Nazif v. Computer Sciences Corporation

Filing 15

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 14 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to File Amended Complaint filed by Fred Nazif. Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 3/13/14. (bpfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2014)

Case3:13-cv-05498-EMC Document14 Filed03/10/14 Page1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6

Christopher R. LeClerc, Esq. (SB# 233479)
LE CLERC & LE CLERC LLP
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1019
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
FRED NAZIF

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11

FRED NAZIF, an individual,

12
Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

16

COMPUTER SCIENCES
CORPORATION, a Nevada Corporation;
and DOES 1-50, inclusive,

17

Defendants.

15

18
19

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

Case No. C13-05498 EMC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO ALLOW FILING OF AN
AMENDED COMPLAINT

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO ALLOW FILING OF AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
NAZIF V. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION (N.D. CAL., CASE NUMBER C13-05498 EMC)

Case3:13-cv-05498-EMC Document14 Filed03/10/14 Page2 of 3

1
2

This stipulation is entered into by Christopher LeClerc on behalf of Fred Nazif

3

(“Plaintiff”) and F. Daniel Wood, Jr. on behalf of defendant Computer Sciences Corporation

4

(“CSC”). The parties hereby stipulate as follows:

5

WHEREAS Plaintiff filed a complaint on October 25, 2013 in California Superior Court;

6

WHEREAS Defendant removed the action to the Northern District of California on

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

November 27, 2013 and answered on December 4, 2013;
WHEREAS the parties have only, within the past week, conducted a Rule 26(f)
conference and will commence discovery in this matter;
WHEREAS Plaintiff seeks to file an amended complaint adding a cause of action for
retaliation under Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
WHEREAS Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is submitted concurrently herewith in
accordance with Civil Local Rule 10-1;
WHEREAS pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), defendant CSC
consents to the filing of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint;
WHEREAS by consenting to the filing of an Amended Complaint, CSC is not in any way

17

conceding the truth of any factual allegation in the Amended Complaint or the legal or factual

18

adequacy of any claim in the Amended Complaint.

19

IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED AND AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

20

1. That pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), Plaintiff’s Amended

21

Complaint shall be the now-operative pleading in the above captioned litigation;

22

2. That pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3), CSC shall have 30 days

23

from service of the Amended Complaint in which to answer or otherwise respond to

24

the Amended Complaint.

25
26

In accordance with N.D. Cal General Order 45, Section X, the filer of this document

27

hereby attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the other

28

signatory hereto.
-1STIPULATION TO ALLOW FILING OF AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
NAZIF V. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION (N.D. CAL., CASE NUMBER C13-05498 EMC)

Case3:13-cv-05498-EMC Document14 Filed03/10/14 Page3 of 3

1

IT IS SO STIPULATED:

2
3

Dated: March 10, 2014

Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP

4

By: /s/ Christopher R. LeClerc
Christopher R. LeClerc, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff FRED NAZIF

5
6
7

Dated: March 10, 2014

The Kullman Firm
By: /s/ F. Daniel Wood, Jr.
F. Daniel Wood, Jr., Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant COMPUTER
SCIENCES CORPORATION

8
9
10
ORDER

11

20

ER

R NIA
FO

dwar
Judge E

H

19

RT

18

en

d M. Ch

NO

17

O ORD

IT IS S

LI

16

Edward M. Chen
Judge of the United States D
ERE District Court

A

15

DATE: ________________________

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
_________________________________________

RT
U
O

14

3/13/14

S

13

Based on the foregoing stipulation and good cause appearing, IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNIT
ED

12

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2STIPULATION TO ALLOW FILING OF AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
NAZIF V. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION (N.D. CAL., CASE NUMBER C13-05498 EMC)

Case3:13-cv-05498-EMC Document14-1 Filed03/10/14 Page1 of 11

1
2
3
4
5
6

Christopher R. LeClerc, Esq. (SB# 233479)
LE CLERC & LE CLERC LLP
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1019
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
FRED NAZIF

7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP

235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1019  San Francisco, CA 94104

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

FRED NAZIF, an individual,

13
14

Plaintiff,
v.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

COMPUTER SCIENCES
CORPORATION, a Nevada Corporation,
and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants.

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

Case No. C13-05498 EMC
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:
1. WRONGFUL TERMINATION
IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC
POLICY
2. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION
OF LABOR CODE SECTION
1102.5 & 98.6
3. RETALIATION FOR
ENGAGING IN DODD-FRANK
PROTECTED ACTIVITY
UNDER THE DODD-FRANK
WALL STREET REFORM &
CONSUMER PROTECTION
ACT 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h)(1)(B)(i)
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

24
25
26
27
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
NAZIF V. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION (N.D. CAL., CASE NUMBER C13-05498 EMC)

Case3:13-cv-05498-EMC Document14-1 Filed03/10/14 Page2 of 11

1

Plaintiff alleges as follows:

2

PARTIES

3

PLAINTIFF

4

1. Plaintiff FRED NAZIF (“Plaintiff” or “NAZIF") is an adult male residing in San

5

Francisco, California. At all relevant times, until his unlawful termination described

6

infra, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION

7

in San Francisco, California.

8

Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP

235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1019  San Francisco, CA 94104

9

DEFENDANTS
2. Defendant COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION ("CSC") is a corporation

10

providing computer software and information technology services throughout the United

11

States and the world, with its corporate headquarters located in Falls Church, Virginia. It

12

is a publicly traded corporation on the NYSE with the ticker symbol CSC. CSC is

13

subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and makes

14

public filings under applicable federal and state securities regulations.

15

3. The true names and capacities of defendants sued in the Complaint under the fictitious

16

name of DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to plaintiff who therefore sues

17

defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their

18

true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and

19

thereon alleges, that each of said fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some

20

manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff’s injuries as herein alleged

21

were proximately caused by such unlawful conduct.

22

4. Hereinafter, CSC and DOES 1 through 50 are collectively referred to as “Defendants.”

23

5. Whenever reference is made in this complaint to any act of any corporate or other

24

business entity defendant, such allegations shall mean that such defendant did the acts

25

alleged in the complaint through its officers, directors, employees, agents and/or

26

representatives while they were acting within the actual or ostensible scope of their

27

authority. Additionally, whenever reference is made to any act of any natural person

28
-1-

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
NAZIF V. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION (N.D. CAL., CASE NUMBER C13-05498 EMC)

Case3:13-cv-05498-EMC Document14-1 Filed03/10/14 Page3 of 11

1

employed by any corporate or other business entity Defendant, such allegations shall

2

mean that such person did the acts alleged in the complaint while acting within the scope

3

of their actual or ostensible authority.

4

6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times, each

5

Defendant, and each of its agents, acted as an agent, representative, employer and/or

6

employee of each of the other defendants and acted within the course and scope of said

7

agency or representation or employment with respect to the causes of action in this

8

complaint.

Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP

235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1019  San Francisco, CA 94104

9

JURISDICTION & VENUE

10

7. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to and under the California Labor Code and related

11
12
13

regulations, and other common and statutory laws.
8. Venue is proper in this Court because the acts and/or omissions and events set forth in
this Complaint occurred in whole or in part in San Francisco County, California.

14

9. Plaintiff was employed by CSC in San Francisco County, California.

15

10. State policy favors jurisdiction and venue in San Francisco County, California, because

16

the State of California has a policy of protecting California residents and ensuring the

17

applicability of California laws.

18
19

11. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that witnesses and evidence
relevant to this case are located in San Francisco County, California.

20

12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the relative costs and burdens

21

to the parties herein favor the filing of this lawsuit in this Court. Defendant suffers no

22

burden or hardship by having to defend this case in this Court. However, Plaintiff would

23

suffer severe and undue burden and hardship if he was required to file in an alternative

24

forum, if any such forum exists. Such burden and hardship on Plaintiff includes, but is

25

not limited to, prohibitive monetary expenses for travel, obtaining counsel in a different

26

venue and/or jurisdiction, increased expenses to investigate and obtain evidence and

27

depose and interview witnesses.

28
-2-

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
NAZIF V. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION (N.D. CAL., CASE NUMBER C13-05498 EMC)

Case3:13-cv-05498-EMC Document14-1 Filed03/10/14 Page4 of 11

1

13. The amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional threshold of this Court.

2

GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

3

14. Plaintiff was hired as a Technical Accounting Director for Defendant CSC in June 2012

4

after four-month interview process that included a background check, employment and

5

education verifications). He was told that he would report to Ms. April Hand, and that he

6

would be compensated $140,000 per year in base salary, benefits, and that he would be

7

eligible for a bonus of up to 20% of his base salary.

8

15. A seasoned financial professional, Mr. Nazif brought more that fifteen years of relevant

Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP

235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1019  San Francisco, CA 94104

9

experience to his job at CSC, during which time he held accountancy positions at various

10

high-technology companies, including Hewlett Packard and Cisco. Prior to his departure

11

from Iran, he held the position of Senior Adviser to the Secretary of Heavy Industry. He

12

is a Certified Public Accountant, a Member of American Institute of Certified Public

13

Accountants and a Member of The California Society of Certified Public Accountants.

14

16. Prior to starting with CSC, Plaintiff learned that CSC was the defendant in a massive

15

securities class action alleging, inter alia, failure of internal controls and accounting

16

fraud. That matter recently resolved for $97.5 million. (See, e.g.,

17

www.cscsecuritieslitigation.com.) He was told that, as a result, CSC was working

18

towards resolving issues related to its internal controls.

19

17. Shortly after he was hired and utilizing his many years of successful experience, Plaintiff

20

became very concerned because it appeared as though CSC was not improving the

21

controls on its accountancy and revenue recognition and reporting practices, but instead

22

was utilizing improper accounting practices and revenue recognition practices to inflate

23

the revenue it reported in its SEC filings.

24
25

18. The following are to serve as exemplars of the improper accounting observed by Plaintiff,
and are no means intended to be an exhaustive list:

26

a) In reviewing CSC's contract with a client, Plaintiff noted that the contract

27

provided for an unspecified platform transfer right; that is, a right granted

28
-3-

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
NAZIF V. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION (N.D. CAL., CASE NUMBER C13-05498 EMC)

Case3:13-cv-05498-EMC Document14-1 Filed03/10/14 Page5 of 11

system to one or more other hardware platform or operating systems. Per

3

standard software revenue recognition practices, where unspecified

4

platform transfer rights exist, the software revenue must be recognized

5

ratably over the estimated economic life of the products, beginning with

6

delivery of the product. CSC did not recognize the revenue ratably, and,

7

in fact, reported inflated revenue numbers. When Plaintiff raised concerns

8

about this with his supervisors, including his direct supervisor, Ms. Hand,

9

Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP

by CSC to transfer software from one hardware platform or operating

2

235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1019  San Francisco, CA 94104

1

and the Comptroller, John Dube, and questioned whether such improper

10

practices were systemic within CSC, he was taken off the specific account

11

and frozen out of the project.

12

b) In reviewing CSC’s contract with a client, Plaintiff noted that CSC did not

13

properly account for free services and warranties granted to the client.

14

Plaintiff suggested that CSC launch an internal review of all of the

15

contracts CSC had with its customers to see if this was a more widespread

16

problem. In response to Plaintiff’s concerns, Plaintiff’s supervisors took

17

him off of the account and froze him out of the project.

18

c) Vendor-specific objective evidence (VSOE) is a method of revenue

19

recognition allowed by US GAAP that enables companies to recognize

20

revenue on specific items on a multi-item sale based on evidence specific

21

to a company that the product has been delivered, provided all other

22

requirements of revenue recognition have been met. In order to take

23

advantage of this early revenue recognition methodology in accordance

24

with GAAP, the selling company must establish vendor-specific objective

25

evidence of fair value for each separate product or service promised under

26

the contract. Accordingly, it was essential for CSC's bottom line profit

27

and loss numbers that VSOE be properly established because without it

28
-4-

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
NAZIF V. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION (N.D. CAL., CASE NUMBER C13-05498 EMC)

Case3:13-cv-05498-EMC Document14-1 Filed03/10/14 Page6 of 11

up front. However, Mr. Nazif became aware that CSC did not properly

3

prepare VSOE for various contracts for which it was recognizing revenue

4

up front. Again, he brought this to the attention of his supervisor, Ms.

5

Hand, in July 2012, to Chief Accounting Officer, Michael Sweeney, in

6

November 2012, and again to Ms. Hand in late-December 2012. To Mr.

7

Nazif's knowledge, the revenue recognition problem was never corrected,

8

and he was terminated from his position just a few weeks after his

9

Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP

being established, it could not appropriately recognize software revenue

2

235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1019  San Francisco, CA 94104

1

complaints about these practices.

10

d) CSC routinely capitalized software costs rather than expensing those costs

11

related to the business which offsets revenue. This again served to

12

improperly inflate CSC's reported bottom line profit. Mr. Nazif became

13

aware of CSC's practice of capitalizing software costs based on minor

14

enhancements to the software. On several occasions, Mr. Nazif spoke to

15

his supervisor, Ms. Hand about his concern that these minor enhancements

16

did not qualify for capitalization. Ms. Hand informed Mr. Nazif that it

17

was simply CSC's practice to capitalize software costs based on minor

18

enhancements, and that most such capitalization costs would be "rubber

19

stamped" by the accounting department. She strongly suggested that Mr.

20

Nazif should follow suit.

21

e) Plaintiff became aware that CSC and its constituent business segments

22

were failing to properly review all contracts for their particular clients in

23

order to evaluate whether or not those contacts met the definition of

24

related contracts, such that they should be treated as a single arrangement

25

for revenue recognition purposes. Mr. Nazif initiated several

26

conversations with his supervisor, Ms. Hand regarding this matter.

27

However, she indicated that CSC did not have the contract-management

28
-5-

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
NAZIF V. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION (N.D. CAL., CASE NUMBER C13-05498 EMC)

Case3:13-cv-05498-EMC Document14-1 Filed03/10/14 Page7 of 11

1

tools necessary to capture the information needed to make the related

2

contract determinations. Mr. Nazif went so far as to send her an email on

3

or about August 14, 2012 detailing suggestions to improper contract

4

management. He received no substantive response to the suggestions. He

5

raised these concerns again with Mr. Sweeney in mid-November 2012;

6

however to his knowledge no action was ever taken.

7

19. In response to Plaintiff's complaints about failures of internal controls and revenue

Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP

recognition, rather than remedy the failures in GAAP, Defendant transferred Plaintiff off

9
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1019  San Francisco, CA 94104

8

of projects and limited his access to work on further projects.

10

20. In December 2012, Plaintiff was informed that he was terminated on January 9, 2013 as

11

the result of a structural reorganization. He received no explanation as to why the

12

purported structural reorganization had apparently not been foreseen at the time of his

13

hire just months earlier. Plaintiff was in fact terminated on that date. Another individual

14

was hired with the same job title as Plaintiff just prior to Plaintiff's termination and he

15

remained in that role even after Plaintiff's termination. Additionally, shortly after his

16

termination, CSC advertised Plaintiff's position on the internet.

17

21. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that his termination was motivated in

18

part because of his insistence that CSC not violate GAAP in its public filings that it

19

certified were prepared in compliance with GAAP. Additionally, Plaintiff is informed

20

and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment in

21

violation of numerous public policies, including without limitation, the public policies

22

against fraud in the workplace, fraud on the market, and retaliation against those who

23

refuse to participate in fraud.

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28
-6-

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
NAZIF V. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION (N.D. CAL., CASE NUMBER C13-05498 EMC)

Case3:13-cv-05498-EMC Document14-1 Filed03/10/14 Page8 of 11

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
[Against All Defendants]

1
2
3

22. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation

4
5

contained in this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
23. California has a fundamental, substantial, and well-established public policies against

fraud, internally raising concerns related to unlawful activities, and/or by refusing to

8

participate in activities that would result in a violation or noncompliance of state and/or

9

Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP

retaliating against an employee for opposing and refusing to participate in corporate

7

235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1019  San Francisco, CA 94104

6

federal law, rule or regulation. (See, e.g., Labor Code § 1102.5.)

10

24. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that one or more of the motivating

11

reasons for Plaintiff’s termination was because of his complaints of, opposition to, and

12

active participation against CSC’s fraudulent conduct.

13

25. Defendants’ termination of Plaintiff has caused him economic and noneconomic harm in

14

an amount to be proven at trial, but which is in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this

15

court. Plaintiff’s damages include, but are not limited to, loss of earnings and benefits,

16

humiliation, embarrassment, mental and emotional distress and discomfort.

17

26. Defendants committed the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively

18

with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and acted with an improper and evil

19

motive amounting to malice, in conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and thus an

20

award of exemplary and punitive damages is justified. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to

21

recover and herein prays for punitive damages.

22

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment, including punitive damages, as more fully set forth

23

below.

24
25
26
27

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code §§ 1102.5(c) & 98.6
[Against All Defendants]
27. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation
contained in this complaint as though fully set forth herein.

28
-7-

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
NAZIF V. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION (N.D. CAL., CASE NUMBER C13-05498 EMC)

Case3:13-cv-05498-EMC Document14-1 Filed03/10/14 Page9 of 11

1

28. Defendant's conduct, as alleged in this complaint, violates numerous federal and state

2
3

statutes.
29. Plaintiff engaged in activities in opposition to CSC's unlawful conduct, including without

4

limitation reporting, opposing, investigating, and trying to prevent CSC’s fraud.

5

30. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants did willfully

6

retaliate against Plaintiff for engaging in the acts alleged herein by terminating his

7

employment.

8

31. Defendants’ termination of Plaintiff has caused him economic and noneconomic harm in

Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP

235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1019  San Francisco, CA 94104

9

an amount to be proven at trial, but which are in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of

10

this court. Plaintiff’s damages include, but are not limited to, loss of earnings and

11

benefits, humiliation, embarrassment, mental and emotional distress and discomfort.

12

32. Defendants committed the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively

13

with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and acted with an improper and evil

14

motive amounting to malice, in conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and thus an

15

award of exemplary and punitive damages is justified. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to

16

recover and herein prays for punitive damages.

17

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment, including punitive damages, as more fully set forth

18

below.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Retaliation for Engaging in Dodd-Frank Protected Activity under the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform & Consumer Protection Act 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h)(1)(B)(i)
[Against All Defendants]
33. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation
contained in this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
34. By engaging in the above-described improper revenue-reporting practices which served
to inflate CSC’s revenue, CSC violated federal securities laws.
35. In raising concerns with CSC’s management team of CSC’s failure to properly report
revenue, Plaintiff engaged in protected activity under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform

28
-8-

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
NAZIF V. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION (N.D. CAL., CASE NUMBER C13-05498 EMC)

Case3:13-cv-05498-EMC Document14-1 Filed03/10/14 Page10 of 11

1

& Consumer Protection Act 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h)(1)(B)(i) (“the Dodd-Frank Act”),

2

which protected activity includes acts required or protected under, inter alia, the

3

Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, section 10A(m)

4

(accounting and auditing matters).

5

36. After raising his concerns with his managers regarding CSC’s failure to comply with

6

permitted revenue-reporting practices which failure served to improperly inflate CSC’s

7

reported revenue, Plaintiff was abruptly terminated by CSC.

Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP

37. For retaliation in violation of the Dodd-Frank Act, Plaintiff is entitled to such legal and

9
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1019  San Francisco, CA 94104

8

equitable relief to effectuate the purposes of the Dodd-Frank Act, including, inter alia,

10

employment reinstatement, double back pay with interest, front pay, compensatory

11

damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

12

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment, including punitive damages, as more fully set forth

13

below.

14
15
16

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff makes the following demand:
a) For general, special, actual, compensatory and/or nominal damages, as against

17

Defendants, and each of them, in an amount to be determined at trial, in an amount

18

believed to be well in excess of $75,000;

19
20

b) For front and back pay and other benefits Plaintiff would have been afforded but-for
Defendants’, and each of their, unlawful conduct;

21

c) For double damages and reinstatement pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act.

22

d) For punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial sufficient to punish, penalize

23

and/or deter Defendants, and each of them, from further engaging in the conduct

24

described herein, and to deter others from engaging in the same or similar acts;

25

e) For appropriate civil and statutory penalties;

26

f) For costs and expenses of this litigation;

27

g) For reasonable attorneys’ fees where appropriate;

28
-9-

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
NAZIF V. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION (N.D. CAL., CASE NUMBER C13-05498 EMC)

Case3:13-cv-05498-EMC Document14-1 Filed03/10/14 Page11 of 11

1
2
3

h) For pre- and post-judgment interest on all damages and other relief awarded herein from
all entities against whom such relief may be properly awarded; and,
i) For all such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.

4
5

Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP

Dated: March 10, 2014

6
By: Christopher R. LeClerc
Christopher R. LeClerc, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff
FRED NAZIF

7
8

Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP

235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1019  San Francisco, CA 94104

9
10

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY

11

Dated: March 10, 2014

Le Clerc & Le Clerc LLP

12
13

By: Christopher R. LeClerc
Christopher R. LeClerc, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff
FRED NAZIF

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 10 -

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
NAZIF V. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION (N.D. CAL., CASE NUMBER C13-05498 EMC)