Bridges v. PacifiCorp, 2:22-cv-01698-KJM-KJN

The McKinney Fire (July 29, 2022) damaged plaintiffs’ real and personal property in Siskiyou County.
Plaintiffs (California citizens) sued PacifiCorp (Oregon citizen) and Richard Harris (California citizen) in state court; PacifiCorp removed based on diversity and alleged Harris was fraudulently joined.
FAC alleges Harris (a PacifiCorp operations manager) eliminated safety-critical positions and instituted measures that created unsafe conditions, asserting claims of negligence, nuisance, trespass, and a Health & Safety Code § 13007 violation.
PacifiCorp submitted Harris’s declaration denying authority to eliminate positions or take measures increasing wildfire risk; plaintiffs produced a deposition suggesting Harris had supervisory duties, budget and safety responsibilities.
The district court held PacifiCorp failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that plaintiffs could not possibly recover against Harris, and remanded the case to state court.
The court declined to award costs or fees, finding PacifiCorp had an objectively reasonable basis to remove.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Harris was fraudulently joined	Harris can be individually liable for his own torts; plaintiffs plausibly allege personal acts/omissions	Harris is a non-diverse sham defendant; he lacked personal involvement and authority	Not fraudulently joined; remand required
Whether Harris’s managerial status alone creates liability	Plaintiffs allege specific acts (eliminating positions, instituting unsafe measures)	Under Haidinger-Hayes, managers aren’t liable absent personal participation or authorization	Managerial status alone is insufficient, but plaintiffs allege personal conduct; claim survives
Whether Harris had authority to take the alleged actions	Deposition evidence shows Harris supervised operations, budgets, safety and linemen	Harris’s declaration says elimination/authority decisions are made in corporate headquarters; he lacked authority and did not act	Disputed fact issues; deposition creates possibility Harris had authority — claim survives for fraudulent-joinder analysis
Whether plaintiffs are entitled to costs/attorneys’ fees under § 1447(c)	Seek fees because removal was improper	Removal was objectively reasonable enough to avoid fee award	Fees denied; removal was not objectively unreasonable

Grancare, LLC v. Thrower by & through Mills, 889 F.3d 543 (9th Cir. 2018) (standards for fraudulent joinder and requirement to remand if any possibility of recovery exists)
Luther v. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, 533 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2008) (removal statute strictly construed; doubts resolved in favor of remand)
United States Liability Ins. Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc., 1 Cal.3d 586 (Cal. 1970) (officers/managers not personally liable for corporate torts absent personal participation or authorization)
Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2001) (courts may pierce pleadings and consider summary-judgment-type evidence in fraudulent joinder analysis)
Hamilton Materials, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Corp., 494 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir. 2007) (heavy burden on removing defendant to prove fraudulent joinder by clear and convincing evidence)
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) (fees under § 1447(c) available only where removal lacked objectively reasonable basis)
Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996) (complete diversity requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction)