EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.
This stipulation is entered into by Christopher LeClerc on behalf of Fred Nazif ("Plaintiff") and F. Daniel Wood, Jr. on behalf of defendant Computer Sciences Corporation ("CSC"). The parties hereby stipulate as follows:
WHEREAS Plaintiff filed a complaint on October 25, 2013 in California Superior Court;
WHEREAS Defendant removed the action to the Northern District of California on November 27, 2013 and answered on December 4, 2013;
WHEREAS the parties have only, within the past week, conducted a Rule 26(f) conference and will commence discovery in this matter;
WHEREAS Plaintiff seeks to file an amended complaint adding a cause of action for retaliation under Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
WHEREAS Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is submitted concurrently herewith in accordance with Civil Local Rule 10-1;
WHEREAS pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), defendant CSC consents to the filing of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint;
WHEREAS by consenting to the filing of an Amended Complaint, CSC is not in any way conceding the truth of any factual allegation in the Amended Complaint or the legal or factual adequacy of any claim in the Amended Complaint.
IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED AND AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
In accordance with N.D. Cal General Order 45, Section X, the filer of this document hereby attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatory hereto.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Plaintiff alleges as follows:
1. Plaintiff FRED NAZIF ("Plaintiff" or "NAZIF") is an adult male residing in San Francisco, California. At all relevant times, until his unlawful termination described infra, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION in San Francisco, California.
2. Defendant COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION ("CSC") is a corporation providing computer software and information technology services throughout the United States and the world, with its corporate headquarters located in Falls Church, Virginia. It is a publicly traded corporation on the NYSE with the ticker symbol CSC. CSC is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and makes public filings under applicable federal and state securities regulations.
3. The true names and capacities of defendants sued in the Complaint under the fictitious name of DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to plaintiff who therefore sues defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of said fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff's injuries as herein alleged were proximately caused by such unlawful conduct.
4. Hereinafter, CSC and DOES 1 through 50 are collectively referred to as "Defendants."
5. Whenever reference is made in this complaint to any act of any corporate or other business entity defendant, such allegations shall mean that such defendant did the acts alleged in the complaint through its officers, directors, employees, agents and/or representatives while they were acting within the actual or ostensible scope of their authority. Additionally, whenever reference is made to any act of any natural person employed by any corporate or other business entity Defendant, such allegations shall mean that such person did the acts alleged in the complaint while acting within the scope of their actual or ostensible authority.
6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times, each Defendant, and each of its agents, acted as an agent, representative, employer and/or employee of each of the other defendants and acted within the course and scope of said agency or representation or employment with respect to the causes of action in this complaint.
7. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to and under the California Labor Code and related regulations, and other common and statutory laws.
8. Venue is proper in this Court because the acts and/or omissions and events set forth in this Complaint occurred in whole or in part in San Francisco County, California.
9. Plaintiff was employed by CSC in San Francisco County, California.
10. State policy favors jurisdiction and venue in San Francisco County, California, because the State of California has a policy of protecting California residents and ensuring the applicability of California laws.
11. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that witnesses and evidence relevant to this case are located in San Francisco County, California.
12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the relative costs and burdens to the parties herein favor the filing of this lawsuit in this Court. Defendant suffers no burden or hardship by having to defend this case in this Court. However, Plaintiff would suffer severe and undue burden and hardship if he was required to file in an alternative forum, if any such forum exists. Such burden and hardship on Plaintiff includes, but is not limited to, prohibitive monetary expenses for travel, obtaining counsel in a different venue and/or jurisdiction, increased expenses to investigate and obtain evidence and depose and interview witnesses.
13. The amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional threshold of this Court.
14. Plaintiff was hired as a Technical Accounting Director for Defendant CSC in June 2012 after four-month interview process that included a background check, employment and education verifications). He was told that he would report to Ms. April Hand, and that he would be compensated $140,000 per year in base salary, benefits, and that he would be eligible for a bonus of up to 20% of his base salary.
15. A seasoned financial professional, Mr. Nazif brought more that fifteen years of relevant experience to his job at CSC, during which time he held accountancy positions at various high-technology companies, including Hewlett Packard and Cisco. Prior to his departure from Iran, he held the position of Senior Adviser to the Secretary of Heavy Industry. He is a Certified Public Accountant, a Member of American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and a Member of The California Society of Certified Public Accountants.
16. Prior to starting with CSC, Plaintiff learned that CSC was the defendant in a massive securities class action alleging, inter alia, failure of internal controls and accounting fraud. That matter recently resolved for $97.5 million. (See, e.g., www.cscsecuritieslitigation.com.) He was told that, as a result, CSC was working towards resolving issues related to its internal controls.
17. Shortly after he was hired and utilizing his many years of successful experience, Plaintiff became very concerned because it appeared as though CSC was not improving the controls on its accountancy and revenue recognition and reporting practices, but instead was utilizing improper accounting practices and revenue recognition practices to inflate the revenue it reported in its SEC filings.
18. The following are to serve as exemplars of the improper accounting observed by Plaintiff, and are no means intended to be an exhaustive list:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment, including punitive damages, as more fully set forth below.
27. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation contained in this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
28. Defendant's conduct, as alleged in this complaint, violates numerous federal and state statutes.
29. Plaintiff engaged in activities in opposition to CSC's unlawful conduct, including without limitation reporting, opposing, investigating, and trying to prevent CSC's fraud.
30. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants did willfully retaliate against Plaintiff for engaging in the acts alleged herein by terminating his employment.
31. Defendants' termination of Plaintiff has caused him economic and noneconomic harm in an amount to be proven at trial, but which are in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court. Plaintiff's damages include, but are not limited to, loss of earnings and benefits, humiliation, embarrassment, mental and emotional distress and discomfort.
32. Defendants committed the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and acted with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, in conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights and thus an award of exemplary and punitive damages is justified. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover and herein prays for punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment, including punitive damages, as more fully set forth below.
33. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation contained in this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
34. By engaging in the above-described improper revenue-reporting practices which served to inflate CSC's revenue, CSC violated federal securities laws.
35. In raising concerns with CSC's management team of CSC's failure to properly report revenue, Plaintiff engaged in protected activity under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform & Consumer Protection Act 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h)(1)(B)(i) ("the Dodd-Frank Act"), which protected activity includes acts required or protected under, inter alia, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, section 10A(m) (accounting and auditing matters).
36. After raising his concerns with his managers regarding CSC's failure to comply with permitted revenue-reporting practices which failure served to improperly inflate CSC's reported revenue, Plaintiff was abruptly terminated by CSC.
37. For retaliation in violation of the Dodd-Frank Act, Plaintiff is entitled to such legal and equitable relief to effectuate the purposes of the Dodd-Frank Act, including, inter alia, employment reinstatement, double back pay with interest, front pay, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment, including punitive damages, as more fully set forth below.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff makes the following demand:
