Eliud Ramirez v. Quad Graphics, Inc.
5:23-cv-00062
C.D. Cal.
May 4, 2023

Background

  • Plaintiff Eliud Ramirez, a 60-year-old long‑time employee, sued Quad Graphics, QG Printing II, two supervisors (Rafael Alvarez and Angelo Ortiz), and others in Riverside County Superior Court asserting FEHA harassment/discrimination, IIED, multiple Labor Code wage‑and‑hour claims, UCL, and related causes of action arising from medical leave, alleged timecard alterations, harassment, and termination.
  • Corporate defendants removed the case to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction, arguing Alvarez and Ortiz were fraudulently joined (sham defendants).
  • Plaintiff moved to remand and sought attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
  • Defendants later relied on a statute‑of‑limitations argument (largely via declarations) to support fraudulent‑joinder theory; parties submitted competing declarations and the court considered extrinsic evidence.
  • The Court concluded defendants failed to prove fraudulent joinder, remanded the case to state court, and awarded plaintiff $7,600 in attorney’s fees for the removal litigation.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Alvarez and Ortiz were fraudulently joined, defeating diversity Ramirez argues his complaint plausibly states claims against the supervisors and that amendment could cure any pleading gaps Defendants contend supervisors are non‑diverse sham defendants and claims against them cannot succeed (including a statute‑of‑limitations theory for Alvarez) Joinder not fraudulent; disputed facts and possibility of viable state‑law claims foreclose finding of sham defendants; remand granted
Timeliness of claims against Alvarez (statute of limitations) Ramirez points to continuing unlawful conduct and ambiguous timing; continuing‑violation doctrine may apply Defendants claim Alvarez stopped supervising plaintiff in 2015 so FEHA claims are time‑barred Court rejects as a matter for remand: material facts disputed and continuing‑violation doctrine may save claims; limitations defense not established by clear and convincing evidence
Sufficiency of harassment / IIED claims against Ortiz Ramirez alleges mocking, ageist remarks, threats to terminate while on medical leave, ongoing humiliation; may amend with more facts Defendants say a single incident and personnel inquiries do not suffice for harassment or IIED Court finds harassment and IIED claims are plausibly pled or amendable; statutory changes and factual disputes mean claims survive fraudulent‑joinder scrutiny
Individual liability for wage‑and‑hour and UCL claims Ramirez alleges supervisors were "directly responsible" for wages/hours, timecard alterations, and thus liable under Cal. Lab. Code § 558.1 and UCL Defendants assert supervisors lack managing‑agent authority and were not personally involved Court finds complaint (and plaintiff’s declarations) permits a reasonable inference of managerial authority or personal involvement (or leave to amend); individual liability is plausible

Key Cases Cited

  • Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (federal removal jurisdiction principle)
  • In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig., 549 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 2008) (complete diversity explanation)
  • Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (removal statutes strictly construed)
  • Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1996) (burden on removing party)
  • Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (federal jurisdiction burden)
  • Calif. ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831 (9th Cir. 2004) (jurisdictional burden)
  • Moore–Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2009) (doubts resolved for remand)
  • Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co., 139 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 1998) (fraudulent joinder doctrine)
  • GranCare, LLC v. Thrower, 889 F.3d 543 (9th Cir. 2018) (fraudulent joinder standard)
  • Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2009) (fraudulent joinder analysis)
  • United Computer Sys., Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 298 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2002) ("obvious" standard for joinder)
  • Kruso v. Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416 (9th Cir. 1989) (resolving ambiguities for plaintiff)
  • Hamilton Materials, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Corp., 494 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir. 2007) (clear and convincing standard for fraudulent joinder)
  • Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (attorney’s‑fees standard for remand)
  • Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc., 26 Cal. 4th 798 (continuing‑violation doctrine in FEHA context)
  • Accardi v. Superior Ct., 17 Cal. App. 4th 341 (continuing violation and FEHA timeliness)
  • Sahadi v. Scheaffer, 155 Cal. App. 4th 704 (statute of limitations as question of fact)
  • Guardian N. Bay, Inc. v. Superior Ct., 94 Cal. App. 4th 963 (limits on demurrer based on statute of limitations)
  • Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hosp., 214 Cal. App. 3d 590 (hostile work environment elements)
  • Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal. 4th 1035 (IIED severe emotional distress standard)
  • Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics, 46 Cal. App. 4th 55 (supervisor liability for harassment)
  • Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917 (9th Cir.) (discussed regarding single‑incident limits)
Read the full case