Johnny Darnell Griges (SBN: 110640) ELECTRONICALLY FILED s@nolanheimann.com Superior Court of Califoria, NOLAN HEIMANN LLP County of Orange 16133 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 820 03/20/2048 24 11:40:28 PM Encino, CA 91436 tle of the Telephone: (818) 574-5710 ork of the Superior Court By Mary IM Johnson, Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE. ‘ATE OF CALIFORNIA BRENT AVILA, an individual CASE NO.; 20-2018-00080793- CUWT-CC shudge Nathan Scot COMPLAINT FOR DAMA‘ Plaintifts, | \ 1. RACE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA - TERMINIX PEST CONTROL, an organization | GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS of unknown origin and/or organization: 12490, et eq. TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY. | 2. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an organization of VIOLATION OF FEHA — . unknown origin and/or organization: ihe ECTIONS se ee ¥ ef eg. THE SERVICEMASTER COMPANY, LLC. a) 5 FAILURE“TO ACCOMMODATE organization of unknown origin and/or DISABILITY IN VIOLATION OF organization; FEHA - GOVERNMENT CODE RVICEMASTER GLOBAL HOLDINGS, SECTIONS 12490, ef eg. INC., a Delaware corporation; and 4. FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE DOE: ah 25, inclusive, DISABILITY IN VIOLATION OF 1 through 25, inclusi FEHA - GOVERNMENT CODE ote TONS 12490, ef eq. Defendants: 5, FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF FEHA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 12490, et eq. 6. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN IOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY ENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 8. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY (TAMENY) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPLAINTIFF BRENT AVILA, an individual, COMPLAINS OF DEFENDANTS, AND EACH OF THEM, AND ALLEGES AS FOLLOW; INTRODUCTION 1 This lawsuit is brought on behalf of PLAINTIFF BRENT AVILA (“MR. AVILA™ or PLAINTIFF”), a former crew supervisor employed by an entity or entities commonly know as TERMINIX PEST CONTROL (“TERMINIX PC”) from April 22, 2008, until his terminatior on August 19, 2016, While itis difficult to ascertain the origin or organization of TERMINIX PC. it appears to be an operating unit that is a part of an elaborate organizational structure consisting of TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (°TERMINIX, INTERNATIONAL”), THE SERVICEMASTER = COMPANY. LLC THE) SERVICEMASTER COMPANY”), SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC. (SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL"). 2. This complaint relates to adverse actions taken against PLAINTIFF (a Latino male) while an employee of TERMINIX PC, TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL, THF SERVICEMASTER COMPANY, and SERVICEMASTE! “TERMINIX” or “DEFENDANTS"). Among other things, Mr. Avila was terminated on August GLOBAL (collectively. 19, 2016, while on leave and after having made a workers’ compensation claim. What follows is a summary of Mr. Avila’s history at TERMINIX, the events leading up to his termination, as well as the basis of his claims. THE PARTIES 3. PLAINTIFF is, and at all times relevant to this complaint was, a resident of Monterey Park, County of Los Angeles, California, PLAINTIFF is a Latino male, 4. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant TERMINIX PC is an organization of unknown origin and/or organization, that employed o purported to employ PLAINTIFF 5. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL is an organization of unknown origin and/or organization, that employed or purported to employ PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF is further informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL is a subsidiary of SERVICEMASTE! COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESoN aaron 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GLOBAL, 6. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant THE SERVICEMASTER COMPANY is an organization of unknown origin and/or organization, that employed or purported to employ PLAINTIFF. 7. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL is Delaware Corporation, registered in the State of California and doing business in the State of California, PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereo! alleges, that SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL employed or purported to employ PLAINTIFF. 8. PLAINTIFF is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herei as DOES | through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. 9. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges. that at all times herein mentioned, each of the defendants sued herein was the alter ego, agent and/or employee of each of the remaining defendants and was at all times aeting within the purpose and scope of such agency) and employment. PLAINTIFF is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the defendants sued herein gave consent to, ratified, and/or authorized the acts alleged herein t each of the remaining defendants. FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS 2008, when he was hired as 10. Mr. Avila began his tenure at Terminix on April Branch 1 Licensee Fumigator earning $15 per hour. Among other things, Mr. Avila’s responsibilities were to ensure that his fumigation truck was fully equipped with the proper supplies to fumigate multiple properties. As the crew leader of three to four employees, Mr. Avila ‘was responsible for securing, preparing and tarping homes for dry wood termite fumigations. Mr. ‘Avila frequently worked around 60 hours per week for approximately three years (2008 to 2011) He frequently went without lunch or breaks during his first three years with Termi He In mi 2011, Mr. Avila was promoted to service manager. His responsibilities included scheduling routes for homes that were to be fumigated, contacting customers to provide) them with the estimated time of arrival the day prior to fumigation, handling customer complaint and clearing homes for re-entry after they were fumigated. Whenever needed, Mr. Avila COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESRON Soaroa supervised a fumigation truck. As part of his promotion, Mr. Avila’s compensation was raised a salary of $47,855. This was the only promotional raise Mr. Avila received during his tenure at Terminix. Thereafter, he received annual pay raises. 12. In 2012, Mr, Avila was promoted to branch manager for the Fumigatio Department in Laguna Hills, Branch 2782 Orange County Fume. Mr. Avila served as both branch manager and service manager. Notwithstanding that Mr, Avila was given the title of brane manager, and while he did receive a branch manager bonus, Mr. Avila did not receive a salary 0 $60,000, the amount that other branch managers in the company were paid. 13. In his capacity as branch manager, Mr. Avila was tasked with establishing th fumigation department up and running from the ground up. Branch 2782 Orange County Fumg \was opening for the first time and Mr, Avila was chosen to establish and run the department. Mr ‘Avila had to hire employees sufficient to run two fumigation trucks. Mr. Avila’s other job du included maintaining the fumigation trucks, ensuring employee safety. handling customer issues via telephone and in person, scheduling homes for fumigation services, keeping records up to dat in order to comply with California legal or regulatory requirements, assessing properties to verif suitability for fumigation, ensuring properties were measured accurately, and providing employees incentives to meet their work production and profit margins. 14. Mr. Avila managed Branch 2782 Orange County Fume of TERMINIX from 2014 to 2016, During this time, his regional managers were Mike St. Clair (Caucasian male), Josh Joyeq (Caucasian male) and John Erke (Caucasian male). Mr. Avila engaged well with all of his regional managers except John Erke. As will be discussed below, it appears that Mr. Erke singled out Mr. Avila for significantly adverse treatment. Mr, Avila’s general managers (a level below the regional managers) were James Capwell (Caucasian male), Kendall Homer (Caucasian male) and Gerald Houseman (Caucasian male). Based upon Mr. Avila’s experience with Mr. Housman, it was apparent that Mr. Houseman acquiesced to any request Mr. Erke made of him regarding Mr. Av: Whether right or wrong. This made for an extremely difficult working environment for Mr. Avila as ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESRON Soarnoa 15. Mr. Avila’s difficulties at Terminix commenced when Mr. Erke was promoted 1 regional manager in Mr. Avila’s region in early 2014. In that capacity, Mr. Erke supervised Mr ‘Avila’s work. From the very beginning, Mr. Erke, a Caucasian male, treated Mr. Avila with contempt and disrespect. Among other things, Mr. Avila would be disrespected by Mr. Erke i ‘meetings that included other employees, Often, Mr. Avila would begin to state or explain his point of view, only to be told by Mr. Erke to stop talking or that Mr. Avila did not know what he wa: talking about. Notwithstanding Mr. Avila’s exemplary record, Mr. Avila was made to feel ai though he were incompetent. He was clearly disfavored by Mr. Erke. 16, In 2015, Terminix was sued by wo families that allegedly became ill following, fumigations by Terminix. Thereafter, the company responded by enhancing its safety rules and} procedures. The newly promulgated safety rules prevented TERMINIX from going forward wit fumigations until certain requirements could be met at the site of the fumigation. Mr. Avil followed these rules closely, and as a result, he was compelled to cancel a number of fumigatio jobs, because they could not meet the safety requirements. Management, and in particular Mr. Erke, did not like the fact that Mr. Avila canceled fumigation jobs pursuant to company rules. As some result, other managers ot personnel in the Los Angeles branch would be asked to doubl check the canceled jobs. As a result, Mr. Avila was second-guessed and pressured not to cancel jobs notwithstanding that those jobs were not compliant with company safety rules. This was an ongoing issue between Mr. Avila and Mr. Erke. 17. In 2015, John Erke informed Mr. Avila that he had 60 days to hire three to fou additional employees to run three fumigation trucks. This was an extraordinarily difficult tas because the positions were in Laguna Hills (Orange County), which is a significant commute fron} Los Angeles, from which Terminix drew the vast majority of its workforce. John Erke told Mr: Avila that if he did not hit additional employees, Mr. Avila would not continue to have his job. This message was also communicated by Mr. Erke to Mr. Avila through general manager Kendall Horner. During their discussions about hiring, Mr. Erke asked Mr. Avila what would need to bs done to attract additional employees. Mr. Avila informed him that because of the cost o} commuting, the company needed to offer candidates more money. Mr. Avila recounted that he had} -5- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESSoanoanon Reh oe Oe pe oe Si Smt oa) oem hired and trained numerous employees who left because of the long, costly commute and the low, Mr. Erke then told Mr. Avila that increasing the compensation would never happen in either of their lifetimes. Interestingly, after Mr. Avila attempted, unsuccessfully, to hire additional ngly, while Mr. Avila was on medical leave, people, to the point of making himself ill. Interest and after he had been pressured to the point of illness, Mr. Erke gave newly hired and current employees the level of compensation recommended by Mr. Avila. 18. On September 23, 2015, Mr. Avila took a medi leave due to stress and anxiety) related to the job. Among other things, a great deal of stress was created by the pressure being placed on Mr. Avila to ignore, disregard or bend company safety rules, as well asthe disrespectful treatment being leveled against him by Mr. Erke. In addition, under the circumstances ther existing, being told he had 60 days to hire additional personnel under threat of losing his job cael Mr. Avila enormous stress. Mr. Avila did all he could do to hire the required personnel, to no avail Because of the workplace-related stress, Mr. Avila could not sleep, and he began to have difficulties in his marital relationship. 19. The stress became overwhelming in the spring and summer of 2015. One of th incidents precipitating the leave involved Mr. Avila’s attempts to hire a former employee who hadl worked under him, Because he had resigned, Mr. Avila designated him as not eligible for rehire. Mr. Avila was aware that in similar circumstances, Los Angeles Fume had hired a forme! ‘employee that he had placed as ineligible for rehire. When Mr. Avila attempted to hire the former employee, he met with resistance. He then wrote a letter to the company’s human resoure department, which informed Mr. Avila that the former employee could not be rehired. Mr. Avila sent the human resources representative an email urging him to reconsider, informing the humat resources representative that Mr. Avila could lose his job if he were not successful in hiring, and that the situation was creating stress to the point that he could not sleep. 20. In response to the above, the human resources representative emailed Mr. Avil and told him that no employee who was designated ineligible for rehire could be rehired. Thre months later, the former employee informed Mr. Avila that he had been rehired at Los Angeles “6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGEShon | Soarxoa 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Fume in Santa Fe Springs. In light of this development, Mr. Avila believed more strongly thar} ever that he was being singled out for adverse treatment by Mr. Erke. Mr. Avila had tried several times to hire this former employee and was told it was not permissible, only to find out later that the company had rehired the employee. The culmination of events caused Mr. Avila to take medical leave due to Stress in September 2015. 21. Mr. Avila returned from medical leave on January 6, 2016. TERMINIX did not contact Mr. Avila during his leave. Upon his return, Mr. Avila continued to experience significant job-related stress. In the performance of his duties, Mr. Avila cancelled a number of jobs becausg they were not compliant with company safety requirements. For example, Mr. Avila canceled number of jobs where the dwellings had sky lights and the crew was unable to cover one or more of them, as well as jobs where the dwellings were more than 24 feet high (because TERMINI rules prohibit working on ladders 24 feet high or more). 22. Inaddition, Mr. Avila canceled jobs because Terminix safety rules prohibited crew from working on roofs after dark. (Mr. Avila has been informed by current TERMINIX employees that notwithstanding that these practices are prohibited, they are being permitted now that Mr: ‘Avila is no longer working at TERMINIX.) Mr. Avila continued to experience significant pressur not to cancel these jobs as required by company safety rules. 23. Mr. Avila also experienced stress relating to other safety decisions he mad pursuant to TERMINIX policy. Among Mr. Avila's job duties was to inspect the jobs o subcontractors working for Terminix to ensure they were working safely. In or about May 2016, Mr. Avila utilized a subcontractor, When he inspected the company's work, he found that they were working unsafely, As a result, Mr. Avila prepared a written report on the incident an recommend that the company not be used by Terminix in the future. For some reason, this displeased Mr. Erke greatly. The day following Mr. Avila’s submission of the report, Mr. Erk called Mr. Avila. Mr. Erke was upset and asked Mr. Avila why Mr. Avila recommended that the, company stop using the subcontractor. Mr. Erke also asked whether Mr. Avila had communicate his findings to Mr. Houseman. Mr. Erke asked twice more during the conversation whether Mr; -7- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESRON Soarnoa 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Houseman was aware of his findings, Mr. Erke then asked to speak with Mr, Houseman, who was with Mr. Avila, Mr, Avila let Mr. Erke know that the Mr. Houseman was on another call. Mr: Eke demanded that Mr. Avila tell Mr. Houseman to get off the phone and take his call. Mr. Avila did as he was instructed. 24. Mr. Houseman got on the phone with Mr. Erke, About 10 seconds into the call, Mr} Houseman turned to Mr. Avila and mouthed an obscenity to indicate that Mr. Erke was very upset Shortly after this call, Mr. Avila and Mr. Erke, and the general manager had a conference call wit upper management. ‘The purpose was for Mr. Avila to explain his findings relating to th subcontractor. The call with upper management seemed to go well, 25. Following the call with upper management, Mr. Houseman explained that the recommendation to no longer use the subcontractor was such a “bold” statement that it found its \way immediately to top management. Mr. Avila informed Mr, Houseman that he was glad it eamg to the attention of upper management, because if the Orange County TERMINIX operation got additional fumigation safety issues, the Orange County Operation could be shut down. Mr. Avila also told Mr. Houseman that he was being made to feel that he had done something wrong for addressing this safety issue. 26. Approximately two weeks later, while Mr. Avila was in the field conducting safety} inspections of his erew, Mr. John Erke called him and asked Mr. Avila to meet with Mr. Erkq because they hadn't had an opportunity to meet since Mr. Avila had returned from his medica leave. Mr. Avila informed Mr. Erke he was inspecting his erews, but that he could be in the offic at approximately 12:30 or 1:00 p.m, Mr. Erke told Mr. Avila to be in the office by 12:00 p.m. I was then 11:15, which gave Mr. Avila 45 minutes to get from Huntington Beach to Laguna Hills. Mr, Avila left immediately and arrived at the office at 12:10 p.m. 27. When Mr. Avila arrived, he was called into the office along with Mr. Houseman] Mr, Erke informed Mr. Avila several times that the meeting was not going to result in a write uf or corrective action. Mr. Erke then asked Mr. Avila whether he knew how to make a TERMINI safety call for a stop work, Mr. Avila attempted to answer the question, but after Mr. Avila spoki -8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESRON Swoarnoa several words, Mr. Erke told him to stop talking because he was trying to explain something abou which he essentially knew nothing, Each time Mr. Avila attempted to answer the question, Mr} Erke told him to stop trying to talk. Mr. Erke then explained how he wanted the stop safety procedure to be handled. This was the first ime Mr. Avila was told of this “new” method, whic! ‘was not the same as the method put in place by the company, which was the method by which sto ‘work procedures were handled throughout the company’ 28. After that, Mr, Erke then explained the procedure that he wanted followed, he aske ‘Mr. Avila if he understood that because of the safety report Mr. Avila submitted people might loss Mr] their jobs and be unable to feed their families. Just as previously, Mr. Erke would not per Avila to answer the question. The next day Mr. Erke, held a regional conference call and informed all fumigation managers and crew leaders of the “new” stop work process he was implementing Ironically, Mr. Erke closed the call by saying that he has an open-door policy with all employee: so they know they can feel comfortable about talking with management. Mr. Houseman and his servic 29, Following the conference call, Mr. Avila met manager in training, Mr. Avila informed his service manager that he believed he was being treat unfairly by his Mr. Erke. Mr. Houseman said he agreed with Mr. Avila. Gerald Houseman wed with Mr, Avila, Following this meeting, Mr. Houseman began to assign Mr. Avila onerous tasks to which no one else was subjected. These tasks appeared to be for the sole purpose of creating hostile work environment for Mr. Avila. For example, Mr. Avila was instructed to drive out to every job that his crews cancelled because the job was unsafe. As a result, Mr. Avila would arriv at work at approximately 6:00 a.m. and would not finish until 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. (even before these tasks were assigned, Mr. Avila would arrive at 6:00 a.m. and be finished at 5:00 p.m.) 30. On one occasion, one of Mr. Avila’s crews cancelled a job because they stepped through the roof. Mr, Houseman instructed Mr. Avila to travel from Laguna Hills to Laguna Beac to determine why the crew member stepped through the roof. It was 4:00 p.m. at the time of th conversation. Mr. Avila informed Mr. Houseman that he knew nothing about roofs and had not worked in the roofing industry. Mr. Houseman then said to Mr. Avila “Then go in the attic and se« aor COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES1 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 if there was termite damage”. Mr. Avila responded that he was not licensed to identify termite damage. Mr. Houseman then told Mr. Avila to “Just go and figure it out.” 31. Again; the unfair criticism, pressure to break or bend the rules, long hours. unreasonable instructions and other actions by the company placed Mr. Avila under a great deal of stress. Because of the mounting stress, anxiety and the onset of depression as a result of thes work-related issues, Mr. Avila contacted his doctor and told him how he was feeling. As a result the doctor placed Mr. Avila off work and recommended that he seck help for his stress, anxiety and depression. 32. Before Mr. Avila left on medical leave, he sent an email the human resource department on May 25, 2016 to inform human resources that he had a meeting with management that was troubling to him and he wanted to talk about it, In subsequent email correspondence Mr. Avila informed human resources that he felt uncomfortable about making the safety calls because of the manner in which he was being treated by John Erke and Mr, Houseman. Nothing was dong about Mr. Avila’s complaint. Mr. Avila commenced his medical leave on or about June 1, 2016. 33. According to his personnel records, Mr. Avila was terminated by TERMINIX on} August 19, 2016. On August 18, 2016, Mr. Avila noticed a deposit in his bank account banl account from TERMINIX. Upon calling TERMINIX to determine the nature of the payment, Mr, Avila was informed that he had been terminated. Mr. Avila never received a phone call nor any} written notice informing him that he had been terminated. The purported reason for the terminatio ‘was that Mr. Avila was deemed ineligible for leave. At the time of his termination, Mr. Avila wa: making approximately $52,000 per year. 34. Mr. Avila was informed via correspondence dated August 5, 2016 that his worker’ compensation claim had been denied, Via letter dated August 24, 2016 from Aetna, that Mr} Avila’s leave claims had been denied. The correspondence read, in part: Since your claim wasn't approved for the reason(s) below, you don’t have job protection under the federal and California state leave Jaws. Your ServiceMaster -10- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESoN aaron "1 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 company leave has also been denied. If you have already missed work, contact myHR and your manager immediately. If you do not return to work or contact myHR or your manager, you may be subject to ServiceMaster’s attendance policies and may be considered to have voluntarily resigned from the company. This correspondence was sent to Mr. Avila five days after Mr. Avila was terminated. Therefore! he had no notice prior to his termination that his leaves of absence had been denied. 35. Mr, Avila was made to work harder than others in his position. paid les and n, and ultimately terminated. Mr. Avila believes that he wa subjected to disrespect and humi discriminated against because of his race (Latino). This is a violation of the California Fai Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA"). 36. Inaddition, Mr. Avila suffered from stress, anxiety and depression for an extended, period of time. Therefore, Mr. Avila suffers from a disability as defined by FEHA. In terminating Mr, Avila and treating him adversely in other respects due to his disability, TERMINIX and its supervisors violated FEHA in that the acts of TERMINEX and its supervisors constituted: (1 disability discrimination; (2) failure to accommodate disability; and (3) failure to engage in at interactive process. 37. Prior to filing this Complaint, PLAINTIFF fulfilled any legal requirement o1 exhausted any adminis ive remedy imposed on him by having filed the substance of claim alleged herein with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (hereinafter “DFEH?) and has received a Right to Sue Letters from the DFEH. PLAINTIFF has thereforg substantially complied with all requirements for the filing of this Complaint and has exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing, commencing, and serving the within ation. A copy of thd Right to Sue Letter is‘attached hereto as Exhibit A. “i COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESFIRST CAUSE OF AC 1ON RACE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12940, et seq. (Against All Defendants) 38. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 37 of this Complaint are re-alleged} and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth fully herein. 39. Government Code Section 12940(a) prohibits an employer. from discriminating, against employees because of race. 40, DEFENDANTS were at all relevant times employers within the meaning of the California Government Code Section 12926(d) and, as such barred from discriminating against any employee because of race as set forth in Government Code Section 12940(a). 41. PLAINTIFF was at all relevant times a person within the meaning of Califor Government Code Section 12925(d) and, as such covered by California Government Code Section 12940(a) prohibiting discrimination against employees on the basis of race. 42. Through the acts described fully in Paragraphs 1 through 37, above, DEFE NDANTS, and each of them, violated Government Code Section 12940(a), by discriminating against the PLAINTIFF on the basis of race, and on August 19. 2016. after a period, :NDANTS. of wholly satisfactory, competent, and diligent performance to the profit of the DEI PLAINTIFF was natified by DEFENDANTS that his employment was being terminated. DEFENDAN’ conduct was a pretext designed to conceal DEFENDANTS’ practice of discriminating against Latino employees (especially as it relates to pay discrepancies. promotions discipline and termination), including the PLAINT 43. DEFENDANTS. and each of them, failed to comply with their statutory duty to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent disci ination due to race from occurring in th workplace and to prevent it from occurring in the future in violation of Government Code S: 12940(k). 44, As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of DEFENDANTS? willful, knowing and intentional discrimination against PLAINTIFF based on race, he has sustained and continues to sustain general, consequential, and special damages, including but not limited substantial -12- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESyo Soar}. rkw Pee Ch ts Onset eee ee ees it Some On ae See losses in earnings and job benefits 45. Asa direct, foreseeable and proximate result of DEFENDANTS” willful, knowing PLAINTIFF, he has suffered and continues to suffer and intentional discrimination ag: humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, emotional distress and discomfort, all to his damag: in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court, the precise amount of which will be proven at trial 46. As a further direct, foreseeable and proximate result of DEFENDANTS} minatory acts, PLAINTIFF has suffered severe damage to his professional reputation in ai ‘amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court, the precise amount of which will by proven at trial 47. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have committed the acts herein allege maliciously and oppressively. with the wrongful intention of injuring PLAINTIFF, with “| improper and intentional motive amounting to malice and in conscious disregard of PLAINTIFF'S rights. Accordingly, PLAINTIFF requests the assessment of punitive damages against DEFENDANTS, and’each of them, in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of DEFENDANTS. 48. PLAINTIFI is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that in addition t the practices enumerated above, DEFENDANTS, and each of the them, have engaged in other discriminatory practices against them which are not yet fully known. At such time as said discriminatory practices become known to them, PLAINTIFF will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint in that regard. 49. PLAINTIFF has incurred reasonable and necessary attorney’ fees in the preparation, and prosecution of this action and seeks reimbursement of him attomey’s fees pursuant t California Government Code Section 12965(b). ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESoN oanran "1 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 a7 28 IND CAUSE OF AC DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12940, et seq. (PLAINTIFF Against All DEFENDANTS) 50. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 49 of this Complaint are re-allege and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth fully herein. 51. DEFENDANTS were at all relevant times employers within the meaning of th California Government Code Section 12926(d) and, as such barred from diserimi ‘ing against any employee because of disability as set forth in Government Code Section 12940(a). Atall times relevant to this complaint, Government Code Section 12926.1 was in full force and effect and was binding on the DEFENDANTS and the DEFENDANTS were subject to their terms. 52. PLAINTIFF was at all relevant times a person within the meaning of California Government Code Section 12925(d) and, as such covered by California Government Code Section 12940(a) prohibiting discrimination against employees on the basis of disability. 53. PLAINTIFF is, and at all relevant times was an employee who suffered from a sability” as defined by Government Code Sections 12926, ef seg. and 12940 et seq. and California Code of Regulations, Title 2, which limits one or more major life activities. 54. PLAINTIFF suffered from severe stress, anxiety, depression and potentially other disabilit that among other things, limited his ability to work, eat, sleep and interact with his family 55. Through the acts described fully in Paragraphs 1 through 49, above DEFENDANTS, and each of them, violated Government Code, Section 12940(a), by, dis inating against the PLAINTIFF on the basis of disability and on August 19, 2016, after period of wholly satisfactory, competent, and diligent performance to the profit of th DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF was not ied by DEFENDANTS that his employment was being terminated. DEFENDANTS’ conduct was a pretext designed to conceal DEFENDANTS} discrimination against PLAINTIFF the basis of disability. 56. ENDAN S, and each of them, failed to comply with their statutory duty t take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination due to disability from occurring i -14- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESthe workplace and to prevent it from occurring in the future in violation of Government Cod. Section 12940(k). 57. Asadirect, foreseeable and proximate result of DEFENDANTS" willful, knowing} and intentional discrimination against PLAINTIFF based on disability, PLAINTIFF has sustained and continues to sustain general, consequential, and special damages, including but not limited, substantial losses in earnings and job benefits. 58. Asadirect, foreseeable and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ willful, knowing and intentional discrimination against PLAINTIFF, he has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, emotional distress and discomfort, all to his damage in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court, the precise amount of which will be proven at trial. 59. As a further direct, foreseeable and proximate result of DEFENDANTS discriminatory acts, PLAINTIFF has suffered severe damage to his professional reputation in at amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court, the precise amount of which will proven at trial 60. DEI ENDANTS, and each of them, have committed the acts herein alleged maliciously and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring PLAINTIFF, with a1 improper and intentional motive amounting to malice and in conscious disregard of PLAINTIFF’S, rights. Accordingly, PLAINTIFF requests the assessment of punitive damages agains DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example o DEFENDANTS. 61. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that in addition t the practices enumerated above, DEFENDANTS, and cach of the them, have engaged in other discriminatory practices against them which are not yet fully known. At such time as said discriminatory practices become known to them, PLAINTIFF will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint in that regard. 62. PLAINTIFF has incurred reasonable and necessary attorney's fees in th preparation and prosecution of this action and seeks reimbursement of his attomney’s fees pursuant to California Government Code Section 12965(b). -15- ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESTHIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE DISABILITY IN VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12940, et seq. (PLAINTIFF Against All DEFENDANTS) 63. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 62 of this Complaint are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth fully herein. 64. PLAINTIFF suffered from disabilities, including severe stress, anxiety an depression among others. While suffering these disabilities, PLAINTIFF was retaliated against and was terminated on August 19, 2016. 65. DEFENDANTS were aware of PLAINTIFF'S disabilities, because as set forth, above, PLAINTIFF informed DEFENDANTS of his disability. Because of DEFENDANTS) awareness of PLAINTIFF'S disabilities, DEFENDANTS became aware of PLAINTIFFS’ need for accommodation for his disabilities. 66. DEFENDANTS have an affirmative duty under FEHA to reasonably, accommodate disabled workers pursuant to California Government Code Section 12490(n). Such duty arises regardless of whether the employee requested any accommodation. FEH. entitles disabled employees to preferential consideration in reassignment of existing employees. Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank, 85 Cal.App-Ath 245 (2000), 67. DEFENDANTS failed to reasonably accommodate PLAINTIFF'S needs based disabilities in the following manner: After DEFENDANTS were informed o on PLAINTIFF'S disabilities, DEFENDANTS terminated PLAINTIFF'S employment, in part because of his disabilities, Such adverse employment actions were done because o! PLAINTIFF'S disabilities and/or his requests for accommodations for his disabilities. 68. Atall times mentioned herein, PLAINTIFF was willing and able to perform the duties and functions of his position if such reasonable accommodation had been made by DEFENDANTS, and each of them. At no time would the performance of the fu jons of the, employment position, with a reasonable accommodation for PLAINTIFF'S disabilities, hav been a danger to PLAINTIFF'S or any other person's health or safety, nor would it have created an undue hardship to the operation of defendant's business. a COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESoY aaron 1 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 69. Asa direct, foreseeable and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ willful, knowing and intentional failure to accommodate PLAINTIFF, he has sustained and continues to sustai general, consequential, and special damages, including but not limited substantial losses in earnings and job benefits 70, Asa direct, foreseeable and proximate result of DEFENDANTS" willful, knowin; and intentional failure to accommodate PLAINTIFF, he has suffered and continues to suffe humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, emotional distress and discomfort, all to his damage in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court, the precise amount of which will be proven at trial. 7 Asa further direct, foreseeable and proximate result of DEFENDANTS? failure t accommodate PLAINTIFF, he has suffered severe damage to his professional reputation in an) amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court, the precise amount of which will be proven at trial 72. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have committed the acts herein alleg: maliciously and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring PLAINTIFF, with an| improper and intentional motive amounting to malice and in conscious disregard o PLAINTIFF'S rights. Accordingly, PLAINTIFF requests the assessment of punitive damages inst DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in an amount appropriate to punish and make au example of DEFENDANTS. 73. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that in addition the practices enumerated above, DEFENDANTS. and each of the them, have engaged in other discriminatory practices against them which are not yet fully known, At such time as said discriminatory practices become known to them, PLAINTIFF will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint in that regard. 74, PLAINTIFF has incurred reasonable and necessary attorney's fees in th preparation and prosecution of this action and seeks reimbursement of his attomney’s fees pursuant to California Government Code Section 12963(b). -17- : COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESFOURTH CAUSE OF At FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN A TIMELY, GOOD FAITH, INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12940, et seq. (PLAINTIFF Against All DEFENDANTS) 75. Theallegations set forth in paragraphs I through 74 of this Complaint are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth fully herein. 76. PLAINTIFF suffered from disabilities, including severe stress, anxiety and depression among others. While suffering these disabilities, PLAINTIFF was retaliated agains and was terminated on August 19, 2016. 772 above, PLAINTIFF informed DEFENDANTS of his disability. Because of DEFENDANTS NDANTS were aware of PLAINTIFF'S disabilities, because as set forth, awareness of PLAINTIFF'S disabilities, DEFNDANTS became aware of PLAINTIFFS" need for accommodation for his disabiliti 78. Defendant did not engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with PLAINTIFF to find an accommodation for PLAINTIFF'S disabilities, short of terminating his employment. 79, Asa direct, foreseeable and proximate result of DEFENDANTS? willful, knowin; and intentional failure to engage in a timely, good faith interactive process with PLAINTIFF, h has sustained and continues to sustain general, consequential, and special damages, including, but not limited substantial losses in earnings and job benefits. 80. Asa direct, foreseeable and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ willful, knowing, and failure to engage in a timely, good faith interactive process with PLAINTIFF, he has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, emotional distress an discomfort, all to his damage in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court, the precise amount of which will be proven at trial. 81, Asa further direct, foreseeable and proximate result of DEFENDANTS? failure t engage ina timely. good faith interactive process with PLAINTIFF, he has suffered severe damage -18- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGE:Soarnoanron 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 to his professional reputation in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court the precise amount of which will be proven at trial. 82. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have committed the acts herein alleged maliciously and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring PLAINTIFF, with at improper and intentional motive amounting to malice and in conscious disregard o} PLAINTIFF'S rights. Accordingly, PLAINTIFF requests the assessment of punitive damages against DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in an amount appropriate to punish and make an] example of DEFENDANTS. 83. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that in addition tg the practices enumerated above, DEFENDANTS, and each of the them, have engaged in othe discriminatory practices against them which are not yet fully known, At such time as said discriminatory practices become known to them, PLAINTIFF will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint in that regard. 84. PLAINTIFF has incurred reasonable and necessary attomey’s fees. in th preparation and prosecution of this action and seeks reimbursement of his attorney's fees pursuan to California Government Code Section 12965(b). FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION WRONGFUL TERMINATION BASED ON RACE AND DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY (PLAINTIFF Against All DEFENDANTS) 85. The allegations set forth in paragraphs | through 84 of this Complaint are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth fully herein. 86. California Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 prohibits DEFENDANTS, and each o' them, from discriminating against any employee on the basis of race 87. Government Code Sections 12920, et seq. also prohibits DEFENDANTS, and eac! of them, from discriminating against PLAINTIFF on the basis of his race and/or disability 88. DEFENDANTS" discriminatory conduct set forth in paragraphs 1 through 84 above, violates the public policy of the State of California, as reflected in the Californi -19- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESConstitution, Article 1, Section 8 and Government Code Sections 12920, et seq. DEFENDANTS] conduct in this regard has caused PLAINTIFF'S economic, physical and emotional injury 89. Asadirect, foreseeable and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ willful, knowi 4 and intentional discriminatory acts, PLAINTIFF has sustained and continues to sustain general, consequential, and special damages, including but not limited substantial losses in eamings and] job benefits. 90. Asa direct, foreseeable and proximate result of DEFENDANTS? discriminatory acts, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continue to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish. emotional distress and discomfort, all to their damage, in an amount in excess of the minimum) jurisdiction of this Court, the precise amount of which will be proven at trial 91, As a further direct, foreseeable and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ discriminatory acts, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer severe damage to thei professional reputation in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court, th precise amount of which will be proven at trial. 92, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have committed the aets set forth in paragraphs 1 through 84, above, maliciously and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring} PLAINTIFF, with an improper and intentional motive amounting to malice and in conscious disregard of PLAINTIFF’S rights. Accordingly, PLAINTIFF requests the assessment of punitive damages against DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of them. SIXTH C. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA EQUAL PAY ACT CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE SECTION 1197.5 (By PLAINTIFF Against DEFENDANTS) OF ACTIO! 93. PLAINTIFF re-pleads, re-alleges, and incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1] through 92 of this complaint, as if set forth fully herein. 94. California Labor Code Section 1197.5, the Califor a Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) ‘makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to “pay any of its employees at wazg rates less than the rates paid to employees of another race or ethnicity for substantially simila -20- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESwork, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under simila working conditions...” 95, PLAINTIFF was paid a lower wage rate than the rates paid to white employees off DEFENDANTS for equal work on equal jobs, the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility and which were performed under similar working conditions. The highe NDANTS for the same work was not a result of a seniority wages paid to white employees of D system, a merit system, a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, o a differential based on any bona fide factor other than race, 96. In doing the aforementioned acts, Defendant violated California Labor Codg Section 1197.5. 97. Asa result of DEFENDANTS? willful, knowing, and intentional discriminatior against PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses i \wages/earnings and other employment benefits. 98. In doing the acts as described above, DEFENDANTS acted knowingly and intentionally. This conduct by the DEFENDANTS was, and is, despicable, eruel and oppressive. The PLAINTIFF is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be proven| at trial. 99, Asa proximate result of DEFENDANTS" conduct, PLAINTIFF is entitled damages in the amount of wages, and interest thereon, of which PLAINTIFF has been deprived by reason of the violation, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, (By PLAINTIFF Against All DEFENDANTS) 100. The allegations set forth in paragraphs | through 99 of this Complaint are re-allege hnd incorporated herein by reference, as if set forth fully herein. 101, DEFENDANTS have engaged in a pattern of conduct toward PLAINTIFF that wa lesigned to cause, and did cause, severe stress, anxiety and depression. This pattern of conduct Included, among other things: (1) causing PLAINTIFF to be greatly overworked and preventing] im from reasonably hiring additional staff, notwithstan that there was a pressing and serious pale COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGeed to do so; (2) disciplining and chastising PLAINTIFF for following mandatory company rules felating to the safety of customers and employees in his charge, and doing so publicly; (3) iscriminating against him and ultimately firing him for the reasons set forth above; (4) providing} LAINTIFF unreasonable instructions and tasks that could not reasonably be accomplished; andl 5) unfairly criticizing and demeaning PLAINTIFF. 102, DEFENDANT! conduct was so outrageous that it caused PLAINTIFF to suffer from significant anxiety, stress and depression 103. As a result of DEFENDANTS’ intentional misconduct, PLAINTIFF has -xperienced severe emotional distress, anxiety, stress, and depression, among other things. 104, The actions of DEFENDANTS and each of them, as set forth above, were wutrageous and severe and were calculated to lead to the embarrassment, humiliation, mental inguish and degradation of PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANTS abused their positions as Plaintiff} Employers, supervisors, managing agents and directors. 105. Asa direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, as set fort ibove, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer bodily injury, emotional distress. wumiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish and severe injury to him professional reputation. PLAINTIFF'S damages are an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court, the recise amount of which will be proven at trial 106. Atal times relevant herein DEFENDANTS authorized, ratified and had actual an nstructive knowledge of the conduct described above. 107. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have committed the acts alleged herein, illfully, maliciously and oppressively with the wrongful intention of injuring PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANTS further acted with an improper and intentional motive amounting to malice, and i onscious disregard of PLAINTIFF'S rights. As a result of DEFENDANTS? conduct, PLAINTIFF) s entitled to recover punitive damages from DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in an amount \ccording to proof. 5 -2- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESoY Oak oN = 4 12 13 14 15 16 Lh 18 19 20 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HTH CAUSE OF ACTI “WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY (TAMENY) (By PLAINTIFF Against All DEFENDANTS) 108. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 107 of this Complaint are re alleged and incorporated herein by reference, as if set forth fully herein, 109. Workplace safety and the safety of consumers is a fundamental public policy. On the occasions discussed above, among others, PLAINTIFF reported to TERMINIX a number 0 issues that threatened safety of employees and/or consumers. In addition to reporting these issues. PLAINTIFF addressed these issues as required by law and TERMINIX pol . 110. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that PLAINTIFF'S reports and attempts to address employee and consumer safety issues were a substantial motivating factor in his termination, and that the reasons proffered by TERMINIX for terminating, PLAINTIFF'S employment were merely pretextual. 111. As a result of DEFENDANTS’ intentional misconduct, PLAINTIFF hag experienced severe emotional distress, anxiety, stress, and depression, among other things. 112. The actions of DEI ENDANTS and each of them, as set forth above, werd outrageous and severe and were calculated to lead to the embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish and degradation of PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANTS abused their positions as Plaintiffs] employers, supervisors, managing agents and directors. 113. Asa direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, as set fort ibove, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer bodily injury, emotional distress, uumiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish and severe injury to him professional reputation, LAINTIFF’S damages are an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court, th recise amount of which will be proven at trial 114, Atall fimes relevant herein, DEFENDANTS authorized, ratified and had actual and -onstructive knowledge of the conduct described above. 115. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have committed the acts alleged hereii illfully, maliciously and oppressively with the wrongful intention of injuring PLAINTIFF. -23- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESoY oe ahRwoNn "1 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EFENDANTS further acted with an improper and intentional motive amounting to malice, and in onduct, PLAINTIFF onscious disregard of PLAINTIFF'S rights. As a result of DEFENDANT s entitled to recover punitive damages from DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in an amount \ccording to proof. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays that Judgment be entered in him favor and against DEFENDANTS, and each of them, as follows, for: 1, All special damages, according to proof; 2. * General damages for emotional distress and mental anguish in a sum according to proof: 3. For liquidated damages pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1197.5} 4, Exemplary and punitive damages in a sum appropriate to punish DEFENDANTS and set an example for others; 5. For prejudgment interest at the prevailing legal rate; 6 Attomey’s fees and costs of suit pursuant to Government Code, Section 12965(b), where such fees are available; 7. Attorney's fees and costs of suit pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1197.5: 8. For costs of suit generally; and 9, Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Dated: March 21, 2018 Respectfully submitted, NOLAN HEIMANN LLP Brent Avila oe COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESJURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiff demands a jury trial. Dated: March 21, 2018 Respectfully submitted, NOLAN HEIMANN LLP Brent Avila -25- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESEXHIBIT A COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESSTATE. OE cALE ont uns Conn ves ae A covennon com G enc, DEPARTMENT OF FaiR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING ‘RECTOR KEVEINISH sere ity tween oor ema conaccertereoehca. 907 March 22, 2017 RE: Notice to Complainant or Complainant's Attorney DFEH Matter Number: 853272-279833 Right to Sue: Avila / Terminix International Company, Limited Partnership Dear Complainant or Complainant's Attorney: ‘Attached is a copy of your complaint of discrimination filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. Also attached is a copy of your Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue. Pursuant to Government Code section 12962, DFEH will not serve these documents on the employer. You or your attorney must serve the complaint. If you do not have an attorney, you must serve the complaint yourself. Please réfer to the attached Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue for information regarding filing a private lawsuit in the State of California. Be advised that the DFEH does not review or edit the complaint form to ensure that it meets procedural or statutory requirements, Sincerely, Department of Fair Employment and HousingSTATE OF CALIFORNIA uss, Consumer Ses nd sa AI. oVERNOR EDM GBA oa ( » Jay) Department oF Fain EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING = S ‘onveatto6e1 10 8007002520, a ‘uw clenca gor Vemokcoaet.oneren This form may be used as an attachment to any summons if space does not permit the listing ofall parties on the summons, > If this attachment is used, insert the fllowing statement inthe plaintiff or defendant box on the summons: “Additional Parties ‘Attachment form is attached" List additional parties (Check only one box Use a separate page for each type of party.) CO Paint TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an organization of unknown origin and/or organization; Defendant [Z] Cross-complainant [7] Cross-Detendant ‘THE SERVICEMASTER COMPANY, LLC, an organization of unknown origin and/or organization; SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and, DOES | through 25, inclusive "ae Colca ADDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHMENT SAA Soa 07 ‘Attachment to Summons