John Doe v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2:19-cv-05586

Background

Plaintiff John Doe, a California citizen and former Wells Fargo employee, sued Wells Fargo (South Dakota citizen), supervisor Joe Fillippelli (California citizen), and Does for FEHA sexual harassment, retaliation, failure to prevent harassment/retaliation, and IIED, arising from (1) a 2015 incident where Fillippelli allegedly grabbed Plaintiff’s genitals and (2) later supervisory actions in 2017–2018 including a sexual remark, reassignment, pay cut, and alleged retaliation.
Plaintiff filed a DFEH complaint on August 28, 2018 and obtained a right-to-sue notice; he sued in Los Angeles County Superior Court on May 15, 2019.
Defendants removed the case to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, arguing Fillippelli was fraudulently joined and his California citizenship should be disregarded.
Plaintiff moved to remand; Defendants opposed, contending FEHA and IIED claims against Fillippelli were time-barred or otherwise untenable.
The district court evaluated fraudulent joinder (with the heavy burden on removing defendants), statutory limitations under FEHA, and whether the pleaded and proffered facts could support quid pro quo or hostile-work-environment claims against Fillippelli.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fillippelli was fraudulently joined, destroying diversity jurisdiction	Fillippelli can be liable because recent 2018 conduct (sexual remark, reassignment, pay cut, retaliation) is timely and supports FEHA claims; Plaintiff can amend complaint to add facts	Fillippelli is a sham defendant: claims against him are time-barred (relying on 2015 incident) or are personnel actions not actionable under FEHA	Court: Remand granted. Defendants failed to meet heavy burden; plausible timely FEHA claims against Fillippelli exist, so joinder not fraudulent
Whether FEHA claims are time-barred	Plaintiff filed DFEH complaint in 2018 and alleges 2018 acts within one year of DFEH filing; therefore timely	Defendants rely on 2015 incident outside the one-year administrative window	Court: Plaintiff plausibly alleges 2018 acts (e.g., the remark and adverse actions) that fall within the DFEH limitations period; statute-of-limitations defense insufficient to establish fraudulent joinder
Whether alleged conduct states quid pro quo harassment against Fillippelli	Prior groping plus later sexual remark and ensuing adverse employment actions plausibly show sexual advance rejected then punished	Defendants say the remark was not a request for sexual exchange and adverse acts were business/personnel decisions	Court: Viewing pleadings and proffered facts favorably, a quid pro quo theory is possible and dismissal as a matter of law is inappropriate
Whether attorney fees should be awarded for improper removal	Plaintiff requests fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because removal lacked objective basis	Defendants argue their removal position was legally reasonable	Court: Denied fees — although removal failed, defendants’ removal position was not objectively unreasonable given the state of the pleadings and later-proffered amendatory facts

Key Cases Cited

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (diversity requires complete diversity)
Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d 770 (9th Cir. 2017) (removal party bears burden of proving jurisdiction)
Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2009) (fraudulent joinder doctrine explained)
McCabe v. Gen. Foods Corp., 811 F.2d 1336 (9th Cir. 1987) (if failure to state a claim is obvious under state law, joinder may be fraudulent)
Grancare, LLC v. Thrower by & through Mills, 889 F.3d 543 (9th Cir. 2018) (if any possibility of liability against resident defendant exists, joinder proper)
Weeping Hollow Ave. Trust v. Spencer, 831 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2016) (heavy burden on party asserting fraudulent joinder)
Hamilton Materials, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Corp., 494 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir. 2007) (fraudulent joinder must be proven by clear and convincing evidence)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (doubts about removal require remand)
Mullins v. Campbell Soup Co., 56 F.3d 75 (9th Cir. 1995) (timing of DFEH filings and harassment claims)
Josephs v. Pac. Bell, 443 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2006) (DFEH filing timing and right-to-sue rules)
Lawler v. Montblanc N. Am., LLC, 704 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2013) (distinguishing personnel management from actionable harassment)
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (award of fees on remand limited to unreasonable removals)
Lussier v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 518 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2008) (denying fees where removal position not objectively unreasonable)