Maeve Courtney v. USI Insurance Services, LLC, 8:21-cv-01522

Plaintiff Maeve Courtney sued USI Insurance Services, LLC and her supervisor Duke Tomei in Orange County Superior Court for employment discrimination and harassment; defendants removed the case to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction.
Defendants argued Tomei (a California resident) was fraudulently joined to defeat diversity because individual liability for employment discrimination claims is unavailable; the court had earlier granted dismissal of the original individual claims.
Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint adding a FEHA harassment claim against Tomei based on alleged sexist remarks, differential treatment (denied schedule flexibility and training, PIP placement), and a coworker corroboration; Plaintiff was later terminated.
Defendants moved to dismiss the harassment claim, contending many allegations reflect official employment actions (discrimination) not harassment and therefore fail as to an individual.
The court applied the Ninth Circuit fraudulent-joinder standard (heavy burden on removing defendant; remand if there is any possibility a state court would find a cause of action) and concluded defendants did not show Tomei was fraudulently joined.
The court granted Plaintiff's motion to remand to state court and therefore declined to rule on defendants' pending motion to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether complete diversity exists / whether Tomei was fraudulently joined	Courtney: both she and Tomei are CA residents; Tomei was properly joined	USI/Tomei: Tomei was fraudulently joined because individual employment claims cannot be maintained (claims fail)	Court: Tomei was not fraudulently joined; remand granted because defendants failed to show impossibility of liability
Whether Plaintiff stated (or could plausibly plead) a FEHA harassment claim against an individual supervisor	Courtney: alleged sexist remark, differential treatment, corroborating coworker, and adverse actions could show harassment and discriminatory animus	USI/Tomei: conduct alleged are official employment actions (discrimination), not harassment; allegations are not sufficiently pervasive or objectively offensive	Court: Official acts can support harassment if they convey hostile message or show discriminatory animus; there is at least a possibility a state court would find harassment; claim not proven frivolous
Whether amendment would be futile or leave to amend should be denied	Courtney: could amend to add further allegations if needed	USI/Tomei: Plaintiff sued in bad faith to defeat diversity; prior correspondence shows deficiencies would remain	Court: Defendants did not show amendment would be futile or that leave would be unavailable; remand required unless defendants prove amendment impossible

Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013) (federal courts have limited jurisdiction).
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (removal statute construed narrowly; burden on removing defendant).
Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co., 139 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 1998) (fraudulent joinder doctrine and burden on defendant).
Grancare, LLC v. Thrower by & through Mills, 889 F.3d 543 (9th Cir. 2018) (fraudulent-joinder standard requires possibility a state court would find a claim).
Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2009) (resolve doubts in favor of remand; joinder proper if possibility of state-law claim exists).
Hamilton Materials, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Corp., 494 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir. 2007) (fraudulent joinder must be shown by clear and convincing evidence).
Roby v. McKesson Corp., 47 Cal.4th 686 (2009) (official employment actions can provide evidentiary support for a harassment claim when they show discriminatory animus).
Rangel v. Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, 200 F. Supp. 3d 1024 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (remand required unless defendant shows plaintiff would be denied leave to amend).