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

4815-9125-3825.1

DEFENDANT CHICO PRODUCE, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT

LEWIS

BRISBOIS

BISGAARD

&SMITH LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

DEREK S. SACHS, SB# 253990

E-Mail: Derek.Sachs@lewisbrisbois.com

2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700

Sacramento, CA 95833

Telephone: 916.564.5400

Facsimile: 916.564.5444

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

VICTORIA LIN, SB# 283699

E-Mail: Victoria.Lin@lewisbrisbois.com

633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000

Los Angeles, California 90071

Telephone: 213.250.1800

Facsimile: 213.250.7900

Attorneys for Defendant Chico Produce, Inc. dba

ProPacific Fresh (erroneously sued as ProPacific

Fresh, Inc.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES CUNHA, an individual, on behalf of

himself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

INTELLICHECK, LLC, a California Limited

Liability Company; PROPACIFIC FRESH,

INC., a California Corporation; and Does 1

through 100,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-597

DEFENDANT CHICO PRODUCE, INC.’S

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL

ACTION TO UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT

[FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION]

Action Filed: December 21, 2016

Summons Served: January 6, 2017

Trial Date: None set

TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Chico Produce, Inc. dba ProPacific Fresh

(erroneously sued as ProPacific Fresh, Inc.) (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant” or “Chico

Produce”) by and through its counsel, hereby removes the state court action described herein from

the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Humboldt to the United

States District Court for the Northern District of California on the basis of federal question

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), and 28

Case 3:17-cv-00597-JST Document 1 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 4
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

4815-9125-3825.1 2

DEFENDANT CHICO PRODUCE, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT

LEWIS

BRISBOIS

BISGAARD

&SMITH LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

U.S.C. § 1367(a) as follows:

COMPLAINT AND TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL

1. On December 21, 2016, Plaintiff James Cunha (hereinafter referred to as

“Plaintiff”), by and through his attorneys, filed a civil putative class action in the Superior Court

of the State of California for the County of Humboldt, entitled James Cunha v. Intellicheck, LLC,

et al., Case No. DR160670 (“State Court Action”). A true and correct copy of the Summons and

Complaint, and all documents served therewith, are attached as Exhibit 1. See Declaration of

Victoria Lin (“Lin Decl.”), ¶2.

2. Attached as Exhibit 2 are true and correct copies of the proofs of service of the

Summons and Complaint filed by Plaintiff in this action. See Lin Decl., ¶3.

3. To Defendant Chico Produce’s knowledge, no other pleadings, process or orders

related to the Plaintiff’s State Court Action have been filed with the Superior Court of the State of

California, County of Humboldt.

4. Plaintiff served Defendant Chico Produce with a copy of the Summons and

Complaint in the instant class action on or around January 6, 2017.

5. Defense counsel for Chico Produce met and conferred with Defendant IntelliCheck,

LLC on January 31, 2017, regarding the filing of this Notice of Removal. On February 3, 2016,

Defendant IntelliCheck, LLC conveyed its consent to Chico Produce’s removal of this action to

the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. See Lin Decl., ¶¶4-5.

6. Defendant Chico Produce now timely files this Notice of Removal with the consent

of all defendants.

FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION

7. The basis for removal is that this Court has original jurisdiction of this action under

28 U.S.C. § 1331 and is one which may be removed to this Court by Defendant Chico Produce

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), in that Plaintiff’s Class Action Complaint contains a cause of

action “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-00597-JST Document 1 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 4
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

4815-9125-3825.1 3

DEFENDANT CHICO PRODUCE, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT

LEWIS

BRISBOIS

BISGAARD

&SMITH LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

8. Plaintiff alleges two causes of action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act

(“FCRA”), codified in 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.

9. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the FCRA by failing to provide him and

putative class members with the proper disclosures under the FCRA before procuring consumer

reports and/or investigative consumer reports on them in connection with their employment.

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants violated the FCRA by failing to provide him with the

required notices under the FCRA prior to taking an adverse employment action against him.

JURISDICTION OVER STATE LAW CLAIMS

10. Plaintiff’s other causes of action and bases for relief asserted in this action (Third

Cause of Action – Violation of the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act

(Cal. Civ. Code section 1786 et seq.); Fourth Cause of Action – Violation of the California

Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (Cal. Civ. Code section 1786.18); and Fifth Cause of

Action – Violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.) arise out of

the same set of facts and are part of the same case and controversy involving the procurement of

consumer reports and/or investigative consumer reports on Plaintiff and putative class members in

connection with their employment. As such, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction of these

causes of action within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

CONSENT OF ALL DEFENDANTS IN NOTICE OF REMOVAL

11. When more than one defendant has been named and served in the action, a timely

notice of removal filed by one defendant containing an averment of the other, nonmoving

defendant’s consent is sufficient to satisfy the unanimity rule’s consent requirement under 28

U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2). Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology Inc., 584 F.3d 1208, 1224-25 (9th Cir.

2009).

12. Defendants Chico Produce and IntelliCheck, LLC are the only named defendants in

the action. Defense counsel for Chico Produce met and conferred with Defendant IntelliCheck,

LLC on January 31, 2017, regarding Chico Produce’s intended filing of a Notice of Removal.

During the conference, Defendant IntelliCheck, LLC consented to removal of the class action to

the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. See Lin Decl. ¶¶4-5.

Case 3:17-cv-00597-JST Document 1 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 4
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

4815-9125-3825.1 4

DEFENDANT CHICO PRODUCE, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT

LEWIS

BRISBOIS

BISGAARD

&SMITH LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SERVICE OF NOTICE ON PLAINTIFF AND STATE COURT

13. Defendant Chico Produce will promptly serve a copy of this Notice on all parties

and will promptly file a copy with the clerk of the state court where the case is filed. Upon service

of this Notice on all parties, Defendant Chico Produce will file a Notice of Proof of Service with

this Court.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Chico Produce files this Notice of Removal of this action

from the aforesaid Superior Court, in which it is now pending, to the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California, a copy of which will be served upon all parties.

DATED: February 6, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

By: /s/ Victoria Lin

Derek S. Sachs

Victoria Lin

Attorneys for Defendant Chico Produce, Inc.

Case 3:17-cv-00597-JST Document 1 Filed 02/06/17 Page 4 of 4