Michael Waring v. Geodis Logistics LLC
2:19-cv-04415
| C.D. Cal. | Jul 29, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Michael Waring, a California resident, sued Geodis Logistics LLC in state court asserting multiple FEHA claims (disability discrimination, failure to accommodate/interactive process, CFRA retaliation), wrongful termination, IIED, and wage claim after his termination following CFRA leave.
- Defendant removed to federal court based on diversity; removal asserted defendant is Tennessee citizen. Plaintiff then moved to amend to add Hal Stewart (alleged California resident HR manager) and new invasion-of-privacy claim, which would destroy complete diversity and require remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e).
- The alleged conduct by Stewart: disclosure/publication of Plaintiff’s personal cell phone number (twice) while Plaintiff had received prior threats, causing numerous harassing calls and alleged severe emotional distress.
- Plaintiff sought leave to file a second amended complaint (SAC) and to remand; defendant opposed, arguing the Stewart claims are unrelated, that joinder would be improper forum manipulation, and noted procedural/pleading issues.
- The court evaluated joinder under § 1447(e) factors (necessity, statute of limitations, delay, motive, validity of claim, prejudice) and also discussed Rule 15(a) factors, concluding § 1447(e) governs post-removal additions of non-diverse defendants.
- Holding: Court denied leave to amend/join Stewart and denied remand, finding undue delay and improper motive (forum manipulation) outweighed the plausibility of the new claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joinder of Stewart (a non-diverse defendant) should be allowed post-removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) | Stewart is a necessary party; claims arise from same circumstances; separate suit would be redundant and statute of limitations would not bar suit later | Stewart's conduct is tangential; joinder is sought after removal and appears designed to defeat diversity; delay undermines claim | Denied: § 1447(e) factors (delay, motive, and availability of separate suit) weigh against joinder |
| Whether the proposed invasion-of-privacy and IIED claims against Stewart are sufficiently valid/plausible | Allegations (publication of phone number amid prior death threat; repeated postings causing harassment) plausibly state invasion-of-privacy and IIED | Claims are speculative and based on facts outside complaint (e.g., phone was work phone) | Court found claims arguably plausible (not futile) but plausibility alone insufficient to require joinder post-removal |
| Whether Plaintiff’s delay in seeking joinder justifies denial | Delay was not long (about 10 weeks) and discovery had not begun | Plaintiff knew facts pre-filing and nevertheless waited until after removal to add Stewart, suggesting manipulation | Delay and timing (adding Stewart only after removal) weigh against amendment/joining |
| Whether Rule 15(a) liberal amendment standard should override § 1447(e) analysis | Rule 15(a) favors amendment absent prejudice, so leave should be granted | Allowing Rule 15(a) to control would permit forum manipulation and defeat § 1447(e)’s purpose | Court applied § 1447(e) (more restrictive) and declined to allow amendment despite Rule 15(a) favoring amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (Rule 15(a) factors for leave to amend)
- Clinco v. Roberts, 41 F. Supp. 2d 1080 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (post-removal joinder of non-diverse defendant analyzed under § 1447(e))
- Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) (prejudice is primary concern in Rule 15(a) analysis)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for facial plausibility)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Stevens v. Brink's Home Sec., Inc., 378 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2004) (if joinder permitted and diversity destroyed, court must remand)
- Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686 (9th Cir. 1998) (remand required when post-removal joinder destroys diversity)
- Christensen v. Superior Court, 54 Cal. 3d 868 (1991) (elements of IIED in California)