French v. JDS Uniphase Corporation, No. 5:2010cv03645 - Document 31 (N.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT re 30 . Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 3/24/11. (dlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/30/2011)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
French v. JDS Uniphase Corporation 1 2 3 4 5 Doc. 31 RODNEY B. SORENSEN, Bar No. 196926 EMILY J. SCHULTZ, Bar No. 202815 E-Mail: rbs@paynefears.com E-Mail: ejs@paynefears.com PAYNE & FEARS LLP Attorneys at Law One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 398-7860 Facsimile: (415) 398-7863 6 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHN FRENCH 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 2300 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 (415) 398-7860 PAYNE & FEARS LLP 11 JOHN FRENCH, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. CASE NO. CV 10-03645 JF STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT JDS UNIPHASE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff, JOHN FRENCH, and Defendant, JDS UNIPHASE CORPORATION (“JDSU”), hereby stipulate to an order granting Plaintiff leave to file the First Amended Complaint. 21 Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this matter on August 18, 2010. The parties exchanged 22 limited written discovery in this case. Plaintiff now seeks to amend his Complaint to allege a 23 cause of action for Declaratory Relief. 24 A copy of the First Amended Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Defendant’s 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. CV 10-03645 JF Dockets.Justia.com 1 counsel reviewed the First Amended Complaint and stipulates to an order granting Plaintiff leave 2 to file the First Amended Complaint. 3 DATED: March 17, 2011 PAYNE & FEARS LLP 4 5 By: /s/ Rodney B. Sorensen RODNEY B. SORENSEN, Bar No. 196926 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHN FRENCH 7 8 DATED: March 17, 2011 DLA PIPER LLP 9 10 By: /s/ John R. Shuman, Jr. JOHN R. SHUMAN, JR., Bar No. 100236 AMY BECKSTEAD, Bar No. 216422 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 2300 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 (415) 398-7860 PAYNE & FEARS LLP 11 12 Attorneys for Defendant JDS UNIPHASE CORPORATION 13 14 15 16 ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED. 3/24/11 DATED: ___________________ 17 _______________________________________ Hon. Jeremy Fogel United States District Judge 18 19 4838-1472-3848.1 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. CV 10-03645 JF . EXHIBIT A 1 2 3 4 5 RODNEY B. SORENSEN, Bar No. 196926 EMILY J. SCHULTZ, Bar No. 202815 E-Mail: rbs@paynefears.com E-Mail: ejs@paynefears.com PAYNE & FEARS LLP Attorneys at Law One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 398-7860 Facsimile: (415) 398-7863 6 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHN FRENCH 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 2300 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 (415) 398-7860 PAYNE & FEARS LLP 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 CASE NO. CV 10-03645 JF JOHN FRENCH, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: v. (1) (2) JDS UNIPHASE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, (3) 15 Defendant. 16 (4) BREACH OF CONTRACT BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING VIOLATION OF PENNYSLVANIA WAGE PAYMENT AND COLLECTION LAW DECLARATORY RELIEF 17 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 18 19 Plaintiff JOHN FRENCH alleges: THE PARTIES 20 21 22 23 1. Plaintiff JOHN FRENCH (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is now, and at all times material to this complaint was, a resident of the State of Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant JDS Uniphase Corporation (hereinafter “JDSU” or “Defendant”) is, and 24 at all times material to this complaint was, a Delaware corporation, having its principal place of 25 business in the city of Milpitas, Santa Clara County, California, and qualified to do business and 26 doing business in the State of California. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 27 28 3. The Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. CV 10-03645 JF 1 The matter in controversy in this civil action exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 exclusive of 2 interests and costs, and Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of different states. 3 4. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because JDSU is 4 subject to personal jurisdiction in this District based upon its significant contacts in this District. 5 Venue also is proper in this District pursuant to the forum selection agreement entered into by the 6 parties. 7 8 9 10 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 2300 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 (415) 398-7860 PAYNE & FEARS LLP 11 FACTS 5. Before its merger into JDSU, Circadiant, Inc. (“Circadiant”) was a privately owned optical testing company. Plaintiff was the co-founder and one time Chief Executive Officer of Circadiant. 6. On or about October 24, 2009, Circadiant was acquired by JDSU (the 12 “Acquisition”) pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger Among JDS Uniphase Corporation, 13 JDSU Acquisition XIV, Inc., Circadiant Systems, Inc., TL Ventures V L.P., and Certain Other 14 Company Noteholders (“Merger Agreement”). Following the Acquisition, Circadiant became a 15 wholly owned subsidiary of JDSU, and Plaintiff became an employee of JDSU. 16 7. Pursuant to Section 2.1.2 of the Merger Agreement, Circadiant stockholders that 17 held Series C Preferred Stock would convert into and receive (i) Closing Consideration Per Share, 18 (ii) such Company Stockholder’s Pro Rata Share of the Contingent Cash Consideration, and (iii) 19 the Holdback Cash. Contingent Cash Consideration, which was effectively an earn-out, 20 represented an amount of cash up to $1,000,000. TL Ventures V L.P. was a Circadiant 21 stockholder that held Series C Preferred Stock and was designated as the representative of the 22 Circadiant stockholders and as attorney-in-fact and agent for and on behalf of each Circadiant 23 stockholder with respect to, among other things, the Contingent Cash Consideration. 24 25 26 27 28 8. Section 2.4.1 of the Merger Agreement, which set forth the conditions for receipt of the Contingent Cash Consideration earn-out by Circadiant stockholders, provides as follows: 2.4.1 In addition to the Closing Consideration, the consideration payable to the Company Stockholders pursuant to this Agreement may be increased (but in no event decreased) by an amount equal to the Contingent Cash Consideration, if any, determined to be payable by [JDSU] pursuant to this Section 2.4. The Contingent Cash Consideration will be determined in accordance with this Section 2 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. CV 10-03645 JF 1 4 2.4.1 on the basis of the amount of Bookings during the period beginning on the Closing Date and ending on the one-year anniversary of the Closing Date (the “Contingent Cash Period”). If the Bookings during the Contingent Cash Period are: (a) less than $5.1 million, no contingent Cash Consideration will be payable; (b) equal to or greater than $5.1 million but less than $6.0 million, the Contingent Cash Consideration will be $500,000; or (c) equal to or greater than $6.0 million, the Contingent Cash Consideration will be $1.0 million. 5 9. 2 3 Prior to the Acquisition, Circadiant had in place an Acquisition Bonus Program (the 6 “Bonus Program”) to incentivize certain employees, including Plaintiff. This Bonus Program was 7 favorable to Plaintiff as it allowed him to share consideration with Circadiant stockholders in the 8 event of an acquisition. As part of the Acquisition, and at the request of JDSU, Plaintiff agreed to 9 the termination of the Bonus Program in return for JDSU restricted stock units (“RSUs”). JDSU ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 2300 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 (415) 398-7860 agreed to provide increased payment to Plaintiff, in the form of JDSU RSUs, in the event 11 PAYNE & FEARS LLP 10 Circadiant stockholders received an earn-out following the Acquisition. JDSU preferred 12 providing Plaintiff with RSUs over cash consideration because it allowed JDSU to integrate the 13 payment with Plaintiff’s employment with JDSU and to provide further incentive for Plaintiff to 14 remain with JDSU as an employee post-acquisition. 15 10. Consistent with the Parties’ intent to provide increased compensation to Plaintiff in 16 the event Circadiant shareholders received increased compensation, Section 7.4 of the Merger 17 Agreement, as amended, provides in relevant part as follows with respect to accelerated vesting of 18 Plaintiff’s RSUs: 19 23 One-third of the RSUs will vest no later than on each of the first three anniversaries of the Closing Date; provided that the RSUs shall be subject to the following accelerated vesting schedule: (a) two-thirds of the RSUs will vest on the date if and when it is determined that any Contingent Cash Consideration is payable pursuant to Section 2.4, (b) all of the RSUs will vest on the date if and when it is determined that the maximum Contingent Cash Consideration is payable pursuant to Section 2.4 . . . and (c) all of any employee’s RSUs will vest immediately if such employee’s employment with [JDSU] or a Subsidiary of [JDSU] is terminated without cause. 24 11. 20 21 22 On or about November 15, 2008, Plaintiff was granted 52,287 RSUs pursuant to 25 the Notice of Restricted Stock Unit Award, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and the Restricted Stock 26 Unit Award Agreement (“RSU Award Agreement”), attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Section 3(c) of 27 the Award Agreement, which tracks the accelerated vesting language of Section 7.4 of the Merger 28 Agreement, provides as follows: 3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. CV 10-03645 JF 1 (c) 1/3rd of the Units subject to the Award shall vest on the first anniversary of the Vesting Commencement Date on the Notice of Restricted Stock Unit Award and 1/3rd of the Units subject to the Award shall vest on each anniversary of the Vesting Commencement Date thereafter, provided that, subject to the other provisions of the Notice, this Agreement and the Plan, the Units shall vest on the following accelerated basis upon achievement of the following possible events: 2 3 4 5 (i) 2/3rd of the Units subject to the Award will vest on the date if and when it is determined that any portion of the Earn-Out is payable pursuant to Section 2.4 the Merger Agreement; 6 7 (ii) all of the Units subject to the Award will vest on the date if and when it is determined that the maximum possible Earn-Out is payable pursuant to Section 2.4 the Merger Agreement; and 8 9 12. In or around May 2009, JDSU paid Circadiant stockholders $500,000 pursuant to ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 2300 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 (415) 398-7860 Section 2.4 of the Merger Agreement. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s RSUs should have accelerated 11 PAYNE & FEARS LLP 10 pursuant to Section 3(c) of Plaintiff’s RSU Award Agreement. However, JDSU did not accelerate 12 Plaintiff’s vesting. 13 13. After Plaintiff inquired into the status of his accelerated RSU vesting, JDSU falsely 14 informed Plaintiff that the $500,000 payment “was NOT an early earn out payment” pursuant to 15 Section 2.4 of the Merger Agreement, and was instead made “in lieu of” such payment, and thus 16 did not result in the triggering of accelerated RSUs. Contrary to that representation, JDSU itself 17 characterized and viewed the $500,000 payment as an “early earn out” payment. 18 19 14. On June 23, 2009, JDSU informed Plaintiff as follows with respect to his ability to earn accelerated vesting pursuant to his Award Agreement: 20 23 JDSU’s position is that the acceleration of the RSUs issued pursuant to Section 7.4 of the Merger Agreement, as amended, shall be determined on the basis of the amount of Bookings made during the Contingent Cash Period, which started on the closing date, October 24, 2008, and ends on October 24, 2009. As such, it is premature at this time to make a determination as to whether the RSUs should be accelerated per the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement and the proper time to make such determination is on October 24, 2009. 24 15. 21 22 Although JDSU informed Plaintiff that his ability to obtain accelerated vesting of 25 RSUs was dependent upon Bookings, as that term is defined in the Merger Agreement, Plaintiff’s 26 RSU Award Agreement actually conditioned his accelerated vesting on payment to Circadiant 27 shareholders, which previously occurred when JDSU made the $500,000 earn-out payment. 28 /// 4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. CV 10-03645 JF 1 16. Following the $500,000 earn-out payment, JDSU laid off approximately 40% of the 2 former Circadiant employees, which made it essentially impossible to meet the booking 3 requirements set forth in Section 2.4.1 of the Merger Agreement. In October 2009 JDSU 4 informed Plaintiff that no Contingent Cash Consideration would be payable to the Company 5 Stockholders and, therefore, none of his RSUs would accelerate vesting. 6 7 17. On or about December 22, 2009, Plaintiff resigned from JDSU. At the time of his resignation, approximately 34,858 of the RSUs issued to Plaintiff remained unvested. 8 COUNT I 9 (BREACH OF CONTRACT) 10 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 2300 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 (415) 398-7860 PAYNE & FEARS LLP 11 12 18. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference, as though set forth in their entirety, paragraphs 1 through 17, inclusive. 19. Plaintiff duly performed all the conditions of the RSU Award Agreement described 13 above to be performed by him, except those he was prevented or excused from performing. 14 Plaintiff has at all times been ready, willing and able to perform, and has offered to perform, all 15 the conditions of the RSU Award Agreement to be performed by him. 16 20. JDSU breached the RSU Award Agreement by wrongfully failing to accelerate 17 Plaintiff’s RSU vesting. Specifically, Section 3(c)(i) of the RSU Award Agreement provided that 18 Plaintiff would receive accelerated vesting of his RSUs if “any portion of the Earn-Out is payable 19 pursuant to Section 2.4 of the Merger Agreement.” JDSU paid $500,000 of the earn-out pursuant 20 to Section 2.4 of the Merger Agreement in or about May 2009. Notwithstanding the payment 21 pursuant to Section 2.4 of the Merger Agreement, JDSU refused to accelerate the vesting of 22 Plaintiff’s RSUs. 23 21. The failure and refusal of JDSU to perform its obligations under the RSU Award 24 Agreement has damaged Plaintiff in that Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, damages in an 25 amount to be determined at trial and according to proof. 26 COUNT II 27 (BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING) 28 22. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference, as though set forth in their 5 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. CV 10-03645 JF 1 entirety, paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive. 2 23. The law implies in every contract a covenant of good faith and fair dealing by 3 which JDSU promised to perform fairly, honestly and reasonably the terms and conditions of its 4 RSU Award Agreement with Plaintiff and to refrain from doing any act that would harm, disrupt 5 or damage the compensation and other benefits which Plaintiff was entitled to receive pursuant to 6 the RSU Award Agreement. 7 24. JDSU engaged in wrongful conduct separate and apart from, and contrary to 8 performance of its obligations under the RSU Award Agreement with Plaintiff, in bad faith, 9 arbitrarily and unfairly, and for the purpose of depriving Plaintiff of his rights and benefits under ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 2300 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 (415) 398-7860 the RSU Award Agreement. This conduct included, but is not limited to: (1) refusing to 11 PAYNE & FEARS LLP 10 accelerate Plaintiff’s RSUs following JDSU’s $500,000 earn-out payment made pursuant to 12 Section 2.4 of the Merger Agreement; (2) informing Plaintiff that no early earn-out payment had 13 been made, even though JDSU characterized and viewed the $500,000 payment as an early earn- 14 out; (3) informing Plaintiff that his entitlement to vesting was conditioned upon bookings, even 15 though his RSU Award Agreement condition accelerated vesting on payment pursuant to Section 16 2.4 of the Merger Agreement; and (4) terminating approximately 40% of the former Circadiant 17 employees prior to October 2009, which made it essentially impossible to meet the bookings set 18 forth in Section 2.4.1 of the Merger Agreement. JDSU breached the RSU Award Agreement 19 without good or sufficient cause, for reasons extraneous to the agreement, and for the purpose of 20 frustrating Plaintiff’s enjoyment of the benefits of the RSU Award Agreement. 21 25. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the breach by JDSU of the implied 22 covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer damages in an 23 amount to be determined at trial and according to proof. 24 COUNT III 25 (VIOLATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA WAGE PAYMENT AND COLLECTION LAW) 26. 26 Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference, as though set forth in their 27 entirety, paragraphs 1 through 25, inclusive. 28 /// 6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. CV 10-03645 JF 1 27. At all relevant times Plaintiff’s employment with JDSU was governed by the 2 Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, 43 P.S. § 260.1 et seq. (“WPCL”), pursuant to 3 which Plaintiff’s RSUs constitute wages. 4 28. JDSU has failed and refused, and continues to fail and refuse to pay wages to 5 Plaintiff, in the form of RSUs, under the terms of his RSU Award Agreement described above in a 6 timely manner as required. 7 29. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that JDSU’s failure to with the RSUs owed to him, as required. The willful nature of JDSU’s conduct entitles Plaintiff to 11 ATTORNEYS AT LAW accelerated RSU vesting, yet JDSU willfully refused, and continues to refuse, to provide Plaintiff 10 ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 2300 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 (415) 398-7860 pay wages, as alleged above, was willful in that JDSU knew that Plaintiff was entitled to 9 PAYNE & FEARS LLP 8 a 25% liquidated damages penalty pursuant to the WPCL. 12 30. Plaintiff is entitled to all RSUs due and owing, together with penalties, interest and 13 reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit in such amounts to be ascertained at the trial of the 14 matter herein according to proof. 15 COUNT IV 16 (DECLARATORY RELIEF) 17 18 19 31. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference, as though set forth in their entirety, paragraphs 1 through 30, inclusive. 32. An actual controversy has arisen between the parties regarding their rights and 20 obligations under the Merger Agreement and RSU Award Agreement. Specifically, an actual 21 controversy has arisen with respect to whether JDSU’s payment of $500,000 to the Circadiant 22 stockholders in approximately May 2009 represented any portion of the Earn-Out, or Contingent 23 Cash Consideration, that is payable pursuant to Section 2.4 of the Merger Agreement. JDSU 24 contends it paid the Circadiant stockholders $500,000 in approximately May 2009 as a settlement 25 payment and further contends that amount was not paid pursuant to Section 2.4 of the Merger 26 Agreement. Plaintiff contends JDSU’s $500,000 payment was an early earn-out pursuant to 27 Section 2.4 of the Merger Agreement that triggered accelerated vesting of Plaintiff’s RSUs 28 pursuant to the RSU Award Agreement. 7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. CV 10-03645 JF
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
