. Upon
`information and belief, Plaintiff’s citizenship remained the same from the time of filing to the time
`of removal. Cognizant’s citizenship remained the same from the time of filing to the time of
`removal. Accordingly, complete diversity of citizenship between the parties existed at the time of
`filing and the time of removal.
`B.
`The Amount in Controversy Exceeds $75,000
`
`12.
`Plaintiff does not allege a specific monetary amount of damages she seeks in her
`case. See California Complaint. Instead, Plaintiff alleges loss of past and future earnings, damages
`for emotional injury and harm in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the California Superior
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-00319-NC Document 1 Filed 01/15/22 Page 4 of 7
`
`Court for Santa Clara County, and exemplary and punitive damages. California Complaint at p. 5.
`13.
`Although Plaintiff does not alleges a specific amount of monetary damages, the
`attached declaration of Jvonne Telfair establishes that the amount in controversy between the
`parties exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
`14.
`Plaintiff’s annual compensation was approximately $76,960.00. As one element of
`alleged damages, which are denied, Plaintiff claims lost earnings from the date of her alleged
`termination (February 7, 2020) to December 7, 2021 (the date she filed the California Action) or
`approximately 95 weeks. Plaintiff’s hourly rate ($37/hr) multiplied by 40 hours per week for a
`total of 95 weeks equals approximately $140,600. Therefore, the value of Plaintiff’s claim for lost
`past earnings alone exceeds $75,000.1
`C.
`Removal was Timely
`
`15.
`28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b)(1) provides: “The notice of removal of a civil action or
`proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or
`otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action
`or proceeding is based, or within 30 days after the service of summons upon the defendant if such
`initial pleading has then been filed in court and is not required to be served on the defendant,
`whichever period is shorter.”
`16.
`As set for above, Plaintiff served Cognizant on December 17, 2021. Therefore,
`Cognizant’s Notice of Removal is timely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
`COMPLIANCE WITH REMOVAL STATUTE
`17.
`Cognizant’s Notice of Removal was properly filed in the United States District
`Court for the Northern District of California, because the Superior Court of the State of California,
`County of Santa Clara, is located within the Northern District of California. Venue for removal is
`
`
`1 Plaintiff does not state for how long she seeks lost future earnings but, even assuming it is only for one year
`($76,960), that amount also satisfies the amount in controversy requirement to justify removal to this Court. Plaintiff
`also seeks non-economic damages for emotional injury and harm in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of the
`California Superior Court for Santa Clara County (which is $25,000) and an undisclosed amount of exemplary and
`punitive damages, which the Court can take into account when evaluating whether it is “more likely than not” that her
`alleged damages exceed $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. (Williams v. Am. Airlines, Inc. (N.D.Cal. Mar. 23,
`2020, No. 19-cv-08434-JSC) 2020 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 49949, at *11.).
`
`-3-
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-00319-NC Document 1 Filed 01/15/22 Page 5 of 7
`
`therefore proper because this is the “district and division embracing the place where such action is
`pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
`18.
`Cognizant’s Notice of Removal is signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules
`of Civil Procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a).
`19.
`Cognizant’s Notice of Removal is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
`20.
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), attached hereto are copies of all process
`documents, pleadings and orders served on Cognizant by Plaintiff with respect to this action. The
`following chart reflects the exhibit numbers for the state court documents:
`Date
`Document
`Doc. No.
`1
`12/7/2021
`
`Civil Case Cover Sheet
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`12/7/2021
`
`Summons
`
`12/7/2021
`
`Complaint
`
`12/20/2021
`
`Proof of Service: Summons
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), a copy of this Notice of Removal is being served
`21.
`upon counsel for Plaintiff and a copy, along with a Notice to Clerk of Removal, will be promptly
`filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara.
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Cognizant respectfully requests that this Court exercise
`jurisdiction over this action and enter orders and grant relief as may be necessary to secure
`removal and to prevent further proceedings in this matter in the Superior Court of the State of
`California, County of Santa Clara.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`-4-
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-00319-NC Document 1 Filed 01/15/22 Page 6 of 7
`
`EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
`
`By /s/ Ian S. Shelton
`Ian S. Shelton
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Cognizant Technology
`Solutions, U.S. Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`DATED: January 15, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-00319-NC Document 1 Filed 01/15/22 Page 7 of 7
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that on January 15, 2022, I served the foregoing document via electronic mail and
`
`U.S. mail on the following counsel for Plaintiffs:
`
`
`
`Jeffrey A. Lipow
`Lipow & Harris
`27943 Seco Cyn. Rd., #309
`Santa Clarita, CA 91350
`Telephone: (818) 905-0507
`Email: jlipow@lipowharris.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Kajal Prasad
`I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true
`
`
`
`and correct.
`
`
`DATED: January 15, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
`
`By
`
` /s/ Ian S. Shelton
`Ian S. Shelton
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Cognizant Technology
`Solutions, U.S. Corporation
`
`-6-
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`