1

2
3

MARGARITA FRIAS
4940 Siesta Drive
Oceanside CA 92056
760-941-5924
Plaintiff

4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

MARGARITA FRIAS

9
10
11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
VIASAT INC., SCOTT HANNUM
PRODUCTION SUPERVISOR FOR
VIASAT; HUMAN RESOURCE
SPECIALIST CANDICE BRENNER,
CAREY GUYETTE MANUFACTURING
ENGINEERING TECH DOE 1-100

15

Defendants,
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16CV1610 MMA JMA

[Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Diego North County Division
Case No. 37-2016-00017070-CU-WT-NC]
Related Case Margarita Frias v. ViaSat, Inc.,
Workers Compensation Appeals Board
Case No. ADJ9883327 Filed: July 8, 2015
PLAINTIFFS MARGARITA FRIAS
NOTICE OF MOTION TO REMAND TO
STATE COURT CASE NO. 37-201600017070CU-WT-NC
Judge: Hon. Michael M. Anello
Date of Hearing: 08/01/2016
Hearing Time: 2:30 p.m.
Dept. 3A
Complaint filed on 06/23/2016

18
19
20

TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THIER ATTORNEY OF RECORD:

21

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 1, 20126 at 2:30. or soon thereafter as the above

22

entitled matter may be heard in Department 3A the courtroom of Honorable Judge Michael M.

23

Anello. The above entitled court located at 333 W Broadway #420, San Diego, CA 92101.

24

Petitioner Margarita Frias will move the Court in a Motion and Notice of Motion in Support of

25

Plaintiff's Margarita Frias Motion to Remand to California State Court for the district of San

26

Diego North County Division

27

This Motion and Notice of Motion is based on this notice, the records, and files herein, the

28

attached verification and on such oral documentary evidence as my be presented at the hearing.
Date: June 27, 2016

___________

Margarita Frias

Plaintiff Notice of Motion and Motion to Remand to State Court

pg. 1

1
2
3

MARGARITA FRIAS
4940 Siesta Drive
Oceanside CA 92056
760-941-5924
Plaintiff

4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

MARGARITA FRIAS
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

VIASAT INC., SCOTT HANNUM

PRODUCTION SUPERVISOR FOR
VIASAT; HUMAN RESOURCE
SPECIALIST CANDICE BRENNER,
CAREY GUYETTE MANUFACTURING
ENGINEERING TECH DOE 1-100

13
14
15
16

Defendants,

17
18
19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16CV1610 MMA JMA

[Superior Court of the State of California, County of
San Diego North County Division Case No. 37-201600017070-CU-WT-NC]
Related Case Margarita Frias v. ViaSat, Inc., Workers
Compensation Appeals Board Case No. ADJ9883327
Filed: July 8, 2015

PLAINTIFFS MARGARITA FRIAS

MEMORANDUM OF POINT AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF HER
MOTION TO REMAND TO STATE
COURT CASE NO. 37-2016-00017070CUWT-NC
Judge: Hon. Michael. M. Anello
Date of Hearing: 08/01/2016
Hearing Time: 2:30 p.m.
Dept. 3A
Complaint filed on 06/23/16

Plaintiff Margarita Frias respectfully asks this Court to remand this cause to the Superior

21

Court of the State of California, County of San Diego North County Division Case NO. 37-2016-

22

00017070CU-WT-NC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447. Because defendant ViaSat Inc., has its

23

principal place of business in California, removal is improper under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 28

24

U.S.C. 1441(a).

25
26

Preliminary Statement
This action adjoined with the Workers Compensation action Case No. ADJ9883327

27

Filed: July 8, 2015. Initially filed under Employment Discrimination Benefits Pursuant to

28

California Labor Code 132 (a); which Plaintiff Margarita Frias applied for benefits and penalties
Pursuant to California Labor Law. Petitioner initial claims are:

Plaintiff Notice of Motion and Motion to Remand to State Court

pg. 2

1. Petitioner Margarita Frias, while employed by, ViaSat Inc., from 11/97 to 01/19/2015,

sustained injuries arising out of and occurring in the course of employment on 02/03/2011

to her hand, wrist, forearm, arm, and psych.1

2. On or about 01/19/2015, Defendants wrongfully terminated Plaintiffs employment.

3. Defendants engaged in the conduct described in paragraph 2 because applicant sustained

injuries in the course and scope of employment, claimed Workers Compensation benefits

and was unable to engage in applicants usual and customary occupation.

4. As a result of the injuries, applicant is entitled to temporary disability indemnity and

permanent disability in an amount to be determined.

10

5. As a result of the conduct described in paragraph 2, applicant has been employed, during

11

which time applicant has lost wages, bonuses, lost seniority and lost other employment

12

benefits of a value to be determined.

13

6. Defendants actions are alleged to be in violation of California Labor Code Section 132(a),

14

which provides as follows: Any employer who discourages, or threatens to discharge, or

15

in any manner discriminates against any employee because he or she has fileda claim

16

for compensationis guilty of misdemeanor and employees compensation shall be

17

increased by one half

18

7. Because of the discriminatory conduct of the employer, Applicant has been damaged and

19

request compensation. (See Exhibit 1)

20

Currently representing Plaintiff in the Workers Compensation Claim is Attorney Mahdis

21

Kaeni Esq. from the Kaeni Law Froup, P.L.C. 1516 N. Broadway Santa, Ana, CA 92706. Tel.

22

714-245-9400 since the onset of the Workers Compensation Litigation filed July 8, 2015.
23

Attorney Kaeni is currently pursuing Workers Compensation claim related to the R-Hand, R24
25
26
27

Wrist, R-Forearm, R-Arm injury. The current negotiations of Plaintiffs R-Wrist, R-Forearm, RArm, Psych are not addressing other work related Disability Claims. The Claims for Wrongful
Termination, Retaliation, Harassment, Failure to Accommodate Plaintiffs disability, violations of

28
1

There are other Workers Claims related to ViaSat employment filed.

Plaintiff Notice of Motion and Motion to Remand to State Court

pg. 3

the Californias Fair Employment and Housing Act FEHA aligned with the Disability Act.

Plaintiffs current loss of wages, current future earnings and punitive and exemplary damages.

The California Workers Compensation Appeals Board did not have Jurisdiction to address

Plaintiffs above alleged violations and there was no provisional attorney fees for these said

violations of law. Therefore, Plaintiff sought the Removal Application of the above remaining

claims under California Labor Code 132 (a); pursuant to L.C. 5310 & WCAB Rule 10843 to

the California Superior Court of California County of San Diego North County Division where all

of the Defendants reside including Plaintiff. When Plaintiff filed the Removal Application she

was not shopping for forum rather to move the remaining claims to the court of proper venue and

10

jurisdiction over the alleged remaining claims.

11

In the City of Moorpark v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1143, the appellate

12

court rejected the trial courts assertion that Californias Labor Code section 132a

13

established an exclusive remedy for discrimination based on the filing of a workers

14
15

compensation claim. In the City of Moorpark, the Court stated conclusively we hold that
section 132a does not provide an exclusive remedy and does not preclude an employee

16

from pursuing FEHA and common law wrongful discharge remedies. We disapprove any
17

cases that suggest otherwise. (18 Cal.4th at 1158 (emphasis added).)

18

Article XIV, section 4 of the California Constitution guarantees that injured workers
19

will be adequately compensated for their injuries. It also requires that the Legislature
20
21
22

ensure that the workers compensation system accomplish substantial justice in all cases
expeditiously, inexpensively, and without encumbrance of any character (Cal. Const.,

23

Art. XIV, 4.) The California Constitution, Article XIV, 4, requires that all workers

24

compensation proceedings be determined expeditiously and without encumbrance.

25

If the employees workplace injury constitutes a disability under the FEHA, a claim for

26

wrongful termination based on the FEHA disability may be brought in court, as made clear

27

by Moorpark. (City of Moorpark, 18 Cal.4th at 1158.)

28

Plaintiff Notice of Motion and Motion to Remand to State Court

pg. 4

1
2

In Plaintiffs Amended Complaint she alleges Four Causes of Action. Summary of the
Causes of action are:

1. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy).

First Cause of Action alleges violations of Failure to Accommodate and Failure to Train
ViaSat Inc. and its Supervising employees failed to accommodate Plaintiffs disability in
violation of Californias Fair Employment and Housing Act. Cal, Gov. Code 12900 et.
Seq. violation of Employment and Housing Act. Cal, Gov. Code 12900 et. Seq. as a
result of ViaSat Inc. negligence, lack of training and anti-discrimination enforcement
policies. Defendants willfully violated Plaintiffs rights to accommodations and antidiscrimination under Employment and Housing Act. Cal, Gov. Code 12900 et. Seq.2
2. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Civil Conspiracy to Wrongful Termination and
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress). Defendants conspired and resorted to
retaliatory acts and harassment against Plaintiff by refusing to provide accommodations /
limitations with the heavy cable projects, and by not ordering the appropriate required
tools. Instead of compliance with the ADA and the Rehabilitation guidelines Plaintiff was
terminated on January 19, 2015 in violation of FEHA. 3
3. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Conspiracy to Terminate Plaintiffs Employment
Instead of Complying With Disability Accommodations). Defendants denied and
ignored Plaintiffs doctors and her requests for reasonable disability accommodation. In
the 18-years Plaintiff worked for ViaSat Inc. Plaintiff sustained permanent damages and
injuries not only limited to and diagnosed as damage to: Radiculopathy lumber region,
Chronic pain syndrome, Radiculopathy cervical region, Bursitis of shoulder, Neuralgia
and neuritis, Radiculopathy that originates form the lower back, Rotator cuff,
supraspinatus tendon, Biceps tendonitis. All this injuries are tolled per California Codes
Collier v. City of Pasadena (1983) 142 Cal. App. 3d 917, 924-926; Myers v. County of
Orange (1970) 6 CA3d 626, 634. Plaintiff has on file several Workers Compensation
claims.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

1. ViaSat Inc. and its employees SUPERVISOR SCOTT HANNUM, HUMAN RESOURCE
SPECIALIST CANDICE BRENNER and CAREY GUYETTE engaged in unlawful

19
20

Plaintiff does mention ADA throughout her allegation as it is well known that the Californias
Fair Employment and Housing Act is aligned with the ADA. The FEHA offers more protections
for individuals then the ADA. Fist Cause of Action is seeking remedies primarily under the
California FEHA.
3
The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) protects the right of individuals to seek, obtain,
and hold employment without discrimination on the basis of physical or mental disability or
medical condition. It also prohibits retaliation against a person who has opposed unlawful
discriminatory practices under the FEHA or participated in an investigation into unlawful
employment practices. (Gov. Code, 12940, subd. (h).) The FEHA also prohibits harassment on the
basis of a persons disability. (Gov. Code, 12940, subd. (j).)
In addition to the FEHA, there are a number of other California laws that protect disabled
employees (Gov. Code, 19230 et seq.) Also, any program or activity funded by the state must not
discriminate against persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, 11135 et seq.)
2

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff Notice of Motion and Motion to Remand to State Court

pg. 5

1
2
3
4
5
6

discrimination based on Plaintiffs disability in violation of FEHA Government Codes

including Sec. (s) 12940 et. seq.
2. ViaSat Inc. and its employees SUPERVISOR SCOTT HANNUM, HUMAN RESOURCE
SPECIALIST CANDICE BRENNER and CAREY GUYETTE retaliated against Plaintiff
in violation of FEHA Government Codes Sec. (s) 12940 et. seq.
3. ViaSat Inc. and its employees SUPERVISOR SCOTT HANNUM, HUMAN RESOURCE
SPECIALIST CANDICE BRENNER and CAREY GAYETTE failed to accommodate
Plaintiffs disabilities in violation of FEHA Sec. (s) 12940 et. seq.

7
8
9
10
11

4. ViaSat Inc. and its employees SUPERVISOR SCOTT HANNUM, HUMAN RESOURCE
SPECIALIST CANDICE BRENNER and CAREY GUYETTE failed to train Plaintiff to
do another job within the company in violation of FEHA Sec. (s) 12940 et. seq.
5. ViaSat Inc. and its employees SUPERVISOR SCOTT HANNUM, HUMAN RESOURCE
SPECIALIST CANDICE BRENNER and CAREY GUYETTE failed to engage in an
interacted process and terminated Plaintiff in violation of FEHA Sec. (s) 12940 et. seq.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6. ViaSat Inc. and its supervising employees SUPERVISOR SCOTT HANNUM, HUMAN
RESOURCE SPECIALIST CANDICE BRENNER and CAREY GUYETTE violated the
ADA when ViaSat Inc. and its employees SUPERVISOR SCOTT HAMILTON, HUMAN
RESOURCE SPECIALIST CANDICE BRENNER and CAREY GUYETTE retaliated
against Plaintiff, failed to make reasonable accommodations or retrain Plaintiff, humiliated
Plaintiff in front of her coworkers and then terminated Plaintiff employment. ADA
prohibits discrimination or retaliation against anyone who has opposed acts or practices
unlawful under the ADA, has asserted a claim under the ADA, or has assisted in the
assertion of such a claim by acting as a witness or aiding in the investigation of ADA
violations. (42 U.S.C. 12203.)
4. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Exemplary and Punitive Damages). Plaintiff is
informed and thereon alleges that all defendants knew or should have known of the civil
conspiracy which existed to wrongfully terminate Plaintiffs employment and intentionally
inflict severe emotional distress upon her. As a result of the civil conspiracy to wrongfully
terminate her employment, discriminate, harass, and failure to accommodate Plaintiffs
disabilities, Plaintiff has suffered economic physical damages, economic damages,
represented by loss earnings and earning capacity, past and future employment and
retirement benefits, and other economic damages all in amount according to proof at the
time of trial. As a legal result of the civil conspiracy to wrongfully terminate Plaintiffs
employment and to intentionally inflict severe emotional distress upon her, Plaintiff has
suffered noneconomic damages including humiliation, anguish, mental and emotional
distress, pain and suffering with physical injuries, and other damages in an amount
according to proof at the time of trial. Plaintiff alleges that defendants, and each of them,
conspired to and did wrongfully terminate her employment and intentionally inflict severe
emotional distress upon her with the intent that she would suffer economic damages which
Plaintiff alleges was egregious and despicable conduct carried on by all defendants with a
willful and conscious disregard of her rights, and was intended to and did subject her to

Plaintiff Notice of Motion and Motion to Remand to State Court

pg. 6

1
2
3

cruel and unjust hardship and conscious disregard of her rights, thereby constitution malice
and oppression as defined by Civ. Code 3294 entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive
and exemplary damages against SUPERVISOR SCOTT HANNUM, HUMAN
RESOURCE SPECIALIST CANDICE BRENNER, and CAREY GUYETTE each of them
in the amount according to proof at time of trial.

4
5

Plaintiffs Causes of Action Do Not Arise Under

The US Laws or Treaties of the United States

6
7

Defendant ViaSat removed this case from the California State Court based on 28 U.S.C.

1331, The district court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ViaSat claims are simply flawed since

10

Plaintiff filed all of her causes of actions under The California Fair Employment and Housing Act

11

(FEHA) which is supported and allied by the ADA but the FEHA offers more protections for

12

victims of wrongful acts and discrimination against them in the State of California.

13

Viasat also removed Plaintiffs complaint from state court based on 28 U.S.C. 1441(a).

14

GENERALLY.Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action

15

brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction,

16

may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for

17

the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.

18

Under the forum-defendant rule in 28 U.S.C. 1441(b), a case cannot be removed if an in-state

19

Defendant has been joined and served even if complete diversity otherwise exists.

20

Generally speaking, 28 U.S.C. 1441 through 1452, govern the procedure for removal.

21

Removal is a statutory privilege, rather than a right, and the removing party must comply with

22

the procedural requirements mandated in the statute when desirous of availing the privilege.

23

After a case has been removed from state to federal court, the non-removing party may move for

24

remand . . . . on the grounds that the removing party has failed to comply with the statutory

25

requirements for removal. Section 1447(c) of Title 28 of the United States Code authorizes

26

remand if a procedural defect in the removal of the case exists. Due to the limitations on federal

27

court jurisdiction, the Eleventh Circuit favors remand of removed cases where federal jurisdiction

28

is not absolutely clear.

Plaintiff Notice of Motion and Motion to Remand to State Court

pg. 7

ViaSat Failed to Obtain and Submit Evidence and Consent of Co-defendants to Removal

ViaSat should have obtained evidence and consent of co-defendants to removal Beginning

with United States Supreme Courts decision in Chicago R.I. & Pac. Ry. Co., 178 U.S. at 248,

federal courts have universally required unanimity of consent in removal cases involving multiple

defendants. Like all rules governing removal, this unanimity requirement must be strictly

interpreted and enforced because of the significant federalism concerns arising in the context of

federal removal jurisdiction.

8
9

The rule of unanimity requires in the case of multiple defendants that all defendants consent
to the removal. If consent of a served codefendant is not evident on the face of the removal

10

papers, then the removing party is obligated to explain the absence of that consent or the removal

11

is defective. A petition for removal is considered defective if it fails to explain why all defendants

12

have not joined therein.

13

Defendant Viasat should have obtained the consent of all defendants, even those ViaSat

14

claims have not yet been served, before the Notice of Removal is filed and to evidence such

15

consent on the Notice of Removal. Courts have rejected arguments made by parties that a co-

16

defendants subsequent filing of a notice of joinder and consent excuses them from the obligation

17

to obtain consent in advance of filing the removal petition. Courts have similarly rejected removal

18

efforts when a removing party failed to obtain consent of a co-defendant in advance of filing a

19

notice of removal because the removing party did not know with certainty whether a co-defendant

20

had been served. Plaintiff Margarita Frias legally served all of the defendants including ViaSat

21

and it is declared in the filing of Due Diligence as it follows the Rules of the Court in the

22

California Superior Court of San Diego North County Division. (See Exhibit No. 2).4

23

/////

24
25
26
27
28

Viasat did not make an appearance of counsel prior to June 24, when ViaSat filed ONLY the
removal document for itself but not for Defendant Scott Hannum, Candice Brenner and Carey
Guyette. ViaSat attorney never informed Plaintiff that she was representing ViaSat. Based on
Superior Court documents it appears that the above named defendants are in default and have
made no appearance either in state or federal district court. (See Exhibit No. 3). Plaintiff received
the removal documents on June 25, 2016 for Viasat ONLY. Therefore the remaining defendants
are in Default.

Plaintiff Notice of Motion and Motion to Remand to State Court

pg. 8

1
2

Argument and Authorities

A. Because removal is disfavored, any ambiguities are resolved against removal.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

A defendant may remove an action from state to federal court under 28 U.S.C. 1441(a)
only when the federal court has original jurisdiction. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,
392 (1987). Under 28 U.S.C. 1332, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil
actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the action is between citizens of
different states. (In this present action all of the defendants as well as the plaintiff are citizens and
reside in the state of California.) Congress permitted diversity jurisdiction to prevent local
prejudice against out-of-state defendants. McSparran v. Weist, 402 F.2d 867, 876 (3d Cir. 1968);
S. Rep. No. 1830, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1958 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 3099,
3102 (explaining the purpose of diversity of citizenship legislation . . . is to provide a separate
forum for out-of-state citizens against the prejudices of local courts and local juries by making
available to them the benefits and safeguards of the federal courts).

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

But because in-state defendants need no protection from local bias, Congress prohibited
removaleven when diversity jurisdiction otherwise existswhen a defendant is a citizen of the
forum state. See, e.g., Lively v. Wild Oats Mkts., Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 939-40 (9th Cir.
2006); Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyds of London, 106 F.3d 494, 499 (3d Cir.
1997).
Congress disfavors removal. Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 10, (1951) (noting
that an important [Congressional] purpose [of the 1948 revision of the United State Court
concerning removal] was to limit removal from state courts). Given removals disfavor, federal
removal statutes are strictly construed against the exercise of removal jurisdiction. Abrego v. Dow
Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 685 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson,
537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002)); California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir.
2004); Golden 1 Credit Union v. H & B Group, Inc., No. 1:06-cv-1717, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
31142, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2007) (The removal statute must be strictly construed, with all
doubts and ambiguities resolved against removal and in favor of remand.) (citing Shamrock Oil
& Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108 (1941)). The strong presumption against removal

Plaintiff Notice of Motion and Motion to Remand to State Court

pg. 9

jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is

proper. Gasu v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting St. Paul Mercury Indem.

Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-90 (1938)). These principles favor remanding this case to

state court.

B.

Remand is required because ViaSat is a forum defendant.

The removal of Plaintiffs case by ViaSat was not truly due to jurisdictional issues rather

ViaSat like many big companies believe that they are entitled to the gamesmanship and forum

shopping, safe harbors and that Plaintiff does not deserve her day in Court. Federal courts are

courts of limited jurisdiction the claims under The California Fair Employment and Housing Act

10

(FEHA) have more remedies then the baseline remedies under the ADA [Plaintiffs claims are

11

adjoined with the California Workers Compensation Appeals Board ongoing Case No.

12

ADJ9883327 since July 8, 2015]. Therefore, the state court is the court of proper jurisdiction to

13

adjudicate Plaintiffs above mentioned claims. Further, California state courts are more pro se

14

user friendly. It is widely known and based on the Ninth Circuit Task Force Reports that federal

15

courts are not meeting the needs of Pro se litigants. All too often pro se litigants are dismissed

16

within the Ninth Circuit Court Jurisdiction and the Constitutional and Statutory Rights of Pro se

17

litigants are undermined and not views as truly substantial and legitimate within the Ninth Circuit

18

Court territories.

19

When ruling on a motion to remand, a district court must resolve all contested issues of

20

substantive fact and any uncertainties as to the current state of controlling law in favor of the

21

plaintiff. See Brown v. Francis, 75 F.3d 860, 865 (9th Cir. 1995) (If there is any doubt as to the

22

propriety of removal, that case should not be removed to federal court.);see also Mohammed,

23

2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31094, at *15.

24
25

Conclusion and Prayer

For these reasons, Plaintiff Margarita Frias respectfully requests that this Court grant her

26

motion to remand, remand the case to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County

27

of San Diego North County Division.

28

DATED: June 27, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

Plaintiff Notice of Motion and Motion to Remand to State Court

pg. 10

VERIFICATION

2
3
4

United States District Court Southern District of California

I have read the foregoing NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMAND TO

STATE COURT and know its contents.

I am a party to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my

own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to

those matters I believe them to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

10

foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

11

Executed on June 27, 2016 at Oceanside Ca, California.

12
13

_______________________________

14

Margarita Frias

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff Notice of Motion and Motion to Remand to State Court

pg. 11

1
2
3

PROOF OR SERVICE
I, the undersigned, declare that I served the notice (s) bellow as indicated:
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMAND TO STATE COURT.

The above described notice (s) were served on the following named parties in the matter set forth

below:

Name (s) : Attorney for ViaSat Inc. Lauren E. La Val (SBN 273990)
Address : 101 West Broadway, Ninth Floor San Diego Ca. 92101-8525
Name (s) : Attorney Mahdis Kaeni, Esq.
Address : 1516 N. Broadway, Santa Ana, CA 92706

7
8
9

[X]

1.

Personal Service

By delivering a copy of the notice (s) to

[ ]

2.

Constructive Service

each of the above personally:

10
11

[1]. On:_________________
12

[2]. At:__________________
13

[X]

4.

and thereafter mailing a copy to each said party [Mahdis Kaeni Esq] by depositing

14

said copies by US Postal Mail on date: June 27 from city Oceanside CA in a

15

sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, addressed, to each said party at
16

the place where the property is situated or:

17

At the time of service I was over the age of 18 years of age, I declare under penalty of perjury
18

that the forgoing is true and correct.

19

Person who served the papers:

20
21

Name: Silvia Peters

Address:

22
23

______________________________

Oceanside CA 92056

24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff Notice of Motion and Motion to Remand to State Court

pg. 12