Doug Hendrickson v Octagon

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 No. ____________________DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(B) (DIVERSITY)

DANIELLE OCHS, State Bar No. [email protected] L. REED, State Bar No. [email protected], DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.Steuart Tower, Suite 1300One Market PlazaSan Francisco, CA 94105Telephone: 415.442.4810Facsimile: 415.442.4870

Attorneys for DefendantOCTAGON, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS HENDRICKSON, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

OCTAGON, INC., a Washington, D.C.corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. ____________________

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVALOF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332,1441(B) (DIVERSITY)

Complaint Filed: February 21, 2014Trial Date:

Case3:14-cv-01416-CRB Document1 Filed03/27/14 Page1 of 39

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 Case No. ____________________DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(B) (DIVERSITY)

TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT defendant Octagon, Inc. (“Defendant”) hereby removes to

this Court the pending state court civil action identified in paragraph 1 below pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

sections 1332 and 1441(b).

1. On or about February 21, 2014, Plaintiff Douglas Hendrickson (“Plaintiff”)

commenced a civil action against Defendant in the Superior Court of California, County of San

Francisco, entitled: Douglas Henderson, an individual, Plaintiff, v. Octagon, Inc., a Washington,

D.C. corporation, Defendant, as Case Number CGC 14-537605. On February 25, 2014, Plaintiff

served Defendant with his Verified Complaint. Plaintiff alleges claims for (1) restraint of trade in

violation of section 16600 of the California Business and Professions Code; (2) unfair business

practices under section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code; and (3) declaratory

and injunctive relief. True and correct copies of the Summons, Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint, the

Proof of Service of Summons, and a Notice of Case Management Conference are attached hereto

as Exhibit A.

2. Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Filing of Removal, to be filed

with the San Francisco Superior Court hereafter. Exhibits A and B comprmise all of the pleadings

and papers known to Defendant to be on file or to be filed hereafter in the Superior Court.

3. This matter is a civil action of which this Court has original jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. section 1332, and is one which may be removed to this Court by Defendant pursuant to

28 U.S.C. section 1441(b) in that it is a civil action between citizens of different states and the

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

4. Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint does not allege a damage amount as to each of his

claims. Removal is therefore proper if, from the allegations of the Verified Complaint and the

Notice of Removal, it is more likely than not that the claims will exceed $75,000. See Sanchez v.

Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996); Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 171

F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1999). In determining whether the jurisdictional minimum is met, the

Court considers all recoverable damages, including emotional distress damages, punitive damages,

statutory penalties, and attorneys’ fees. See Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n,


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


432 U.S. 333, 347-48 (1977); Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1155-56 (9th Cir.

1998); Anthony v. Security Pac. Fin’l Services, Inc., 75 F.3d 311, 315 (7th Cir. 1996).

5. Based on Plaintiff’s allegations, the amount in controversy in the instant case is

more likely than not to exceed the sum or value of $75,000. Plaintiff was employed as a sports

agent for Defendant. (Complaint, ¶¶ 5, 12.) In his Verified Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on

November 25, 2007, he and Defendant entered into an employment agreement (the “Agreement”).1

(Complaint, ¶ 6.) The parties have a dispute over whether Section 6 of the Agreement (“Section

6”), which concerns the splitting of fees following the termination of Plaintiff’s employment from

Defendant, is unenforceable under California law. (Complaint, ¶¶ 6, 15, 16, Exh. A.) Plaintiff

seeks compensatory, consequential, punitive, and exemplary damages; costs, expenses, and

attorneys’ fees; injunctive relief; and a declaratory judgment that Section 6 is unenforceable.

(Complaint ¶¶ 22, 23, 31, 32, 35, Prayer for Relief, ¶¶ a-h.)

6. The fees in dispute for the upcoming National Football League season under

Marshawn Lynch’s player contract total $82,500. (Declaration of Paul Haase in Support of Notice

of Removal (“Haase Decl.”), ¶¶ 4-6, Exh. A.) These fees are only for Lynch’s team playing

agreement, and even then, only for the upcoming season. (Haase Decl., ¶ 6.) Fees from other

player deals and other years are also in dispute. (Haase Decl., ¶¶ 4, 7, Exh. A.) Plaintiff also seeks

recovery of attorneys’ fees and punitive damages. (Complaint ¶¶ 23, 32, Prayer for Relief, ¶¶ f-g.)

Thus, based on a conservative good faith estimate of the value of the claims asserted in this action,

Plaintiff seeks recovery in excess of $75,000.2

7. Complete diversity of citizenship exists in that Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of

California. (Complaint, ¶ 1.) Defendant Octagon, Inc. is incorporated under the laws of the

District of Columbia, with its principal place of business in McLean, Virginia. (Haase Decl., ¶ 2.)

//

1 The Agreement is attached to Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint.2 By estimating the amount Plaintiff may recover if he prevails, Defendant does not concede thatPlaintiff will prevail on any of his claims or that, if he prevails, he is entitled to damages in anyparticular amount or at all. Defendant reserves the full right to dispute Plaintiff’s claims withrespect to both liability and damages.


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


8. This Notice of Removal of Civil Action is filed within the time provided by 28

U.S.C section 1446(b) in that it was filed within thirty days of the date that Defendants were served

with Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint.

9. San Francisco County is located within the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for

the Northern District of California. Thus, this Court is a proper court for the removal of this

action.3

DATED: March 27, 2014 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &STEWART, P.C.

By: /s/ Danielle OchsDANIELLE OCHSTIMOTHY L. REEDAttorneys for DefendantOCTAGON, INC.

17233108.2

3 Defendant maintains, however, that the under the terms of the Agreement, the proper venue forPlaintiff’s action is the Eastern District of Virginia.


EXHIBIT A

































EXHIBIT B


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 No. CGC 14-537605NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF AND CLERK OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT OF REMOVAL OF

CIVIL ACTION TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DANIELLE OCHS, State Bar No. [email protected] L. REED, State Bar No. [email protected], DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.Steuart Tower, Suite 1300One Market PlazaSan Francisco, CA 94105Telephone: 415.442.4810Facsimile: 415.442.4870


SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

DOUGLAS HENDRICKSON, an individual,

Plaintiff,

vs.

OCTAGON, INC., a Washington, D.C.corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. CGC 14-537605

NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF AND CLERK OFTHE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURTOF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TOUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Action Filed: February 21, 2014Trial Date: None


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 Case No. CGC 14-537605NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF AND CLERK OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT OF REMOVAL OF

CIVIL ACTION TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

TO PLAINTIFF DOUGLAS HENDRICKSON AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, AND

THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on March ___, 2014, Defendant OCTAGON, INC.

removed the instant action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of

California. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Removal, without exhibits, is attached hereto

as Exhibit A.

DATED: March __, 2014 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &STEWART, P.C.

By:DANIELLE OCHSTIMOTHY L. REED


17233864.1


Documents

Doug Hendrickson v Octagon