Sie sind auf Seite 1von 19

Case 5:16-cv-04794-NC Document 1 Filed 08/19/16 Page 1 of 17

1
2
3
4
5

SINGER / BEA LLP


Adam Cashman (Bar. No. 255063)
acashman@singerbea.com
Doug Tilley (Bar No. 289421)
dtilley@singerbea.com
601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1950
San Francisco, California 94065
Telephone:
(415) 500-6080
Facsimile:
(415) 500-6080
Attorneys for Intuitive Surgical, Inc.

6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN COUNTY OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC., a Delaware


corporation,

11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
15

ETHICON US, LLC, a Texas limited liability


company,
Defendant.

CASE NO. 16-CV-4794


COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT, AND FOR MONETARY
AND EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH
EXISTING CONTRACTUAL
RELATIONS AND UNFAIR
COMPETITION
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND FOR MONETARY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR INTENTIONAL
INTERFERENCE WITH EXISTING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
CASE NO. 16-CV-4794

Case 5:16-cv-04794-NC Document 1 Filed 08/19/16 Page 2 of 17

1
2

For its complaint against Defendant Ethicon US LLC (Ethicon), Plaintiff Intuitive Surgical,
Inc. (Intuitive) hereby alleges as follows:

3
4

NATURE OF THE ACTION


1.

This is an action for declaratory, monetary, and equitable relief to redress and enjoin

Ethicons unlawful efforts to prevent Intuitive, a California employer, from employing California

residents to render services in California to California-based clients, as authorized by California law.

This suit also seeks relief stemming from Ethicons efforts to compel Intuitives compliance with the

terms of an employment agreement between Ethicon and one of its former employees, P. Scott

Szesterniak (Mr. Szesterniak), and to surrender corporate property located in California for

10

Ethicons inspection. Finally, in light of Ethicons theorywhich is invalid in California as a matter

11

of lawthat Mr. Szesterniak inevitably will disclose to Intuitive any allegedly confidential

12

information Ethicon contends Mr. Szesterniak possesses, this suit seeks a declaration that Intuitive

13

has not misappropriated any purported Ethicon trade secret or other confidential information.

14

2.

If left unchecked, Ethicons conduct will chill labor mobility and legitimate

15

competition in California, which are among this States core public policies and enjoy robust legal

16

protection under statute and common law. California has a paramount interest in ensuring that these

17

fundamental state policies are not denigrated or evaded through litigation that, while initiated in other

18

forums, necessarily affects the ability of California employers and employees to exercise their

19

statutory and common law rights. Similarly, Intuitive has a strong interest in ensuring that its rights

20

to employ its workforce and maintain the secrecy and sanctity of its corporate property are not

21

circumvented through litigation that squarely targets those rights, albeit without directly naming

22

Intuitive as a party (or even providing notice). All of these concerns are implicated by Ethicons

23

conduct as set forth below.

24
25

PARTIES
3.

Intuitive is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of

26

Delaware, with its principal place of business in Sunnyvale, California. Intuitive is the global leader

27

in the rapidly emerging field of robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery. Since its inception,

28
-1COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND FOR MONETARY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH EXISTING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
CASE NO. 16-CV-4794

Case 5:16-cv-04794-NC Document 1 Filed 08/19/16 Page 3 of 17

Intuitive has provided surgeons and hospitals with the tools needed to improve clinical outcomes and

to help patients return to active and productive lives as quickly and safely as possible. Intuitives

flagship product is the da Vinci Surgical System, which consists of a surgeons console, a patient-side

cart with interactive robotic arms, a high-performance vision system, and proprietary EndoWrist

Instruments. Through the use of state-of-the-art robotic technology, the surgeons hand movements

are scaled, filtered, and translated into precise movements of the EndoWrist Instruments. The da

Vinci Surgical System is the only commercially available technology that can provide a surgeon with

the control, range of motion, fine tissue manipulation capability, and 3-D visualization characteristic

of open surgery, while simultaneously allowing the surgeon to work through tiny incisions typical of

10
11

minimally invasive surgery.


4.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Ethicon is a limited liability company

12

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, with its principal place of business in

13

Cincinnati, Ohio. Upon information and belief, Ethicons business focuses on the manufacture and

14

sale of less advanced medical devices, such as for use in traditional open surgery and non-robotic

15

laparoscopic procedures.

16

5.

Nonparty P. Scott Szesterniak is an individual formerly employed by Ethicon in

17

California, and presently employed by Intuitive in California as a Clinical Sales Representative.

18

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, including during his previous employment with

19

Ethicon and his current employment with Intuitive, Mr. Szesterniak has resided and continues to

20

reside in Redondo Beach, California. Moreover, upon information and belief, at all relevant times,

21

including during his previous employment with Ethicon and his current employment with Intuitive,

22

Mr. Szesterniaks professional duties related principally, if not exclusively, to promoting medical

23

equipment for sale to and use by healthcare providers in and around Los Angeles, California.

24
25

JURISDICTION AND VENUE


6.

This action arises under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201; the Defend

26

Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1836, et seq.; and under the statutory and common law of the State of

27

California.

28
-2COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND FOR MONETARY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH EXISTING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
CASE NO. 16-CV-4794

Case 5:16-cv-04794-NC Document 1 Filed 08/19/16 Page 4 of 17

7.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332(a), and

2201(a). The jurisdictional amount in controversy is satisfied because Ethicon seeks to deprive

Intuitive indefinitely of the ability to employ Mr. Szesterniak. The value of Mr. Szesterniaks

services to Intuitive substantially exceeds $75,000 on an annual basis. In addition, Ethicon seeks to

take control of the computer Intuitive issued to Mr. Szesterniak at the outset of his employment, so

that Ethicon may access and inspect information belonging to Intuitive, including but not limited to

Intuitives intellectual property, the value of which also substantially exceeds $75,000. Finally, the

jurisdictional minimum is independently satisfied by virtue of the sales that are likely to be lost if Mr.

Szesterniak is enjoined from continuing his employment with Intuitive, the value of which

10
11
12
13

significantly exceeds $75,000.


8.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Intuitive because Intuitive maintains its

principal place of business within this State and this District.


9.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Ethicon because, upon information and

14

belief, Ethicon employs staff in, actively sells to and/or solicits customers in, and/or otherwise

15

regularly transacts business within this State and this District.

16

10.

Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c), because a

17

substantial part of the events giving rise to Intuitives claims occurred in this District, and because

18

Ethicon is subject to personal jurisdiction here.

19
20

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
11.

For purposes of Civil L.R. 3-2(c) and 3-5(b), Intuitive respectfully submits that this

21

action should be assigned to the San Jose Division of this Court because a substantial part of the

22

events or omissions which give rise to Intuitives claims occurred in Santa Clara county.

23
24

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
12.

Upon information and belief, including based on prior dealings between the parties,

25

Ethicon has a pattern and practice of misusing its employment agreements and the judicial system to

26

prevent Intuitive from employing former Ethicon personnel under any circumstance, in direct

27
28
-3COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND FOR MONETARY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH EXISTING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
CASE NO. 16-CV-4794

Case 5:16-cv-04794-NC Document 1 Filed 08/19/16 Page 5 of 17

violation of fundamental California public policy favoring labor mobility and conferring upon

California residents and employers the right to pursue their chosen professions and businesses.

13.

Upon information and belief, Ethicon requires all or virtually all of its employees to

sign an Employee Secrecy, Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Agreement (the Non-Compete

Agreement)including those who live and work exclusively in jurisdictions, such as California,

whose laws specifically void such efforts to restrict labor mobility and trample individuals right to

work.

8
9

14.

Upon information and belief, including based on prior litigation between the parties as

well as materials that Ethicon has put in the public domain, Ethicons standard Non-Compete

10

Agreements purport to impose a number of unfair, invalid, and unenforceable restrictive covenants.

11

Generally speaking, these include the following:

12

Prohibiting the employee from working for a competitorbroadly defined as any


company which is presently engaged, or may in the future engage, in the research,
development, and/or commercialization of any offering which resembles any existing or
potential future offering of Ethicon or its unnamed corporate affiliatesin the same area
in which the employee previously worked for Ethicon, serviced any customer of Ethicon
or any of its corporate affiliates, or derived any commission or other compensation, for a
period of 18 months following termination;

Prohibiting the employee from contacting or calling on any prior customer or client of
Ethicon or any of its corporate affiliates for a period of 18 months post-termination; and

Requiring that the employee, prior to leaving his or her position at Ethicon and at any time
during the 18 months post-termination, provide detailed information to Ethicon regarding
the name of his or her new employer, the new position the employee will assume, the
employees anticipated responsibilities, the products or services to which the new
employment relates, where and to whom the employee may promote those products, and
the like.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

15.

Even as certain provisions of its Non-Compete Agreements recognize (as they must)

23

that they are unenforceable as to employees who live and work in California, in order to unfairly limit

24

Intuitives access to the candidate pool (and in direct violation of settled California law), Ethicon

25

regularly brings litigation against former employees who (a) lived and worked principally, if not

26

exclusively, in California during their tenures with Ethicon, and (b) have since been hired by Intuitive

27

to render services principally, if not exclusively, in California.

28
-4COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND FOR MONETARY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH EXISTING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
CASE NO. 16-CV-4794

Case 5:16-cv-04794-NC Document 1 Filed 08/19/16 Page 6 of 17

16.

Ethicon employs a number of prejudicial, unethical, and underhanded tactics in

furtherance of its efforts to so misuse the Courts to unlawfully chill labor mobility and thereby stifle

Intuitives legitimate efforts to compete in California. For example:

Ethicon files suit in Ohio and other venues thousands of miles from where its former
employees lived and worked in California, despite that neither Ethicon nor its former
employees ever agreed to submit to litigation in such fora.

Ethicon asserts claims under the laws of Ohio and other non-California jurisdictions,
despite that its former employees never lived or worked in such jurisdictions or agreed to
abide by their laws. These claims frequently include nebulous allegations of
misappropriation of unspecified alleged trade secrets, based on theories, such as the
inevitable disclosure doctrine, that California law specifically rejects.

Although it typically does not name Intuitive (or other employers) as a defendant or
provide notice of these proceedings, Ethicon seeks relief that directly interferes with
Intuitives commercial operations, including by demanding that these foreign courts enter
foreign law injunctions prohibiting California residents from rendering services to
Intuitive in California, and/or directing that the employees in question deliver to Ethicon
computers, electronic devices, and other Intuitive-issued resources containing proprietary
Intuitive information.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

17.

In other words, even as its Non-Compete Agreements concede that the restrictions set

15

forth therein cannot operate to keep California residents from choosing to work for other California

16

companies, Ethicon performs intricate legal gymnastics to do just that.

17

18.

The foregoing is precisely what has happened with Mr. Szesterniak.

18

19.

Effective on or about July 25, 2016, Intuitive hired Mr. Szesterniak as a Clinical Sales

19
20

Representative to promote Intuitives products in the greater Los Angeles area.


20.

Prior to joining Intuitive, Mr. Szesterniak worked for Ethicon as a sales representative

21

and promoted Ethicons hernia, bariatric, and thoracic products. Upon information and belief, during

22

the entirety of Mr. Szesterniaks tenure at Ethicon, he lived in California and called upon clients and

23

accounts located exclusively in California.

24

21.

During his employment with Ethicon, on or about May 4, 2016, Mr. Szesterniak

25

executed a form Ethicon EMPLOYEE SECRECY, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, NON-

26

COMPETITION AND NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT. That Agreement contained the

27

restrictive covenants and obligations summarized above.

28
-5COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND FOR MONETARY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH EXISTING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
CASE NO. 16-CV-4794

Case 5:16-cv-04794-NC Document 1 Filed 08/19/16 Page 7 of 17

22.

During the interview and onboarding process, Intuitive admonished Mr. Szesterniak

not to bring to Intuitive or use on Intuitives behalf any trade secret, confidential, or other information

or material arguably belonging to Ethicon, and to instead return all such information and material to

Ethicon. Mr. Szesterniak acknowledged that he understood Intuitives admonition, and certified his

compliance with the foregoing.

23.

Upon information and belief, on or about July 14, 2016, Mr. Szesterniak notified

Ethicon that he would be leaving Ethicon to join Intuitive as a Clinical Sales Representative for the

Los Angeles area. Upon information and belief, Mr. Szesterniak further advised Ethicon that he

would not call upon any of the accounts or customers with whom he interacted on Ethicons behalf in

10
11

the 18 months preceding his separation from Ethicon.


24.

Upon information and belief, Ethicon did not object or express any concerns regarding

12

Mr. Szesterniaks stated intention. To the contrary, Ethicon thanked him for his service and wished

13

him well.

14

25.

On August 3, 2016nearly three weeks after Mr. Szesterniak tendered notice to

15

Ethicon, and without any warning or effort at out of court resolutionEthicon filed suit against Mr.

16

Szesterniak in the Court of Common Pleas in Hamilton County, Ohio (Case No. A1604358, the

17

Ohio Action).

18

26.

Ethicons Ohio Action asserts claims for breach of contract and misappropriation of

19

trade secrets, and seeks injunctive and monetary relief under New Jersey and Ohio law. However,

20

the claims alleged have little or no connection to the laws of those states, which appear to have been

21

invoked specifically for the purpose of evading California law. For example:

22

The contract at issue says nothing about an Ohio venue, and Ethicons complaint fails to
allege a single bad act that occurred in Ohio rather than California;

Although it alleges that Mr. Szesterniak at all times lived and serviced customers
exclusively in California, and that the alleged conduct in issue occurred entirely in
California, Ethicon has pleaded a trade secret misappropriation claim that is based on
Ohio law;

Ethicons misappropriation claim is based entirely on the inevitable disclosure doctrine


that California courts have long rejected. For example, Ethicon alleges that [i]t is
inconceivable that [Mr. Szesterniak] could fulfill [any role at Intuitive] without inevitably

23
24
25
26
27
28

-6COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND FOR MONETARY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH EXISTING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
CASE NO. 16-CV-4794

Case 5:16-cv-04794-NC Document 1 Filed 08/19/16 Page 8 of 17

utilizing Ethicons confidential and trade secret information[,] which Ethicon goes on to
speculate would give Intuitive a significant and unfair competitive advantage in a highly
competitive market.

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

Despite that Ethicon declined to name Intuitive as a party, Ethicon seeks an injunction
(i) prohibiting Szesterniak from working for Intuitive Surgical, Inc., in violation of the
non-competition provisions of his Employee Secrecy, Intellectual Property, NonCompetition and Non-Solicitation Agreements; and (ii) [r]equiring that Szesterniak
submit for inspection . any computer used by him on behalf of Intuitive[,] among other
relief.

27.

Ethicons counsel sent a copy of Ethicons August 3, 2016 Ohio Complaint to

Intuitive by Federal Express on August 8. Intuitive is unaware of whether or when Ethicon served or
otherwise notified Mr. Szesterniak of the Ohio Action.
28.

Ethicons August 8 transmission letterwhich Intuitive received in the afternoon on

August 9asserted vague and inaccurate claims regarding Mr. Szesterniak; threatened expensive
and protracted litigation activity[;] and demanded that Intuitive let [counsel] know by close of
business Wednesday, August 10, 2016 whether Szesterniak and Intuitive will agree to deliver the
materials sought in the Complaint, presumably including all devices issued by Intuitive to Mr.
Szesterniak.
29.

Intuitive has neither requested nor received from Mr. Szesterniak any allegedly

confidential or trade secret Ethicon information. In fact, as set forth above, Intuitive instructed Mr.
Szesterniak to return all Ethicon information to Ethicon, to refrain from disseminating any such
information to any Intuitive personnel or utilizing the same for Intuitives benefit, and to certify
compliance with the foregoing, which Mr. Szesterniak did.
30.

In addition, Intuitive has taken extensive measures to ensure that any information or

materials arguably belonging to Ethicon were removed from Mr. Szesterniaks possession and
sequestered or destroyed, so that there would be no chance that such information could even
inadvertently reach Intuitive. For example, upon receipt of Ethicons August 8 letter, Intuitive
retained outside counsel to take possession of all devices issued by Intuitive to Mr. Szesterniak as
well as Mr. Szesterniaks personal email accounts, Google Drive account, smartphone, laptop
computer, and other devices potentially implicated by Ethicons nebulous claims; create forensic
images of the foregoing; and identify and purge any information or materials belonging to Ethicon.
-7COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND FOR MONETARY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH EXISTING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
CASE NO. 16-CV-4794

Case 5:16-cv-04794-NC Document 1 Filed 08/19/16 Page 9 of 17

31.

Ethicons August 8 letter withheld from Intuitive (and, upon information and belief,

from Mr. Szesterniak) that Ethicon had filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and noticed a

hearing for August 11, 2016.1 The proposed restraining order sought a number of categories of

equitable relief, including (i) an order prohibiting Mr. Szesterniak from working for Intuitive

indefinitely; and (ii) an order directing the delivery to Ethicon of the Intuitive-issued computer Mr.

Szesterniak has been using since his hire in July.

32.

Regardless of how the pending motions in Ohio are ultimately resolved, a declaration

of the rights of Intuitive and Ethicon is necessary, including with respect to which jurisdictions

substantive law governs Intuitives right to hire and employ Mr. Szesterniak, a California resident, to

10

render services in California in light of claimed misconduct that is alleged to have occurred

11

exclusively in California.

12

33.

Ethicons conduct, including its demands that foreign courts apply foreign law to bar

13

Mr. Szesterniak from working for Intuitive, threatens Intuitives abilities to conduct its business and

14

to attract and hire employees in California. Ethicons demand that Mr. Szesterniak deliver to it

15

Intuitives California-based property also clearly implicates Intuitives rights and threatens its ability

16

to maintain the integrity of its computer networks and, potentially, the security of its intellectual

17

property. Given Ethicons past and current aggressive policing of the restrictive covenants contained

18

in its standardized employment agreement, it is assured that this scenario will continue to be repeated

19

unless and until curtailed by judicial order.

20

34.

As a California-based company employing a California resident to call upon

21

California customers, Intuitive has the right to have its relationship with Mr. Szesterniak evaluated

22

under California law. That is so even though Ethicon has not named Intuitive as a party to the Ohio

23

Action. Ethicon plainly seeks relief that affects a number of Intuitives rightsincluding its rights

24
25
26
27
28

On the noticed date, the Ohio court continued the TRO hearing to a future date.
Mr. Szesterniak has since moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, on forum
non conveniens grounds, and on the ground that Ethicon was not registered to do business in Ohio
when it brought suit in the Ohio court. Ethicon did not file an opposition to Mr. Szesterniaks motion
to dismiss by the deadline set by the Ohio court and, as of the date of filing, still has not opposed Mr.
Szesterniaks motion. As of the date of this filing, the Ohio Court had not ruled on Ethicons
application for a TRO or Mr. Szesterniaks motion to dismiss.
-8COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND FOR MONETARY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH EXISTING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
CASE NO. 16-CV-4794

Case 5:16-cv-04794-NC Document 1 Filed 08/19/16 Page 10 of 17

and interests as a California employer, its right to pursue its business and client relationships in

California free from interference, its right to control access to its physical and intellectual property,

and othersbased on claims made against a California resident relating to acts and omissions that are

alleged to have occurred exclusively in California.

35.

Absent a declaration that California law governs Mr. Szesterniaks employment with

Intuitive, including as it relates to Mr. Szesterniaks obligations to Ethicon and Ethicons ability to

affect and interfere with Mr. Szesterniaks relationship with Intuitive, Ethicon will remain free to

violate Intuitive and its employees rights under California law.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: DECLARATION THAT INTUITIVES EFFORTS TO


EMPLOY PERSONNEL IN CALIFORNIA BE EVALUATED BY CALIFORNIA LAW
36.

Intuitive re-alleges and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs of this

Complaint as though fully set forth herein.


37.

Ethicon has brought suit against Mr. Szesterniaka California resident who worked

for Ethicon in California and has since been hired by Intuitive, a California-based company, to
service customers within Californiain Ohio, a forum in which neither Intuitive nor Mr. Szesterniak
ever agreed to litigate, under laws bearing no nexus to either Intuitives employment of Mr.
Szesterniak or to Mr. Szesterniaks claimed misconduct, all of which is alleged to have occurred
(and/or is speculated to possibly occur in the future) exclusively within California.
38.

The claims at issue in Ethicons Ohio Actiontrade secrets misappropriation stated

exclusively under a theory of inevitable disclosure, and enforcement of restrictive covenants on that
basis or otherwiseare directly contrary to settled California law.
39.

Ethicons Ohio complaint seeks relief that will directly and substantially interfere with

Intuitives ability to employ California residents to render services in California as authorized by


California law. Among other relief, Ethicon seeks injunctions, under Ohio law, prohibiting Intuitive
from continuing to employ Mr. Szesterniak in California, and requiring Mr. Szesterniak to grant
Ethicon access to Intuitives devices located in California and the proprietary Intuitive information
contained therein.

28
-9COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND FOR MONETARY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH EXISTING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
CASE NO. 16-CV-4794

Case 5:16-cv-04794-NC Document 1 Filed 08/19/16 Page 11 of 17

40.

Intuitive respectfully submits that, as a California employer, and in the absence of

some contrary agreement by Intuitive, the laws of the State of California govern Intuitives ability to

employ California residents to render services in California. Intuitive further respectfully submits

that Ethicon (who itself employed Mr. Szesterniak in California) may not interfere with Intuitives

California business activities or relationships by invoking foreign laws to which neither Intuitive nor

Mr. Szesterniak agreed, which bear no connection to the alleged conduct over which Ethicon purports

to prohibit Intuitives ability to hire and employ Mr. Szesterniak in California, and which are in fact

directly contrary to established principles of California law and policy.

41.

A substantial, immediate, and real controversy therefore exists between Intuitive and

10

Ethicon regarding whether Intuitive may continue to employ Mr. Szesterniak, who has at all times

11

(including during his tenure with Ethicon) been a California resident, to render services to Intuitive in

12

California. A judicial declaration is necessary to determine the parties respective rights.

13

42.

Intuitive seeks a judgment declaring that it may continue to employ Mr. Szesterniak in

14

accordance with California law and, to the extent Ethicon maintains that Mr. Szesterniaks alleged

15

California conduct prohibits Intuitive from employing him in California, that Mr. Szesterniaks

16

alleged actions be evaluated under California substantive law.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: DECLARATION OF NO MISAPPROPRIATION OF


TRADE SECRETS UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW
43.

Intuitive re-alleges and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs of this

Complaint as though fully set forth herein.


44.

In its Ohio Action, Ethicon alleges that [i]t is inconceivable that [Mr. Szesterniak]

could fulfill [any role at Intuitive] without inevitably utilizing Ethicons confidential and trade secret
information. Ethicon goes on to speculate that such inevitable disclosure would give Intuitive a
significant and unfair competitive advantage in a highly competitive market. In other words, even
as it declines to name Intuitive (a tacit admission that it has no evidence that any of its unspecified
trade secrets or other confidential information have reached or actually will reach Intuitive), Ethicon
contends that Intuitive may at some point misappropriate alleged Ethicon intellectual property.

28
- 10 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND FOR MONETARY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH EXISTING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
CASE NO. 16-CV-4794

Case 5:16-cv-04794-NC Document 1 Filed 08/19/16 Page 12 of 17

45.

Ethicon is wrong on the law: it is well-settled that California does not recognize

misappropriation by inevitable disclosure. Tellingly, Ethicon does not and cannot allege that

Intuitive had any contact with, or otherwise engaged in any conduct relevant to, Mr. Szesterniak

outside of California.

46.

Ethicon is also wrong on the facts: Intuitive has neither requested nor received from

Mr. Szesterniak any allegedly confidential or trade secret Ethicon information. To the contrary, as

set forth above, Intuitive required, as a condition of its offer to employ Mr. Szesterniak, that Mr.

Szesterniak return all Ethicon information to Ethicon, not disseminate any such information to any

Intuitive personnel or leverage the same for Intuitives benefit, and certify compliance with the

10

foregoing, which Mr. Szesterniak did.

11

47.

In addition, Intuitive took extensive measures to ensure that any information or

12

materials arguably belonging to Ethicon were removed from Mr. Szesterniaks possession and

13

sequestered or destroyed, such that there would be no chance that such information could even

14

inadvertently reach Intuitive. For example, upon receipt of Ethicons August 8 letter, Intuitive

15

retained outside counsel to take possession of all devices issued by Intuitive to Mr. Szesterniak as

16

well as Mr. Szesterniaks personal email accounts, Google Drive account, smartphone, laptop

17

computer, and other devices potentially implicated by Ethicons nebulous claims; create forensic

18

images of the foregoing; and identify and purge any information or materials belonging to Ethicon.

19

48.

In light of Ethicons allegations and its request that the Ohio court enter an injunction

20

to prohibit Intuitive from employing Mr. Szesterniak solely on the basis of Ethicons inevitable

21

disclosure theory, a substantial, immediate, and real controversy exists between Intuitive and Ethicon

22

regarding whether Intuitive has misappropriated any purported Ethicon trade secret or other

23

confidential information. A judicial declaration is necessary to determine the parties respective

24

rights.

25

49.

Intuitive seeks a judgment declaring that Intuitive did not misappropriate any alleged

26

Ethicon trade secret in connection with hiring and employing Mr. Szesterniak, within the meaning of

27

applicable California law.

28
- 11 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND FOR MONETARY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH EXISTING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
CASE NO. 16-CV-4794

Case 5:16-cv-04794-NC Document 1 Filed 08/19/16 Page 13 of 17

1
2
3
4

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: DECLARATION OF NO MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE


SECRETS UNDER FEDERAL DEFEND TRADE SECRETS ACT
50.

Intuitive re-alleges and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs of this

Complaint as though fully set forth herein.


51.

In its Ohio Action, Ethicon alleges that [i]t is inconceivable that [Mr. Szesterniak]

could fulfill [any role at Intuitive] without inevitably utilizing Ethicons confidential and trade secret

information. Ethicon goes on to speculate that such inevitable disclosure would give Intuitive a

significant and unfair competitive advantage in a highly competitive market. In other words, even

as it declines to name Intuitive (a tacit admission that it has no evidence that any of its unspecified

trade secrets or other confidential information have reached or actually will reach Intuitive), Ethicon

10
11
12
13

contends that Intuitive may at some point misappropriate alleged Ethicon intellectual property.
52.

Ethicon is wrong on the law: the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act does not recognize

misappropriation by inevitable disclosure.


53.

Ethicon is also wrong on the facts: Intuitive has neither requested nor received from

14

Mr. Szesterniak any allegedly confidential or trade secret Ethicon information. To the contrary, as

15

set forth above, Intuitive required, as a condition of its offer to employ Mr. Szesterniak, that Mr.

16

Szesterniak return all Ethicon information to Ethicon, not disseminate any such information to any

17

Intuitive personnel or leverage the same for Intuitives benefit, and certify compliance with the

18

foregoing, which Mr. Szesterniak did.

19

54.

In addition, Intuitive took extensive measures to ensure that any information or

20

materials arguably belonging to Ethicon were removed from Mr. Szesterniaks possession and

21

sequestered or destroyed, such that there would be no chance that such information could even

22

inadvertently reach Intuitive. For example, upon receipt of Ethicons August 8 letter, Intuitive

23

retained outside counsel to take possession of all devices issued by Intuitive to Mr. Szesterniak as

24

well as Mr. Szesterniaks personal email accounts, Google Drive account, smartphone, laptop

25

computer, and other devices potentially implicated by Ethicons nebulous claims; create forensic

26

images of the foregoing; and identify and purge any information or materials belonging to Ethicon.

27
28
- 12 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND FOR MONETARY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH EXISTING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
CASE NO. 16-CV-4794

Case 5:16-cv-04794-NC Document 1 Filed 08/19/16 Page 14 of 17

55.

In light of Ethicons allegations and its request that the Ohio court enter an injunction

to prohibit Intuitive from employing Mr. Szesterniak solely on the basis of Ethicons inevitable

disclosure theory, a substantial, immediate, and real controversy exists between Intuitive and Ethicon

regarding whether Intuitive has misappropriated any purported Ethicon trade secret or other

confidential information. A judicial declaration is necessary to determine the parties respective

rights.

56.

Intuitive seeks a judgment declaring that Intuitive did not misappropriate any alleged

Ethicon trade secret in connection with hiring and employing Mr. Szesterniak, within the meaning of

applicable federal law.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH EXISTING


CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS
57.

Intuitive re-alleges and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs of this

Complaint as though fully set forth herein.


58.

Effective on or about July 25, 2016, Intuitive, a California employer, and Mr.

Szesterniak, at all times a California resident, entered into a contract pursuant to which Intuitive
would employ Mr. Szesterniak, and Mr. Szesterniak would render services to Intuitive, in California.
59.

Ethicon learned of the Intuitive-Szesterniak agreement at least as early as July 14,

2016, when Mr. Szesterniak tendered his resignation to Ethicon in Los Angeles, California and stated
his intent to join Intuitives Los Angeles workforce.
60.

With knowledge of that contract and with intent to disrupt performance of the same,

Ethicon took steps specifically designed to prevent performance of the Intuitive-Szesterniak contract
and/or make such performance more expensive or difficult. For example, even as Ethicon concedes
that Mr. Szesterniak at all times resided exclusively in California, that Ethicon employed Mr.
Szesterniak to call upon its customers exclusively in California, and that Intuitive has since hired Mr.
Szesterniak to render services exclusively in California, Ethicon brought suit in a non-California
court (in which Mr. Szesterniak, let alone Intuitive, never agreed to litigate with Ethicon), asserting
claims under foreign laws that are contrary to California law. Ethicons foreign action seeks

28
- 13 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND FOR MONETARY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH EXISTING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
CASE NO. 16-CV-4794

Case 5:16-cv-04794-NC Document 1 Filed 08/19/16 Page 15 of 17

injunctive relief which, if granted, would harm Intuitive exclusively in California, such as by

prohibiting Szesterniak from working for Intuitive Surgical, Inc. in California.

61.

As a direct and proximate result of Ethicons actions to disrupt performance of the

Intuitive-Szesterniak Agreement, Intuitive has been harmed. Among other injuries, Intuitive has had

to restrict Mr. Szesterniak from interacting with customers on Intuitives behalf, as well as incur the

substantial burden and expense of investigating Ethicons allegations.

62.

Ethicons conduct was a substantial factor in causing such harm.

63.

Ethicons conduct was willful and/or malicious, and/or manifested a knowing and

9
10

reckless indifference to Intuitives rights, thereby entitling Intuitive to an award of exemplary


damages.

11

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: UNFAIR COMPETITION

12

(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 et seq.)


64.

13
14

Intuitive re-alleges and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs of this

Complaint as though fully set forth herein.


65.

15

By seeking to prohibit Intuitive, a California-based company, from employing a

16

California resident to render services in California on the force of alleged conduct that occurred

17

exclusively in California on theories contrary to California law and fundamental public policy,

18

Ethicon has engaged, and continues to engage, in unfair and unlawful trade practices as set forth

19

herein.

20

66.

Ethicon engaged in these unfair practices to undermine Intuitives ability to attract

21

and employ California professionals and thus Intuitives ability to effectively market its offerings in

22

the California marketplace, in order to increase Ethicons own gain.

23

67.

The acts at issue in this Complaint all occurred within four years preceding the filing

24

of this Complaint.

25

68.

Ethicon has thus engaged in unlawful trade practices, as defined in and prohibited by

26

California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. Intuitive, Californias labor pool,

27

and the public at large have been injured as a result.

28
- 14 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND FOR MONETARY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH EXISTING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
CASE NO. 16-CV-4794

Case 5:16-cv-04794-NC Document 1 Filed 08/19/16 Page 16 of 17

69.

As a direct and proximate result of such actions, Intuitive has suffered and continues

to suffer injury in fact and has lost money and/or property as a result of such unlawful trade practices

and unfair competition in an amount to be proven at trial.

70.

As a direct and proximate result of such actions, Ethicon has unlawfully enjoyed, and,

unless judgment is entered in Intuitives favor, will continue to unlawfully enjoy financial gain in an

amount to be proven at trial. This unlawful gain stems, at least in part, from the unfair competitive

advantage in attracting and/or retaining California professionals, and thus in promoting its products

in the California marketplace, that Ethicon has achieved through the conduct set forth herein.

9
10
11
12
13

71.

Intuitive is entitled to and does seek a declaration that the above-described trade

practices are unfair, unlawful, and/or fraudulent.


72.

Intuitive is further entitled to and does seek restitution of all monetary harms it

incurred as a result of Ethicons unlawful conduct.


73.

Intuitive is further entitled to and does seek an injunction prohibiting Ethicon from

14

challenging in any foreign court or under foreign law Intuitives ability to hire Mr. Szesterniak, a

15

California resident, to render services to Intuitive in California, on the basis of claimed conduct that

16

allegedly occurred in California.

17
18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF


WHEREFORE, Intuitive respectfully prays for relief as follows:

19

(a)

That the Court enter judgment in Intuitives favor on each cause of action;

20

(b)

That the Court declare that Intuitives right and ability to hire and employ Mr.

21

Szesterniak, a California resident, to render services to Intuitive in California

22

be evaluated under California law;

23

(c)

That the Court declare that Intuitive has not, under California law,

24

misappropriated any alleged Ethicon trade secret in connection with hiring and

25

employing Mr. Szesterniak;

26
27
28
- 15 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND FOR MONETARY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH EXISTING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
CASE NO. 16-CV-4794

Case 5:16-cv-04794-NC Document 1 Filed 08/19/16 Page 17 of 17

(d)

That the Court declare that Intuitive has not, under federal law,

misappropriated any alleged Ethicon trade secret in connection with hiring and

employing Mr. Szesterniak;

(e)

That the Court award Intuitive compensatory and restitutionary damages in an


amount according to proof;

(f)

That the Court award Intuitive exemplary and punitive damages;

(g)

That the Court award Intuitive its costs of suit and attorneys fees pursuant to

8
9

applicable statute;
(h)

10
11

That the Court award Intuitive pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the
maximum legal rate; and

(i)

That the Court issue such other and further relief as it deems just and proper.

12
13

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL


Intuitive hereby demands a trial by jury as to all issues so triable in this action.

14
15

Date: August 19, 2016

Respectfully Submitted,

16

SINGER / BEA LLP

17

By:__ _____________________________
Adam S. Cashman
Doug Tilley
Attorneys for Intuitive Surgical, Inc.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 16 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND FOR MONETARY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH EXISTING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
CASE NO. 16-CV-4794

Case 5:16-cv-04794-NC Document 1-1 Filed 08/19/16 Page 1 of 2

CIVIL COVER SHEET

OJS 44 (Rev. 11/04)

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided
by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating
the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
Intuitive Surgical, Inc.

DEFENDANTS
Ethicon US, LLC

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

Santa Clara, CA

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

Hamilton, OH

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)


NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE
LAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys (If Known)


(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Singer / Bea LLP
601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1950, San Francisco, CA (415) 500-6080
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only)
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff

U.S. Government
Plaintiff

3 Federal Question

U.S. Government
Defendant

4 Diversity

(U.S. Government Not a Party)

CONTRACT

110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excl. Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veterans Benefits
160 Stockholders Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise
REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property

(Place an X in One Box Only)


TORTS

V. ORIGIN
1

Original
Proceeding

DEF
1

Citizen of Another State

Incorporated and Principal Place


of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country

Foreign Nation

(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

IV. NATURE OF SUIT

(For Diversity Cases Only)


PTF
Citizen of This State
1

PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
CIVIL RIGHTS
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
444 Welfare
445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
440 Other Civil Rights

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

PERSONAL INJURY
362 Personal Injury Med. Malpractice
365 Personal Injury Product Liability
368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
370 Other Fraud
371 Truth in Lending
380 Other Personal
Property Damage
385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS

510 Motions to Vacate

Sentence
Habeas Corpus:
530 General
535 Death Penalty
540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition

(Place an X in One Box Only)

610 Agriculture
620 Other Food & Drug
625 Drug Related Seizure

of Property 21 USC 881


630 Liquor Laws
640 R.R. & Truck
650 Airline Regs.
660 Occupational
Safety/Health
690 Other
LABOR
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations
730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting
& Disclosure Act
740 Railway Labor Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Empl. Ret. Inc.
Security Act

and One Box for Defendant)


PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place
4 4
of Business In This State

BANKRUPTCY

422 Appeal 28 USC 158


423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS

820 Copyrights
830 Patent
840 Trademark
SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
871 IRSThird Party
26 USC 7609

OTHER STATUTES

Transferred from
6 Multidistrict
another district
Removed from
Remanded from
Reinstated or
(specify)
State Court
Appellate Court
Reopened
Litigation
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

400 State Reapportionment


410 Antitrust
430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce
460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sat TV
810 Selective Service
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
875 Customer Challenge
12 USC 3410
890 Other Statutory Actions
891 Agricultural Acts
892 Economic Stabilization Act
893 Environmental Matters
894 Energy Allocation Act
895 Freedom of Information
Act
900Appeal of Fee Determination
Under Equal Access
to Justice
950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes

Appeal to District
Judge from
Magistrate
Judgment

28 USC 1331, 1332(a), 2201(a)

Brief description of cause:

Declaratory Judgment, Tortious Interference with Existing Contract, Unfair Competition


CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
DEMAND $
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
VII. REQUESTED IN
UNDER F.R.C.P. 23
Yes
No
JURY DEMAND:
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
JUDGE
DOCKET NUMBER
IF ANY
DATE

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

/s/ Adam Cashman

08/19/2016
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #

AMOUNT

APPLYING IFP

JUDGE

MAG. JUDGE

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 11/04)

Case 5:16-cv-04794-NC Document 1-1 Filed 08/19/16 Page 2 of 2

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44


Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required
by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use
of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint
filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.
(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only
the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving
both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time
of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases,
the county of residence of the defendant is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section (see attachment).
II.
Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.C.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an X in one
of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an X in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the
Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box
1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the
different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)
III.
Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section
for each principal party.
IV.
Nature of Suit. Place an X in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient
to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerks in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select
the most definitive.
V.

Origin. Place an X in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition
for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict
litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this box
is checked, do not check (5) above.
Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judges decision.
VI.
Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes
unless diversity.
Example:
U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553
Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII.

Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an X in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.

Demand. In this space enter the dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) being demanded or indicate other demand such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers
and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.