Case 3:20-cv-02204-JR Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 1 of 7
`
`Helen M. McFarland OSB# 013176
`hmcfarland@seyfarth.com
`SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
`999 Third Avenue, Ste. 4700
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Telephone: (206) 946-4923
`Facsimile: (206) 299-9974
`
`Alfred L. Sanderson, Jr. OSB# 202714
`asanderson@seyfarth.com
`SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
`560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: (415) 397-2823
`Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Foster Farms, LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF OREGON
`
`PORTLAND DIVISION
`
`ERIC A. JOHNSON,
`
`Case No. _______________
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FOSTER FARMS, LLC, a California limited
`liability company,
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANT FOSTER FARMS, LLC’S
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`[Removed from Clackamas County Circuit
`Court Case No. 20CV38579]
`
`Defendant Foster Farms LLC’s Notice of Removal - 1 -
`
`Seyfarth Shaw LLP
`Attorneys at Law
`999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700
`Seattle, WA 98104-4041
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02204-JR Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 2 of 7
`
`TO: CLERK OF THE COURT
`AND TO: PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Foster Farms, LLC (“Defendant”) files this
`Notice of Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1332, 1441, and 1446, and removes the
`above-captioned matter from the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of
`Clackamas to the United States District Court, District of Oregon, Portland Division. This
`Court has jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a) (diversity of
`citizenship jurisdiction), and removal is proper for the following reasons:
`
`BACKGROUND
`I.
`On November 2, 2020, Plaintiff Eric A. Johnson (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint
`1.
`in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Clackamas titled Eric A. Johnson
`v. Foster Farms, LLC, a California limited liability company, Case No. 20CV38579 (the
`“Complaint”).
`In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following claims against Defendant:
`2.
`(1) Disability Discrimination (ORS Chapter 659A.112, et seq.); (2) Workers’ Compensation
`Discrimination (ORS 659A.040 et seq.); (3) OSHA Discrimination (ORS 659.062); (4) OFLA
`Discrimination (ORS 659A.150 et seq.); (5) Personal Leave Discrimination (ORS 653.641);
`(6) Statutory Whistleblowing (ORS 659A.199); (7) Wrongful Discharge; (8) Disability
`Discrimination - Failure to Accommodate (ORS 659A.112 et seq.).
`3.
`Plaintiff served Defendant with the Summons and Complaint on November 20,
`2020. A true and correct copy of the Summons and Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`4.
`Also on November 20, 2020, Plaintiff served First Request for Production of
`Documents. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents is
`attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`Exhibits A and B constitute all pleadings, processes, and orders properly served
`5.
`
`Defendant Foster Farms, LLC’s Notice of Removal - 2
`
`SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
`Attorneys at Law
`999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700
`Seattle, WA 98104-4041
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02204-JR Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 3 of 7
`
`on Defendant in this action.
`6.
`Defendant has not filed an appearance in the Circuit Court for the County of
`Clackamas.
`
`TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL
`II.
`The Notice of Removal is timely because it is being filed within 30 days of
`7.
`Defendant’s receipt of the Summons and Complaint (November 20, 2020) and within one year
`of the commencement of this action. See U.S.C. § 1446(b); see also Murphy Bros., Inc. v.
`Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 354 (1999) (explaining the time for filing a notice
`of removal does not run until a party has been formally served with the summon and complaint
`under applicable state law).
`III.
`JURISDICTION BASED ON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP
`As set forth fully below, this Court has original jurisdiction over this action
`8.
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a)(1) because “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
`value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs” and this action is between “Citizens of
`different States[.]”
`A.
`Plaintiff and Defendant Are Diverse
`9.
`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., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005).
`10.
`A party’s citizenship is determined at the time the lawsuit was filed. In re
`Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig., 549 F.3d 1223, 1236 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he jurisdiction of
`the court depends upon the state of things at the time of the action [when] brought.”).
`1.
`Plaintiff is a Citizen of Oregon
`For purposes of determining diversity, a person is a “citizen” of the state in
`
`11.
`
`Defendant Foster Farms, LLC’s Notice of Removal - 3
`
`SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
`Attorneys at Law
`999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700
`Seattle, WA 98104-4041
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02204-JR Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 4 of 7
`
`which he or she is domiciled. See Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Inc., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th
`Cir. 1983) (“To show state citizenship for diversity purposes under federal common law a party
`must … be domiciled in the state.”). Residence is prima facie evidence of domicile. See State
`Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Dyer, 19 F.3d 514, 520 (10th Cir. 1994) (“the place of residence is
`prima facie the domicile”). Citizenship is determined by the individual’s domicile at the time
`that the lawsuit is filed. See Armstrong v. Church of Scientology Int’l, 243 F.3d 546, 546 (9th
`Cir. 2000) (“For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, an individual is a citizen of his or her state
`of domicile, which is determined at the time the lawsuit is filed”) (citing Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d
`747, 750 (9th Cir. 1986)).
`12.
`Plaintiff alleges that he “is a resident and citizen of the State of Oregon.” (See
`Ex. A, Compl., ¶ 1). Accordingly, Plaintiff is, and has been at all times since the institution of
`this action, a citizen of the State of Oregon.
`2.
`Defendant Is Not A Citizen of Oregon
`For diversity purposes, the citizenship of a limited liability company is “like a
`13.
`partnership.” Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir.
`2006). A partnership or a corporation is a citizen of (1) the state under whose laws it is
`organized or incorporated; and (2) the state of its ‘principal place of business.’ Davis v. HSBC
`Bank Nevada, N.A., 557 F.3d 1026, 1028 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)).
`Moreover, unincorporated associations such as limited liability companies and partnerships are
`also treated as “a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson,
`437 F.3d at 899; see also Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., LP, 541 US 567, 569 (2004)
`(same); Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 US 185, 195, 110 S.Ct. 1015, 1021 (1990) (same).
`14.
`Defendant is now, and was at the time of the filing of this action, a citizen of a
`State other than Oregon. At all relevant times, Defendant was a limited liability company,
`organized under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business in
`
`Defendant Foster Farms, LLC’s Notice of Removal - 4
`
`SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
`Attorneys at Law
`999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700
`Seattle, WA 98104-4041
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02204-JR Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 5 of 7
`
`California. (Declaration of Jose Fagoaga (“Fagoaga Decl.”), ¶ 3.) Specifically, Defendant
`maintains its corporate headquarters at 1000 Davis Street, Livingston, California 95334. (Id.)
`Defendant’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate its activities from its corporate
`headquarters in California. (Id.) Additionally, Defendant’s executive and administrative
`functions, including payroll and corporate finance and accounting, are directed from the
`Livingston, California office. (Id.) Furthermore, none of Defendant’s members is a citizen of
`the State of Oregon. (Id. at ¶ 4.)
`15.
`Therefore, for purposes of diversity of citizenship, Defendant has been at all
`relevant times a citizen of the State of California. It is not now, and was not at the time of the
`filing of the Complaint, a citizen of the State of Oregon, for purposes of 28 U.S.C. section
`1332(c)(1).
`B.
`The Amount in Controversy Exceeds the Statutory Minimum
`16.
`Under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a), the amount in controversy must exceed “the
`sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” Generally, the sum demanded in
`good faith in the initial pleading shall be deemed to be the amount in controversy. 28 U.S.C. §
`1446(c)(2). “The amount in controversy is simply an estimate of the total amount in dispute,
`not a prospective assessment of defendant’s liability.” Lewis v. Verizon Communications Inc.,
`627 F.3d 395, 400 (9th Cir. 2010). It is well-settled that “the sum claimed by the plaintiff
`controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith.” Lewis, 627 F.3d at 399; see also Beacon
`Healthcare Services Inc. v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The amount in
`controversy is judged prospectively: that is, we determine our jurisdiction by asking whether,
`assuming the petitioner or plaintiff has stated a cause of action, he has pled sufficient
`damages.”).
`17. While Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief, Plaintiff has plead
`damages in excess of the $75,000 required for diversity jurisdiction. (Ex. A., Complaint). In
`
`Defendant Foster Farms, LLC’s Notice of Removal - 5
`
`SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
`Attorneys at Law
`999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700
`Seattle, WA 98104-4041
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02204-JR Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 6 of 7
`
`his prayer for relief, Plaintiff alleged that he “has suffered and will suffer economic damage in
`an amount to be proven at trial, which amount is alleged to be up to $100,000 [and] has
`suffered and will suffer emotional distress in a sum to be proven at trial, which sum is alleged
`to be up to $400,000.” (Ex. A, Compl., ¶¶ 8-9). The total damages expressly demanded by
`Plaintiff in his Complaint ($500,000) are well above the threshold requirement for jurisdiction.
`See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2) (“the sum demanded in good faith in the initial pleading shall be
`deemed to be the amount in controversy.”); See Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d
`398, 402 (9th Cir. 1996) (“where the complaint was originally filed in state court (with the
`requisite federal jurisdictional amount pleaded in the request for relief) [] it is highly unlikely in
`that instance that the plaintiff would have inflated his request for damages solely to obtain
`federal jurisdiction”).
`18.
`Plaintiff further seeks recovery of attorneys’ fees under ORS 20.107 and ORS
`659A.885. (Ex. A, Compl. ¶ 11.) Requests for attorney’s fees must be considered in
`ascertaining the amount in controversy. See Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1156
`(9th Cir. 1998) (claims for statutory attorney’s fees to be included in amount in controversy,
`regardless of whether award is discretionary or mandatory). Therefore, the inclusion of a claim
`for attorneys’ fees will further increase the amount in controversy to far exceed $75,000.00.
`19.
`Based on Plaintiff’s own allegations, the amount in controversy under 28 U.S.C.
`section 1332(a) is met, because it exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
`IV. VENUE
`Venue lies in the District of Oregon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1441,
`20.
`1446(a), and 84(c)(2). This action was originally brought in the Circuit Court of the State of
`Oregon for the County of Clackamas.
`V.
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1446(d), written notice of the filing of this Notice
`
`21.
`
`Defendant Foster Farms, LLC’s Notice of Removal - 6
`
`SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
`Attorneys at Law
`999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700
`Seattle, WA 98104-4041
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02204-JR Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 7 of 7
`
`of Removal will be given promptly to Plaintiff and, together with a copy of the Notice of
`Removal, will be filed with the Clerk in the State Court Action. This Notice of Removal also
`will be served on counsel for Plaintiff, and a copy of the Proof of Service will be filed shortly
`after these papers are filed and served.
`VI.
`PRAYER FOR REMOVAL
`22. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that this civil action be removed from the
`Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Clackamas to the United States District
`Court, District of Oregon, Portland Division.
`
`DATED: Decemeber 18, 2020.
`
`SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
`
`s/ Helen M. McFarland
`Helen M. McFarland, OSB 013176
`999 3rd Avenue, Suite 4700
`Seattle, WA 98104
`T: (206) 946-4923
`F: (206) 299-9974
`hmcfarland@sefyarth.com
`
`s/ Alfred L. Sanderson, Jr.__________________
`Alfred L. Sanderson, Jr. OSB 202714
`560 mission Street, 31st Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`T: (415)397-2823
`F: (415) 397-8549
`asanderson@seyfarth.com
`
`Attorneys for Foster Farms, LLC
`
`Defendant Foster Farms, LLC’s Notice of Removal - 7
`
`SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
`Attorneys at Law
`999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700
`Seattle, WA 98104-4041
`
`