Ambrosini v. Universal Cable Holdings, Inc. dba Suddenlink Communications, 4:14-cv-00896

Ambrosini, a long‑time Suddenlink technician, was terminated after missing work for illness in January 2012; employer said he violated call‑in policy, he alleges age discrimination.
Complaint asserted six claims: FEHA age discrimination, breach of contract, negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful termination; three claims (FEHA, negligence, NIED) were alleged against supervisors Wendy Purnell and Charles Harris.
Defendants removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction; plaintiff moved to remand alleging lack of complete diversity because Purnell and Harris are California citizens.
Defendants argued Purnell and Harris were fraudulently joined and thus should be disregarded for diversity; removal would therefore be proper as remaining parties are diverse.
The complaint contained few factual allegations specific to Purnell or Harris; plaintiff’s remand brief attempted to add factual detail not pleaded in the complaint.
The court analyzed whether the complaint, on its face, stated viable causes of action against the individual supervisors under controlling California law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether individual supervisors were properly joined (destroys diversity)	Purnell and Harris are proper defendants for FEHA, negligence, and NIED claims tied to termination	Supervisors were fraudulently joined because California law bars individual liability under FEHA and the complaint fails to state cognizable common‑law torts against them	Joinder was fraudulent; supervisors dismissed and their citizenship ignored for diversity
Whether FEHA supports individual supervisor liability	FEHA claim may be asserted against supervisors	FEHA does not permit suits against individuals; only employers are liable	FEHA claim against supervisors is not cognizable under Reno v. Baird
Whether a common‑law negligence claim for failure to prevent discrimination exists against supervisors	Plaintiff frames a negligence claim distinct from FEHA to hold supervisors liable	California law provides statutory remedy under FEHA; no recognized separate common‑law negligence tort for failure to prevent discrimination against individuals	Negligence claim fails; cannot circumvent FEHA by recharacterizing claim
Whether negligent infliction of emotional distress is a separate tort enabling supervisor liability	NIED pleaded as independent cause of action against supervisors	NIED is a form of negligence; since negligence claim fails, NIED based on same facts fails too	NIED claim against supervisors fails as no independent tort exists

Reno v. Baird, 18 Cal.4th 640 (California Supreme Court) (FEHA does not impose individual liability on supervisors)
Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co., 139 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir.) (standard for fraudulent joinder review)
Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir.) (courts may disregard fraudulently joined defendants for diversity)
Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir.) (removal statute construed narrowly; defendant bears burden to establish jurisdiction)
Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir.) (doubts resolved in favor of remand)
Lewis v. Time Inc., 710 F.2d 549 (9th Cir.) (discussion of fraudulent joinder as term of art)
Sessions v. Chrysler Corp., 517 F.2d 759 (9th Cir.) (fraudulent joinder inquiry analogous to Rule 12(b)(6) review)
Kruso v. Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416 (9th Cir.) (limits on considering facts outside the complaint when evaluating joinder)