Case 5:22-cv-02698 Document 1-1 Filed 05/04/22 Page 1 of 13
`
`EXHIBIT A
`(Summons and Complaint)
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02698 Document 1-1 Filed 05/04/22 Page 2 of 13
`
`SU M MO NS
`(CITACION JUDICIAL)
`
`NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
`(AVISO AL DEMANDADO):
`Suncrest Health Services, LLC, a Utahlimited liability company
`YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
`(LO ESTA DEMANDANDOEL DEMANDANTE):
`Alex Mauricio, an individual, and Bristol Hospice, LLC, a Utah limited liability company
`
`SUM-100
`
`
`FOR COURT USE ONLY
`E-FIREB OFconre
`
`4/4/2022 6:44 PM
`
`Clerk of Court
`
`Superior Court of CA
`County of Santa Clara
`
`
`220396691
`
`Reviewed By: P. Newton
`Envelope: 8670581
`
`
`
`CASE NUMBER: (Numero del Caso):
`922CV396691
`
`
`
`NOTICE! 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 CALENDARDAYSafter this summonsand legal papers are served on youto 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 court forms and moreinformation at the California Courts
`Online Self-Help Center (www. courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearestyou. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the
`court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do notfile 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 wantto call an attorney right away. If you do not Know an attorney, you may wantto call an attorney
`referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you maybeeligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate
`these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www./awhelpcalifornia.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 lien for waived fees and
`costs on any settlementor arbitration award of $10,000 or morein a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
`jAVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea fa informacion a
`continuacion.
`Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguenesta citacién y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta
`corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefonica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar
`en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta.
`Puede enconirar estos formularios de fa corte y mas informacién en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la
`biblioteca de leyes de su condado o enIa corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagarla cuota de presentacion, pida al secretario de fa corte que
`le dé un formulario de exencién de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le podra
`guitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
`Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que flame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de
`remision a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un
`programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services,
`(www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov} o poniéndose en contacto conla corte o ef
`colegio de abogadoslocales. AVISO:Porley, fa corte tiene derecho a reclamarlas cuotas y fos costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre
`cualquier recuperacién de $10,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesion de arbitraje en un caso de derechocivil. Tiene que
`
`pagar el gravamende Ia corte antes de que la corte pueda desecharel caso.
`
`The name and address of the court is:
`(El nombre y direccién de la corte es):
`Santa Clara Superior Court
`191 North First street, San Jose, CA 95113
`The name, address, and telephone numberofplaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (E/ nombre, la direccién y el numero
`de teléfono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
`Tiara Quintana | GOODWIN PROCTER LLP | Three Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, CA 94111 | (415) 733-6000
`DATE:
`;
`Clerk, by
`, Deputy
`
`
`(Fecha) wprindra@ny14/2022 6:44 PM Clerk of Court—(Secretario)P. Newton (Adjunto)
`(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-070).)
`(Para prueba de entrega de esta citatiédn use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).
`NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
`
`[SEAL]
`
`4. [| by personaldelivery on (date):
`
`1.
`2.
`
`3.
`
`[_] as anindividual defendant.
`[___] as the person sued underthefictitious name of (specify):
`
`[__] on behalf of (specify):
`[_] CCP 416.60 (minor)
`under: [___] CCP 416.10 (corporation)
`[|_| CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
`[| CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation)
`[ CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) [ CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
`[|__| other(specify):
`
`=
`=
`Form Adopted for Mandatory Use
`Judicial Council of California
`SUM-100 [Rev. July 1, 2009]
`
`SUMMONS
`
`Page 1 of 1
`Codeof Civil Procedure §§ 412.20, 465
`www.courts.ca.gov
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02698 Document 1-1 Filed 05/04/22 Page 3 of 13
`
`E-FILED
`4/4/2022 6:44 PM
`Clerk of Court
`Superior Court of CA,
`County of Santa Clara
`22CV396691
`Reviewed By: P. Newton
`
`BRADFORDJ. SMITH
`(pro hac vice application forthcoming)
`BSmith@goodwinlaw.com
`JOSEPH R. ROCKERS
`(pro hac vice application forthcoming)
`JRockers@goodwinlaw.com
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`100 Northern Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`Telephone: (617) 570-1000
`Facsimile: (617) 523-1231
`
`TIARA QUINTANA(SBN315783)
`TQuintana@goodwinlaw.com
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`Three Embarcadero Center
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 733-6000
`Facsimile:
`(415) 677-9041
`
`Attorneysfor Plaintiffs
`ALEX MAURICIO and
`BRISTOL HOSPICE, LLC
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
`
`ALEX MAURICIO,an individual, and
`BRISTOL HOSPICE,LLC,a Utahlimited
`liability company,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`SUNCREST HEALTH SERVICES, LLC,a Utah
`limited liability company,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`iaide
`
`22CV396691
`
`CASE NO.:
`
`COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORYRELIEF,
`VIOLATIONS OF UNFAIR
`COMPETITION UNDER
`CALIFORNIA BUSINESS &
`PROFESSIONS CODE§ 17200,
`COMMON LAW UNFAIR
`COMPETITION, AND
`CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §
`432.5
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`NYDHOOFPWWLY
`
`oO
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02698 Document 1-1 Filed 05/04/22 Page 4 of 13
`
`YIDHOnBPWBYN
`
`oO
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`Plaintiffs Alex Mauricio and Bristol Hospice, LLC (“Bristol”) (together, “Plaintiffs”)
`
`allege on personal knowledgeas to their own activities and on information and belief as to the
`
`activities of others, against Defendant Suncrest Health Services, LLC (“Suncrest”), as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Mr. Mauricio is the current Chief Strategy Officer of Bristol and the former
`
`President of Enterprise Growth of Suncrest. Mr. Mauricio is, and at all times herein mentioned
`
`was, a resident of the State of California.
`
`2.
`
`Bristol is a Utah limited liability company with its principal place of business in
`
`Salt Lake City, Utah, managing and operating hospice programs throughout the United States,
`
`including the State of California.
`
`3.
`
`Suncrest is a Utah limited liability company with its principal place of business in
`
`Salt Lake City, Utah. Suncrest is a competitor of Bristol and, upon information andbelief,
`
`conducts business throughout the United States, including in the State of California.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to California Code of Civil
`
`Procedure section 410.10. Mr. Mauricio resides in California and Bristol regularly conducts
`
`business in California, including providing hospice services in California and employing
`
`18
`
`individuals in California.
`
`5.
`
`Suncrest is a Utah limited liability company with its principal place of businessin
`
`Utah. Upon information and belief, Suncrest regularly conducts business in California, including
`
`offering hospice services in California, directing advertisement and marketing campaigns into
`
`California, and employing individuals in California at various points in time.
`
`6.
`
`Venueis properin this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
`
`section 395(a). Suncrest does not reside in the State of California and Plaintiffs may designate
`
`the action betried in the superior court in any county. Accordingly, Plaintiffs designate the
`
`action be adjudicated in the County of Santa Clara.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`2.
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02698 Document 1-1 Filed 05/04/22 Page5of 13
`
`NYDHOOFPWWLY
`
`oO
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`7.
`
`Bristol currently operates and manages hospices in Arizona, California, Colorado,
`
`Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Michigan, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and
`
`Wisconsin. It has eighteen different hospice locations in California,
`
`8.
`
`Suncrest also provides hospice and home healthcare services throughout the
`
`United States, including California. Bristol and Suncrest are direct competitors.
`
`9.
`
`Hospice care is a niche industry andrelies in large part on establishing and
`
`maintaining relationships with healthcare professionals, nursing homes and other agencies
`
`through the services provided by hospice and homehealthcare staff. Because highly competent
`
`and trusted employeesare a critical component of the operation of Bristol’s business, Bristol
`
`identifies, recruits, and hires employees who have experience in the hospice and healthcare
`
`industry. It also seeks leadership who canidentify such staff to support its network of customers
`
`and referrals. For these reasons, Bristol extended an offer of employment to Mr. Mauricio to
`
`work for Bristol in California as its Chief Strategy Officer beginning on or about March 1, 2022.
`
`10.
`
`Before joining Bristol, Mr. Mauricio was employed by Suncrest. Mr. Mauricio
`
`began his employment with Suncrest on or about September1, 2018, in the position of Corporate
`
`Director of Marketing. Mr. Mauricio’s primary responsibilities involved identifying new areas
`
`to expand Suncrest’s operations and building up those operations, including identifying,
`
`qualifying, soliciting and hiring local sales and operationsstaff.
`
`11.
`
`As a condition of his employment with Suncrest, Mr. Mauricio and Suncrest
`
`entered into an Employment Agreement, dated August 21, 2018 (the “2018 Employment
`
`Agreement”), regarding the terms and conditions of Mr. Mauricio’s employment. The 2018
`
`Employment Agreement included a post-employmentanti-raiding covenant prohibiting Mr.
`
`Mauricio from engaging in the following conduct for eighteen months following his termination
`
`of employmentfor any reason (the “Anti-Raiding Covenant’): “hire, engage, or attempt to hire
`
`or engageorsolicit for hire or engagement any person who,either on the date of such activity is,
`
`or at any time within twenty-four (24) months prior to the date ofsuch activity was, an employee
`
`or contractor of [Suncrest] or any of its subsidiaries.” (Emphasis added).
`-3-
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02698 Document 1-1 Filed 05/04/22 Page6of 13
`
`NYDHOOFPWWLY
`
`oO
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`12.
`
`Asaresult of Mr. Mauricio’s success in sourcing talent and growing Suncrest’s
`
`operations, Suncrest rewarded Mr. Mauricio with a promotion, including providing him with the
`
`new title of President of Sales (with the same job responsibilities as before), a $70,000 raise and
`
`more favorable bonus opportunities. On or about March 3, 2020, Suncrest presented Mr.
`
`Mauricio with anew Employment Agreementto take effect on April 1, 2020 (the “2020
`
`Employment Agreement”) setting forth Mr. Mauricio’s new compensation terms. The 2020
`
`Employment Agreementdid not include a choice of law provision.
`
`13.
`
`Unlike the previous agreement, the 2020 Employment Agreement contained a
`
`post-employment non-competition covenant as follows (the “Non-Compete Covenant’):
`
`You agree that for a period of 12 months following the termination
`of your employment with [Suncrest] for any reason, you will not,
`directly or indirectly, through an affiliate or otherwise, directly or
`indirectly own, operate, lease, manage, control, participate in,
`consult with, advise, provide services for, or in any manner engage
`in or be employed by any business (including by yourself or in
`association with any person or entity) that directly or indirectly
`engages or proposes to engage in a business that competes with
`[Suncrest] in the Territory as of the date of your terminate date.
`
`14.
`
`The 2020 Employment Agreement included the same Anti-Raiding Covenant as
`
`in the 2018 Employment Agreement, except that it extended the restrictions to employees and
`
`contractors of Suncrest’s “direct or indirect subsidiaries oraffiliates, including, without
`
`limitation, Suncrest Hospice, LLC; .
`
`.
`
`. Suncrest Hospice Sacramento, LLC; Suncrest Hospice
`
`San Jose, LLC ....” Upon information and belief, Suncrest has at least twenty-two direct or
`
`indirect subsidiaries and affiliates each with its own teams comprised of healthcare professionals,
`
`administrators, managers, directors, sales and marketing personnel, social workers and chaplains.
`
`Other than certain sales and marketing personnel, Mr. Mauricio does not have significant
`
`personal knowledge ofthe identities of the vast majority of the employees or contractors of these
`
`entities as he did not have any contactor interactions with them during his employment with
`
`Suncrest.
`
`15.
`
`Mr. Mauricio specifically inquired as to why he was askedto sign an agreement
`
`containing suchrestrictions given that he wasat all times a California-based employee. Suncrest
`-4-
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02698 Document 1-1 Filed 05/04/22 Page7of 13
`
`responded that Mr. Mauricio would be subject to a noncompete in particular because ofhis
`
`senior leadership role. Relying on Suncrest’s deceptive reasoning, Mr. Mauricio signed the 2020
`
`Employment Agreement.
`
`16.—In the summerof 2021, Suncrest promoted Mr. Mauricio to President of
`
`NYDHOOFPWWLY
`
`oO
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`Enterprise Growth so that he could exclusively focus on accelerating the growth of Suncrest’s
`
`operations and recruiting talent. Indeed, Mr. Mauricio’s proven recruiting abilities made him an
`
`ideal candidate for the role.
`
`17.
`
`Mr. Mauricio’s employment with Suncrest terminated on or about January 3,
`
`2022. At this time, Suncrest verbally told Mr. Mauricio that it would offer him a severance
`
`package in exchangefor a release of claims and two-year post-employmentrestrictive covenants.
`
`Mr. Mauricio indicated that he would not sign an agreement with any such covenants. On or
`
`about January 5, 2022, Suncrest sent Mr. Mauricio a Confidential Severance Agreement without
`
`the discussedrestrictive covenants; however, it did include a non-disparagementprovision
`
`without any reference to the protected disclosures under California Government Code section
`
`12964.5(a)(1)(B)(ii).. Mr. Mauricio ultimately chose not to sign the Confidential Severance
`
`Agreement.
`
`18.
`
`Following Mr. Mauricio’s separation from Suncrest, he received a letter dated
`
`January 30, 2022, from Timothy J. Dance (the “January Letter”), who represented himself as
`
`counsel for Suncrest. In the January Letter, Mr. Dance accused Mr. Mauricio of disclosing
`
`Suncrest’s confidential information and making disparaging remarks about Suncrest in violation
`
`of his employment agreements, which Mr. Mauricio denies.
`
`19.|Mr. Mauricio received a secondletter from Mr. Dance dated March 25, 2022 (the
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`“MarchLetter”), a copy of which wasalso sent to Bristol through its counsel, Goodwin Procter.
`
`The March Letter again falsely accused Mr. Mauricio of breaching his employment agreement,
`
`specifically the 2020 Employment Agreement, through his alleged dissemination of Suncrest’s
`
`businessplans andsolicitation of Suncrest’s and its subsidiaries’ employees. The March Letter
`
`explicitly sought to put Mr. Mauricio and Bristol on notice of Suncrest’s intention to “pursue
`
`every legal remedy available to them against [Mr. Mauricio] and any other individual” in
`5.
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02698 Document 1-1 Filed 05/04/22 Page 8 of 13
`
`connection with Mr. Mauricio’s alleged misconduct and potential further breach ofhis
`
`agreements with Suncrest. In neither the January Letter nor the March Letter did counsel for
`
`Suncrest acknowledge that any part of the 2020 Agreement was unenforceable, including the
`
`Non-Compete and Anti-Raiding Covenants and no-hire provision. As a result of Suncrest’s
`
`stated position, Plaintiffs are concerned that Mr. Mauricio’s continued employment with Bristol
`
`and Bristol’s recruitment and hiring of Suncrest employees, including Suncrest employees who
`
`work and reside in California, would lead to further threats and litigation by Suncrest.
`
`20.
`
`Suncrest’s efforts to enforce the 2020 Employment Agreement ignore California
`
`law and circumvent the consequencesof its unlawful and intimidating business practices. The
`
`Non-Compete Covenantclearly violates California law. The Anti-Raiding Covenant also
`
`includes a no-hire provision in violation of California law and further overreachesin its length
`
`and application to former Suncrest employees. Suncrest’s knowing inclusion of these illegal and
`
`unenforceable provisions, and its continued attempts to impose similar illegal provisions against
`
`Mr. Mauricio thereafter, demonstrate Suncrest’s bad faith and anti-competitive intent. They also
`
`violate California Labor Code section 432.5, which provides that no employer may require an
`
`employee “to agree, in writing, to any term or condition which is known by such employer... to
`
`be prohibited by law.” The purpose and effect of Suncrest’s business practices to date unfairly
`
`impede on Mr. Mauricio’s ability to engage in his profession at Bristol or another competitor to
`
`Suncrest as well as Bristol’s right to recruit and hire Suncrest employees whoare not bound by
`
`legal restrictions, including Suncrest employees who workandreside in California.
`
`21.
`
`Unless Suncrest is required by the judicial process to bear the repercussionsofits
`
`deceptive and unlawful business practices and cease such practices, it will continue to infringe
`
`upon Mr. Mauricio’s lawful employment with Bristol and ability to earn a living in his chosen
`
`profession as well as Bristol’s right to employ former Suncrest employees, including who reside
`
`and workin California and where otherwise permissible under applicable law.
`
`-6-
`COMPLAINT
`
`NYDHOOFPWWLY
`
`oO
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02698 Document 1-1 Filed 05/04/22 Page 9 of 13
`
`FIRSTCAUSEOFACTION
`
`NYDHOOFPWWLY
`
`oO
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`(Declaratory Relief)
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference as though fully set forth herein all the
`
`preceding allegations of this Complaint.
`
`23.
`
`An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiffs and Suncrest
`
`concerning their respective rights under California law.
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiffs contend that California law applies to the 2020 Employment Agreement
`
`pursuant to California Labor Code section 925 and because the mobility of individuals to freely
`
`practice their trade or profession in California is significantly restricted. In particular, California
`
`Business and Professions Code sections 16600 and 17200reflect a strong public policy of the
`
`State of California.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiffs also contend that pursuant to California law, including California
`
`commonlaw and California Business and Professions Code sections 16600 and 17200, the Non-
`
`Compete Covenant and Anti-Raiding Covenantin the 2020 Employment Agreementare
`
`unlawful and unfair and render the entire agreement unenforceable under California law.
`
`California law confers upon Mr. Mauricio the right to be employed by Bristol or any other
`
`competitor of Suncrest, engage in his lawful profession, and hire, including on behalf of Bristol,
`
`current or former Suncrest employees, as permissible under law and contract, which the
`
`covenants in the 2020 Employment Agreement seek to impede.
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiffs further contend that through Suncrest’s deliberate and repeated attempts
`
`to apply and enforce illegal non-competition, no-hire and employee non-solicitation provisions
`
`against Mr. Mauricio, Suncrest has violated California Labor Code section 432.5 and has
`
`therefore exhibited bad faith. As such, the 2020 Employment Agreementis voidin its entirety.
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiffs desire a judicial determination of the rights and duties under California
`
`law. Specifically, Plaintiffs desire a judicial determination that (a) California law, including
`
`sections 16600 and 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, applies to Mr.
`
`Mauricio’s 2020 Employment Agreement; (b) the Non-Compete and Anti-Raiding Covenants in
`
`the 2020 Employment Agreementare illegal and unenforceable under California law; (c)
`_7-
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02698 Document 1-1 Filed 05/04/22 Page 10 of 13
`
`NYDHOOFPWWLY
`
`oO
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Suncrest’s knowing and willful inclusion of the Non-Compete and Anti-Raiding Covenants in
`
`the 2020 Employment Agreement and recurring attempts to impose and enforceillegal restrictive
`
`covenants against Mr. Mauricio violate California law, including California Labor Code section
`
`432.5; and (d) as a result of Suncrest’s purposeful inclusion of the Non-Compete and Anti-
`
`Raiding Covenants andits bad faith demonstrated therein and thereafter, the entire 2020
`
`Employment Agreement is void and unenforceable.
`
`28.
`
`A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time underthe
`
`circumstances because Mr. Mauricio remains employed by Bristol, his duties at Bristol include
`
`the recruitment and solicitation of hospice industry professionals, and Bristol is currently
`
`interested in hiring, and remains interested in hiring, any eligible, interested and qualified current
`
`or former Suncrest employees. Plaintiffs believe that should Mr. Mauricio remain employed by
`
`Bristol and/or recruit or hire a current or former Suncrest employee on behalf of Bristol,
`
`Suncrest will seek judgments and prohibitory injunctions against Plaintiffs. Further, a judicial
`
`declaration is required to prevent any further chilling of Mr. Mauricio’s rights under California
`
`law to work for a competitor of Suncrest, engage in his chosen profession and hire current or
`
`former Suncrest employees.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Unfair Competition—California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.)
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference as though fully set forth herein all the
`
`preceding allegations of this Complaint.
`
`30.
`
`Suncrest’s inclusion of and insistence on the Non-Compete and Anti-Raiding
`
`Covenants in Mr. Mauricio’s 2020 Employment Agreementconstitutes unfair competition and
`
`are unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent businesspractices that are likely to deceive the public in
`
`violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200. The addition ofthe illegal
`
`restrictive covenants in the 2020 Employment Agreementviolates California Business and
`
`26
`
`Professions Code section 16600 and is therefore unlawful and unfair.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`31.
`
`Unless this Court intervenes and declares Suncrest to be in violation of the law,
`
`Mr. Mauricio, Bristol, Suncrest’s current and former employees and contractors, and the public
`
`8.
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02698 Document 1-1 Filed 05/04/22 Page 11 of 13
`
`NYDHOOFPWWLY
`
`oO
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`at large will continue to sustain injury and damages from this unfair competition by Suncrest in
`
`an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court and in an amountto be proven at
`
`trial. Pursuant to California Business and Professionals Code section 17203 and 17204,
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to temporary and permanentinjunctive relief enjoining Suncrest from
`
`continuing its unlawful conduct. Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees
`
`and costs incurred in the filing and prosecution this complaint pursuant to California Code of
`
`Civil Procedure section 1021.5.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Common Law Unfair Competition)
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference as though fully set forth herein all the
`
`preceding allegations of this Complaint.
`
`33.
`
`Suncrest’s requirement that Mr. Mauricio, a California resident, agree to the Non-
`
`Compete and Anti-Raiding Covenants as a condition of his continued employment in a
`
`leadership position with Suncrest and then threatening to enforce those provisions (without an
`
`acknowledgementfrom Suncrest’s counsel that they are unenforceable) as he commences
`
`employment with Bristol in California constitutes unfair competition in violation of California
`
`17
`
`common law.
`
`34.
`
`Suncrest's actions are willful, wanton, malicious and in reckless disregard of
`
`Plaintiffs’ rights.
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to sustain injury and damages as a
`
`result of Suncrest's unfair competition in an amountto be determinedat trial, but that is in excess
`
`of the jurisdictional minimum ofthis Court.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Violation of California Labor Code § 432.5)
`
`36.
`
`Mr. Mauricio incorporates by this reference as though fully set forth herein all the
`
`preceding allegations of this Complaint.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-9-
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02698 Document 1-1 Filed 05/04/22 Page 12 of 13
`
`NYDHOOFPWWLY
`
`oO
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`37.
`
`California Labor Codesection 432.5 states, “No employer. .
`
`. shall require any
`
`employee... to agree, in writing, to any term or condition which is known by such employer...
`
`to be prohibited by law.”
`
`38.
`
`California Civil Code section 1667 defines “unlawfulness”as either “(1) Contrary
`
`to an express provision of law; (2) Contrary to the policy of express law, though not expressly
`
`prohibited; or (3) Otherwise contrary to good morals.”
`
`39.
`
`The 2020 Employment Agreement, which wasspecifically prepared by Suncrest
`
`for Mr. Mauricio in connection with his compensation increases, contained a twelve-month post-
`
`employment non-competition provision and eighteen-month post-employment no-hire and non-
`
`solicitation provision extending to current and former employees and contractors of Suncrest and
`
`its numerousdirect and indirect subsidiaries and affiliates. All of these provisions violate
`
`California Business and Professions Code section 16600 and California’s long-standing public
`
`policy in favor of employee mobility and against restraints on trade. Further, the inclusion of the
`
`expanded employee non-solicitation provision in the 2020 Employment Agreement followed
`
`several California state and federal court decisions—AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare
`
`Services, Inc., 28 Cal. App. 5th 923 (2018), Barker v. Insight Global, LLC, 2019 WL 176260
`
`(N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2019), and WeRide Corp., et al. v. Huang, 379 F. Supp. 3d 834 (2019)—
`
`finding such overly broad restrictions to be contrary to California law and public policy.
`
`40._Before signing the 2020 Employment Agreement, Mr. Mauricio specifically
`19
`
`asked whytherestrictions were included in his contract since he was a California-based
`
`employee. Suncrest responded that they were required because of Mr. Mauricio’s leadership
`
`position at Suncrest. Due to these misrepresentations, which do not support the imposition of
`
`post-employmentrestrictive covenants against California employees, Mr. Mauricio signed the
`
`2020 Employment Agreement.
`
`41.
`
`By including the Non-Compete and Anti-Raiding Covenants in the 2020
`
`Employment Agreement and misrepresenting their purpose to Mr. Mauricio to coerce him to sign
`
`the agreement, Suncrest is in violation of California Labor Code section 432.5.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-10-
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-02698 Document 1-1 Filed 05/04/22 Page 13 of 13
`
`42.
`
`As aresult of the foregoing, the 2020 Employment Agreementis illegal and
`
`should be deemed void and unenforceable.
`
`WHEREFORE,Plaintiffs request entry ofjudgment against Suncrest as follows:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`For declaratory relief as set forth above;
`
`For injunctive relief as necessary;
`
`For compensatory damages accordingto proof;
`
`For costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code
`
`section 1021.5; and
`
`For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`Dated: April 4, 2022
`
`GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP
`
`
`By: /s/ Tiara Quintana
`TIARA QUINTANA
`
`Attorneysfor Plaintiffs
`ALEX MAURICIO and
`BRISTOL HOSPICE, LLC
`
`OoNYDBDAFFWSWL
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-|1-
`COMPLAINT
`
`