2:13-cv-06194
C.D. Cal.Oct 25, 2013Background
- DeJean sued FedEx and supervisors in California state court alleging racial discrimination, harassment, wage/hour violations, wrongful termination, and emotional distress.
- Plaintiff claims he was subjected to a hostile environment, unfair tasks, race-based treatment, and denial of raises/bonuses.
- Supervisors Dicely and Demoss allegedly sabotaged equipment, created false misconduct records, and terminated DeJean; FedEx management allegedly failed to respond to HR appeals.
- Plaintiff sought transfers to other FedEx locations but received no HR response, contributing to the adverse workplace environment.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court alleging fraudulent joinder of Dicely and Demoss, despite complete diversity concerns.
- The court granted remand, holding Dicely and Demoss are not fraudulently joined because Plaintiff could prevail on intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is removal proper given forum defendants? | DeJean argues Dicely and Demoss are California residents and not fraudulently joined. | FedEx contends the non-diverse defendants are fraudulently joined to destroy complete diversity. | No; fraudulent joinder not established; remand appropriate. |
| Can Plaintiff state a claim against the non-diverse defendants for IIED or NIED to defeat removal? | Plaintiff shows possible extreme conduct and severe distress against Dicely/Demoss. | Defendants argue the claims fail as a matter of law at this stage. | Plaintiff could plausibly prevail; not fraudulent joinder. |
Key Cases Cited
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (federal question and preemption of state claims; removal cannot rely on federal defenses)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (U.S. 1997) (complete diversity required for § 1332)
- Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (strict construction of removal jurisdiction; heavy burden on removing party)
- Morris v. Princess Cruises Inc., 236 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2001) (fraudulent joinder concept; non-diverse defendant ignored if plaintiff cannot state a claim)
- McCabe v. Gen. Foods Corp., 811 F.2d 1336 (9th Cir. 1987) (test for fraudulent joinder includes whether plaintiff can state a claim)
- Plute v. Roadway Package Sys. Inc., 141 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (fraudulent joinder analyzed; doubt resolved in favor of remanding)
- Albi v. Street & Smith Publ’ns, 140 F.2d 310 (9th Cir. 1944) (resolve doubt in favor of remand when potential claim against non-diverse defendant exists)
- Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co., 139 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1998) (fraudulent joinder analysis guidance)
- Ortaliza v. Gen. Mills. Inc., 56 F.3d 72 (9th Cir. 1995) (elements of IIED claims and causation considerations)
- Hailey v. Cal. Physicians’ Serv., 158 Cal. App. 4th 452 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (severity requirement for emotional distress)
- Kiseskey v. Carpenters’ Trust for So. Cal., 144 Cal. App. 3d 222 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (proximate cause is a fact question; not decided at pleadings stage)