Case 5:22-cv-05498-EJD Document 23 Filed 12/14/22 Page 1 of 27
`
`
`
`Jessica Thompson, pro hac vice
`Stephanie Verdoia, pro hac vice
`HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
`Seattle, Washington 98101
`Telephone: (206) 268-9370
`E-mail: jessicat@hbsslaw.com
`E-mail: stephaniev@hbsslaw.com
`
`Cecilia N. Brennan, Esq. (SBN 243954)
`HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
`401 West A Street, Suite 200 (#77)
`San Diego, California 92101
`Tel/Fax: (619) 717-6410
`E-mail: cbrennan@hkm.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`DONALD K. SHRUHAN, JR. an individual
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`DONALD K. SHRUHAN, JR. an
`individual,
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC., a Delaware corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:22-cv-05498-EJD
`
`
`PLAINTIFF DONALD K. SHRUHAN,
`JR.’S OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S
`MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`AND/OR STRIKE, OR IN THE
`ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE
`DEFINITE STATEMENT
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-05498-EJD Document 23 Filed 12/14/22 Page 2 of 27
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION & PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................................... 1
`
`RELEVANT FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS....................................................... 2
`
`A. Apple made and breached three agreements with Plaintiff. .................... 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Implied terms of Plaintiff’s Employment Agreement. .................. 2
`
`RSU Refresh Grant ........................................................................ 3
`
`Repatriation agreement .................................................................. 4
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiff provides background studies detailing the endemic
`and insidious nature of age discrimination in Silicon Valley. ................. 5
`
`Plaintiff alleges fraud, malice, and intentional conduct
`supporting punitive damages. .................................................................. 5
`
`III. MOTION TO DISMISS ..................................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard ......................................................................................... 6
`
`B. Argument .................................................................................................. 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff adequately pleads the legal import of the
`contract terms that Apple has breached. ........................................ 7
`
`Plaintiff adequately pleads a breach of implied terms
`of his Employment Agreement ...................................................... 9
`
`Plaintiff adequately pleads a breach of good faith and
`fair dealing in the performance of his Employment
`Agreement. ................................................................................... 11
`
`Plaintiff adequately pleads breach of the RSU Refresh
`Grant agreement. .......................................................................... 12
`
`Plaintiff adequately pleads breach of the Repatriation
`Agreement. ................................................................................... 13
`
`
`PLTF’S OPPOSITION TO DEF’S MOTION TO DISMISS - i
`Case No.: 5:22-cv-05498
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-05498-EJD Document 23 Filed 12/14/22 Page 3 of 27
`
`
`
`IV. MOTION TO STRIKE ..................................................................................... 14
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard ....................................................................................... 14
`
`B. Argument ................................................................................................ 15
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Court should deny Apple’s motion to strike
`punitive damages. ........................................................................ 15
`
`The Court should deny Apple’s request to strike
`paragraphs 1-8.............................................................................. 16
`
`Plaintiff consents to Apple’s request to strike “among
`other things” from ¶ 89 of the FAC. ............................................ 18
`
`V. MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT ......................................... 18
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard ....................................................................................... 18
`
`B. Argument ................................................................................................ 19
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLTF’S OPPOSITION TO DEF’S MOTION TO DISMISS - ii
`Case No.: 5:22-cv-05498
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-05498-EJD Document 23 Filed 12/14/22 Page 4 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re 2TheMart.com, Inc.,
`114 F.Supp.2d 955 (C.D. Cal. 2000) ............................................................ 15, 16
`
`al-Kidd v. Ashcroft,
`580 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................ 6
`
`Ali v. Paypal, Inc.,
`No. 19-cv-00093-SVK, 2019 WL 11691425 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2019) .......... 15
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ............................................................................................. 6
`
`Barajas v. Carriage Servs., Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-02035-EMC, 2020 WL 1189854 (N.D. Cal.
`Mar. 12, 2020) .................................................................................................... 18
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ....................................................................................... 6, 15
`
`Biggins v. Wells Fargo & Co.,
`266 F.R.D. 399 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ................................................................... 1, 17
`
`Brown v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,
`913 F.Supp.2d 881 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................. 18
`
`Buick v. World Savings Bank,
`565 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (E.D. Cal. 2008) .............................................................. 19
`
`Dias v. JP Morgan Chase, N.A.,
`No. 5:13-CV-05327-EJD, 2014 WL 2890255 (N.D. Cal.
`Mar. 19, 2015) ...................................................................................................... 7
`
`In re Facebook PPC Advert. Litig.,
`709 F.Supp.2d 762 (2010) .............................................................................. 1, 17
`
`Famolare, Inc. v. Edison Bros. Stores, Inc.,
`525 F. Supp. 940 (E.D. Cal. 1981) ..................................................................... 19
`
`
`PLTF’S OPPOSITION TO DEF’S MOTION TO DISMISS - iii
`Case No.: 5:22-cv-05498
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-05498-EJD Document 23 Filed 12/14/22 Page 5 of 27
`
`
`
`Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty,
`984 F.2d 1524 (9th Cir. 1993) ............................................................................ 18
`
`Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.,
`47 Cal. 3d 654 ..................................................................................................... 10
`
`Freeman v. Alta Bates Summit Med. Ctr. Campus,
`2004 WL 2326369 (N.D. Cal. 2004) .................................................................. 14
`
`Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc.,
`24 Cal. 4th 317 (2000) ....................................................................................... 12
`
`Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel,
`74 Cal.App. 4th 299 (Cal.Ct.App.1999) ............................................................... 7
`
`Jimenez v. Tsai,
`No. 16-cv-04434-EJD, 2017 WL 4877442 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2017) .............. 17
`
`Lee v. City of L.A.,
`250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................................................................ 6
`
`Lopez v. Smith,
`203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) .............................................................................. 6
`
`Luck v. S. Pac. Transp. Co.
`218 Cal.App.3d 1 (1990) .................................................................................... 11
`
`McCamey v. Hewlett Packard Co.,
`No. S-11-0702 FCD (GGH), 2011 WL 4056158 (E.D. Cal.
`Sep. 12, 2011) ..................................................................................................... 18
`
`Miller v. Uni-Pixel Inc.,
`No. 17-CV-02187 NC, 2017 WL 3007082 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2017) .............. 17
`
`Misha Consulting Grp., Inc. v. Core Educ. & Consulting Sols., Inc.,
`No. C-13-04262-RMW, 2013 WL 6073362 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2013) ............. 9
`
`Mou v. SSC San Jose Operating Co. LP,
`415 F. Supp.3d 918 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2019) ............................................ 15, 16
`
`NavCom Tech., Inc. v. Oki Elec. Indus. Co.,
`No. 5:12-CV-04175-EJD, 2014 WL 991102 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2014) ........ 7, 9
`
`
`PLTF’S OPPOSITION TO DEF’S MOTION TO DISMISS - iv
`Case No.: 5:22-cv-05498
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-05498-EJD Document 23 Filed 12/14/22 Page 6 of 27
`
`
`
`NavCom Tech., Inc. v. Oki Elec. Indus. Co, Ltd.,
`756 F. App'x 682 (9th Cir. 2018) ......................................................................... 7
`
`NetApp Inc v. Nimble Storage Inc.,
`No. 13-CV-05058-LHK (HRL), 2015 WL 400251 (N.D. Cal.
`Jan. 29, 2015) ...................................................................................................... 18
`
`Neveu v. City of Fresno,
`392 F. Supp. 2d 1159 (E.D. Cal. 2005) ........................................................ 18, 19
`
`Newberger v. Rifkind,
`28 Cal. App. 3d 1070 (Ct. App. 1972) ............................................................... 12
`
`Oracle v. Micron Tech., Inc.,
`817 F.Supp.2d 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ................................................................ 17
`
`Rees v. PNC Bank, N.A.,
`308 F.R.D. 266 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ........................................................... 2, 3, 4, 15
`
`Rosales v. Citibank,
`133 F. Supp.2d 1177 (N.D. Cal. 2001) ............................................................... 14
`
`San Bernardino Pub. Ems. Ass'n v. Stout,
`946 F. Supp. 790 (C.D. Cal. 1996) ............................................................... 18, 19
`
`Scott v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co.,
`11 Cal. 4th 454 (1995) ................................................................................. passim
`
`Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc.,
`175 Cal. App. 4th 702 (2009) ............................................................................. 15
`
`Shapiro v. Wells Fargo Realty Advisors
`152 Cal. App. 3d 467 (1984) .............................................................................. 11
`
`United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Meridian Mgmt. Grp., Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-01039-HSG, 2015 WL 4718998 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2015) .............. 7
`
`Waller v. Truck Ins. Exch., Inc.
`11 Cal.4th 1 (1995) ............................................................................................. 11
`
`Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co.,
`618 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 2, 15
`
`
`PLTF’S OPPOSITION TO DEF’S MOTION TO DISMISS - v
`Case No.: 5:22-cv-05498
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-05498-EJD Document 23 Filed 12/14/22 Page 7 of 27
`
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1549 ................................................................................................ 9
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) ................................................................................................ 18
`
`
`
`
`
`PLTF’S OPPOSITION TO DEF’S MOTION TO DISMISS - vi
`Case No.: 5:22-cv-05498
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-05498-EJD Document 23 Filed 12/14/22 Page 8 of 27
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`This is Apple’s second motion to dismiss. The first claimed that Apple was not
`
`required to follow California law. Apple made this claim knowing that it: (1) made
`
`almost all the relevant employment decisions in California and (2) chose California
`
`law when offering employment to Plaintiff. (See Dkt. No. 20, Ex. A, applying
`
`California law to the employment relationship)
`
`Recognizing the folly of re-raising that argument, Apple declined to move again
`
`on those grounds, but now makes arguments just as flimsy. Apple continues to feign
`
`ignorance of the basic terms of its own agreements, and now adds that it cannot
`
`possibly know what compensation guidelines it promulgated for managers in 2019, or
`
`what conditions it agreed to when negotiating Plaintiff’s repatriation from Hong Kong.
`
`Apple is fully capable of using the specific information that Plaintiff provided in
`
`his complaint to identify the policies and agreements that he alleges. Indeed they have
`
`done so where they think it helps their arguments. Br. at 6, n.3. This is the essence of
`
`notice pleading, and Apple should not be permitted to claim otherwise.
`
`Apple’s Motion to Strike is likewise flawed for two reasons. First, Apple gives
`
`lip service to the prejudice requirement for striking background and historical
`
`information contained in complaint allegations, but fails to allege any specific
`
`prejudice. In doing so, Apple ignores caselaw holding that defendants are not
`
`prejudiced by information found on public websites. In re Facebook PPC Advert.
`
`Litig., 709 F.Supp.2d 762 (2010). Apple also failed to read the entirety of its own cited
`
`authority, Biggins v. Wells Fargo & Co., 266 F.R.D. 399, 406 (N.D. Cal. 2009).
`
`Biggins held that background material allegations citing studies related to a
`
`complaint’s subject matter—even if not specifically linked to the defendant in that
`
`case—are proper. See id. The Court should deny Apple’s motion to strike paragraphs
`
`1-8 of the Complaint.
`
`
`PLTF’S OPPOSITION TO DEF’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 1
`Case No.: 5:22-cv-05498
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-05498-EJD Document 23 Filed 12/14/22 Page 9 of 27
`
`
`
`Second, Apple’s motion to strike punitive damages fails to cite or apply the
`
`Ninth Circuit's clear command in Whittlestone, which holds that motions to strike
`
`damages are improper unless the damages allegations are (1) an insufficient defense;
`
`(2) redundant; (3) immaterial; (4) impertinent; or (5) scandalous. Whittlestone, Inc. v.
`
`Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2010). Apple fails to proffer any
`
`argument on these factors with respect to punitive damages. Apple also ignores Rule
`
`8’s pleading standard for punitive damages, which permits a plaintiff to rely “entirely
`
`on unsupported and conclusory averments of malice or fraudulent intent.” Rees v.
`
`PNC Bank, N.A., 308 F.R.D. 266, 273 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Plaintiff’s allegations
`
`regarding intent, fraud, and malice by Apple well exceed the standard set forth in
`
`Rees.
`
`Finally, Apple’s motion for a more definite statement should be denied for the
`
`same reasons as its motion to dismiss: Plaintiff has more than adequately identified the
`
`agreements and the breach alleged.
`II. RELEVANT FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A. Apple made and breached three agreements with Plaintiff.
`
`1.
`
`Implied terms of Plaintiff’s Employment Agreement
`
`Plaintiff alleges that he has an employment agreement with Apple, and that
`
`Apple’s Compensation Policies governing RSU Refresh Grants are “an implicit part of
`
`the employment contracts of the Apple employees they covered, including Plaintiff.”
`
`FAC ¶ 85. Plaintiff provides the details of the specific compensation policies, alleging
`
`that:
`
`Based on Apple’s manager compensation guidelines, each year Apple
`employees receive a “Refresh” grant of Restricted Stock Units (“RSUs”).
`These grants are given to “retain key employees” in lead positions.
`Apple’s pattern and practice is to award RSUs to its employees that is
`tied to their performance ratings. Each year, Apple HR issues a bracket
`for managers to guide their determination of RSU awards based on
`performance, with higher performers to be awarded RSUs at the higher
`end of the bracket, and lower performers at the lower end, etc. The
`
`
`PLTF’S OPPOSITION TO DEF’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 2
`Case No.: 5:22-cv-05498
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-05498-EJD Document 23 Filed 12/14/22 Page 10 of 27
`
`
`
`minimum Refresh grant between fiscal years 2019 and 2022, per Apple’s
`compensation guidelines, was $7,000. FAC ¶ 24.
`
`Plaintiff identified the relevant compensation policy as “Apple’s fiscal year 2019
`
`compensation guidelines.” FAC ¶ 31.
`
`Plaintiff has been continuously employed by Apple for 14 years. FAC ¶ 18.
`
`When negotiating his Employment Agreement, Apple knew that RSU compensation
`
`was critically important to Plaintiff. FAC ¶ 18. Plaintiff alleges that Apple provides a
`
`refresh grant each year of Restricted Stock Units. FAC ¶ 24. Apple’s pattern and
`
`practice is to award these grants to “retain key employees,” and to tie the amount of
`
`the grant to performance ratings. FAC ¶ 24. Plaintiff performed well and received
`
`these grants each year, and for the two prior years when Plaintiff received similar
`
`excellent reviews, “he was granted RSUs valued at $850,000 and $800,000
`
`respectively.” FAC ¶ 33. The minimum refresh grant according to Apple’s fiscal year
`
`2019 compensation guidelines was $7,000. FAC ¶¶ 24, 31.
`
`In 2019, Apple failed to award an amount of RSU commensurate with
`
`Plaintiff’s performance, consistent with its policies and practices. FAC ¶¶ 30, 32, 33.
`
`Apple failed to award even the minimum grant of RSUs to Plaintiff, also violating its
`
`policy of awarding at least 7,000 in RSUs. FAC ¶ 31.
`RSU Refresh Grant
`2.
`
`Plaintiff alleges that each award of RSU Refresh Grants to Plaintiff was an offer
`
`that was accepted by Plaintiff. FAC ¶ 88. Consideration for this contract was
`
`Plaintiff’s continued employment at Apple. Id. Under this agreement, any recoupment
`
`of unvested RSU must be made pursuant to company policy. Id. When Apple claimed
`
`it clawed back stock already awarded to Plaintiff (FAC ¶ 36), it failed to follow its
`
`own clawback policy because it failed to comply with the procedure and justifications
`
`in that policy (FAC ¶ 47). To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, and according to
`
`Apple, Apple clawed back his RSU award and used an undated company policy to do
`
`
`PLTF’S OPPOSITION TO DEF’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 3
`Case No.: 5:22-cv-05498
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-05498-EJD Document 23 Filed 12/14/22 Page 11 of 27
`
`
`
`so, but failed to follow the terms of that policy. FAC ¶ 47. This is the second alleged
`
`breach of contract.
`3.
`Repatriation agreement
`
`Plaintiff alleges that he and Apple reached an agreement for his continued
`
`employment after the expiration of his expat package. FAC ¶¶ 26-28. In 2019,
`
`Plaintiff reached an agreement with his supervisor on the IP Enforcement Team. Id.
`
`The Repatriation Agreement stipulated that he shall remain at least a Director-level
`
`employee, be permitted to work from Arizona, and continue to receive a salary
`
`commensurate with his performance as a Director-level employee. FAC ¶ 89. As far as
`
`Plaintiff knows, this agreement was memorialized in writing to Apple’s Human
`
`Resources. FAC ¶ 28.
`
`Plaintiff alleges that Apple has attempted to demote Plaintiff in spite of this
`
`agreement from a Director-level to an Individual Contributor-level employee despite
`
`no change in job duties or responsibilities. FAC ¶ 89. In anticipation of this demotion,
`
`which would be a breach of the agreement, Apple has denied Plaintiff yearly merit-
`
`pay increases that were granted to other U.S. Director-level employees. Id. Apple’s
`
`denial of yearly merit-pay increases in 2021 and 2022 are in breach of its agreement to
`
`maintain Plaintiff as a Director-level employee at a Director-level salary, id, because
`
`his compensation is not keeping pace with other Director-level Apple employees. See
`
`also, FAC ¶ 52 (“The threat [of demotion] her[e] was accompanied by Apple’s failure
`
`to award a 7.5% increase in merit pay that was awarded uniformly to Apple’s other
`
`U.S. employees.”).
`
`Plaintiff’s Employment Agreement is silent as to demotion. That agreement
`
`provides merely that Plaintiff’s employment is “terminable at will.” Dkt. No. 20, Ex.
`
`A. There is no provision stating that Apple may demote at will, and there is therefore
`
`no conflict between the Repatriation Agreement and Plaintiff’s Employment
`
`Agreement.
`
`
`PLTF’S OPPOSITION TO DEF’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 4
`Case No.: 5:22-cv-05498
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-05498-EJD Document 23 Filed 12/14/22 Page 12 of 27
`
`
`
`One day after Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint, Apple did in fact demote
`
`him below the Director-level to Individual Contributor in breach of this agreement.
`
`Thompson Decl. ¶ 2.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff provides background studies detailing the endemic and insidious
`nature of age discrimination in Silicon Valley.
`
`Paragraphs 1-8 of Plaintiff’s Complaint briefly detail the importance of anti-
`
`discrimination laws. They also show how these laws have not yielded the results
`
`intended in Silicon Valley or at Apple specifically, and that age discrimination
`
`remains endemic despite the clear directive of California’s legislature that it is
`
`absolutely prohibited. These allegations provide context and support for Plaintiff’s age
`
`discrimination claims against Apple.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiff alleges fraud, malice, and intentional conduct supporting punitive
`damages.
`
`For Plaintiff’s Discrimination and Failure to Prevent Discrimination causes of
`
`action, Plaintiff alleges:
`
`In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendants acted maliciously and
`oppressively, with the wrongful intent of injuring Plaintiff, and acted with
`an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, in conscious disregard
`of Plaintiff’s rights. Because the acts taken toward Plaintiff were carried
`out by Defendants acting in a despicable, deliberate, and intentional
`manner, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages in an amount
`according to proof at trial. FAC ¶¶ 61, 68.
`
`Plaintiff also alleges in his Fourth cause of action (violation of the California Labor
`
`Code), that “[t]he above-referenced acts of named Defendant were done intentionally,
`
`and with malice, and, therefore, entitles Plaintiff to an award of punitive and
`
`exemplary damages.” FAC ¶ 81. Furthermore, at each decision point, Apple chose to
`
`ratify and uphold the decision of an ageist discriminator in favor of enforcing its own
`
`compensation policies. E.g., FAC ¶¶ 34-38, 43-48. Plaintiff also alleges that Apple HR
`
`
`PLTF’S OPPOSITION TO DEF’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 5
`Case No.: 5:22-cv-05498
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-05498-EJD Document 23 Filed 12/14/22 Page 13 of 27
`
`
`
`retaliated against him for informing Apple of his intent to avail himself of the courts to
`
`enforce his rights, FAC ¶¶ 49-52.
`III. MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
`To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must allege “enough
`
`facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`
`550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This “facial plausibility” standard requires the plaintiff to
`
`allege facts that add up to “more than a sheer possibility that a Defendant has acted
`
`unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). While courts do not require
`
`“heightened fact pleading of specifics,” a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to “raise
`
`a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 544, 555.
`
`In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a district court must accept as true all facts
`
`alleged in the complaint, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.
`
`See al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949, 956 (9th Cir. 2009). As a general rule, the
`
`Court may not consider any materials beyond the pleadings when ruling on a Rule
`
`12(b)(6) motion. Lee v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001). However,
`
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the Court may take judicial notice of
`
`“matters of public record,” such as prior court proceedings, without thereby
`
`transforming the motion into a motion for summary judgment. Id. at 688–89.
`
`If the Court dismisses a complaint, it must decide whether to grant leave to
`
`amend. The Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly held that a district court should grant leave
`
`to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that
`
`the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v.
`
`Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations and internal quotation marks
`
`omitted).
`
`
`PLTF’S OPPOSITION TO DEF’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 6
`Case No.: 5:22-cv-05498
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-05498-EJD Document 23 Filed 12/14/22 Page 14 of 27
`
`
`
`B. Argument
`
`To state a cause of action for breach of contract, a party must plead the
`
`existence of a contract, his or her performance of the contract or excuse for
`
`nonperformance, the defendant's breach and resulting damage.” Harris v. Rudin,
`
`Richman & Appel, 74 Cal.App. 4th 299, 307 (Cal.Ct.App. 1999). Under Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 8, “in alleging the existence of a contract, a plaintiff may set forth the contract
`
`verbatim, attach it as an exhibit, or plead it according to its legal effect.” Dias v. JP
`
`Morgan Chase, N.A., No. 5:13-CV-05327-EJD, 2014 WL 2890255, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
`
`Mar. 19, 2015). A detailed description of the relevant provision and its import is more
`
`than sufficient to provide the facial plausibility required by the Supreme Court’s
`
`decisions in Iqbal and Twombly. United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Meridian Mgmt. Grp.,
`
`Inc., No. 15-CV-01039-HSG, 2015 WL 4718998, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2015).
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff adequately pleads the legal import of the contract terms that
`Apple has breached.
`
`As the Plaintiffs did in NavCom Tech., Inc. v. Oki Elec. Indus. Co., Plaintiff
`
`here has “alleged sufficient facts to plead the contract according to its legal effect, and
`
`enough to enable Defendant to understand and respond to Plaintiffs’ claim.” No. 5:12-
`
`CV-04175-EJD, 2014 WL 991102, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2014), aff'd sub nom.
`
`NavCom Tech., Inc. v. Oki Elec. Indus. Co, Ltd., 756 F. App'x 682 (9th Cir. 2018).
`
`Nothing in Apple’s briefing indicates it cannot respond to Plaintiff’s claim. Indeed,
`
`Apple attaches multiple agreements to its motion that it believes help it defend against
`
`these claims. Apple’s strongest defenses that it raises here are “based upon specific
`
`provisions in the Agreement[s]” that it has identified. See id. That Apple was able to
`
`make these arguments “demonstrates that Defendant had little difficulty understanding
`
`Plaintiffs’ claim, identifying the contract at issue, and preparing its defenses.” See id.
`
`Plaintiff specifically alleges three agreements. First, Plaintiff alleges that he has
`
`an employment agreement with Apple, and that Apple’s Compensation Policies
`
`
`PLTF’S OPPOSITION TO DEF’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 7
`Case No.: 5:22-cv-05498
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-05498-EJD Document 23 Filed 12/14/22 Page 15 of 27
`
`
`
`governing RSU Refresh Grants are “an implicit part of the employment contracts of
`
`the Apple employees they covered, including Plaintiff.” FAC ¶ 85. Apple itself has
`
`identified Plaintiff’s Employment Agreement Dkt. No. 20, Ex. A. And Plaintiff
`
`provides the details of the specific compensation policies, alleging that:
`
`Based on Apple’s manager compensation guidelines, each year Apple
`employees receive a “Refresh” grant of Restricted Stock Units (“RSUs”).
`These grants are given to “retain key employees” in lead positions.
`Apple’s pattern and practice is to award RSUs to its employees that is
`tied to their performance ratings. Each year, Apple HR issues a bracket
`for managers to guide their determination of RSU awards based on
`performance, with higher performers to be awarded RSUs at the higher
`end of the bracket, and lower performers at the lower end, etc. The
`minimum Refresh grant between fiscal years 2019 and 2022, per Apple’s
`compensation guidelines, was $7,000. FAC ¶ 24.
`
`Plaintiff identified the relevant compensation policy as “Apple’s fiscal year 2019
`
`compensation guidelines.” FAC ¶ 31. Apple knows what manager compensation
`
`policies governing RSU Refresh Grants were in effect during 2019. This is sufficient
`
`to put Apple on notice of the terms of agreement Plaintiff alleges were breached.
`
`Second, Plaintiff alleges that each award of RSU Refresh Grants to Plaintiff was
`
`an offer that was accepted by Plaintiff. FAC ¶ 88. Consideration for this contract was
`
`Plaintiff’s continued employment at Apple. Id. Under this agreement, any recoupment
`
`of unvested RSU must be made pursuant to company policy. Id. When Apple claimed
`
`it clawed back stock already awarded to Plaintiff (FAC ¶ 36), it failed to follow its
`
`own clawback policy (FAC ¶ 47) because it failed to comply with the procedure and
`
`justifications in that policy. Any confusion here has been engendered by Apple, who
`
`claims that it clawed back RSUs from Plaintiff, and that it had right to do so under an
`
`undated policy. See id. Apple knows better than Plaintiff what policy it applied when
`
`making this decision and communicating it to Plaintiff, and cannot now feign
`
`confusion over what policy it used to justify its decision. To the best of Plaintiff’s
`
`knowledge, taking Apple’s word for it, Apple clawed back his RSU award and used an
`
`
`PLTF’S OPPOSITION TO DEF’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 8
`Case No.: 5:22-cv-05498
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-05498-EJD Document 23 Filed 12/14/22 Page 16 of 27
`
`
`
`undated company policy to do so, but failed to follow the terms of that policy. FAC
`
`¶ 47. And that is the basis of his allegations here.
`
`Third, Plaintiff alleges that he and Apple reached an agreement for his
`
`continued employment after the expiration of his expat package. FAC ¶¶ 26-28. In
`
`2019, Plaintiff reached this agreement with his supervisor on the IP Enforcement
`
`Team. Id. The Repatriation Agreement stipulated that he shall remain at least a
`
`Director-level employee, be permitted to work from Arizona, and continue to receive a
`
`salary commensurate with his performance as a Director-level employee. FAC ¶ 89.
`
`As far as Plaintiff knows, this agreement was memorialized in writing to Apple’s
`
`Human Resources. FAC ¶ 28. Apple can interview Plaintiff’s supervisor on the IP
`
`Enforcement Team and search its HR records to confirm the terms of the Repatriation
`
`Agreement.
`
`These allegations put the defendants on notice and give rise to a plausible claim
`for relief. Misha Consulting Grp., Inc. v. Core Educ. & Consulting Sols., Inc., No. C-
`13-04262-RMW, 2013 WL 6073362, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2013). Plaintiff has
`
`identified the parties and the material terms of each of these three contracts. Rule 8
`
`does not require more to put Defendant on notice, especially where the Defendant has
`
`demonstrated superior knowledge of its policies and Human Resources records. See
`
`NavCom Tech., 201