Rangel v. Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC
200 F. Supp. 3d 1024
C.D. Cal.2016Background
- Plaintiff Gilbert Rangel, a California resident, sued Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC and store manager George Stylianoudakis (a California resident) in Los Angeles Superior Court for wrongful termination and related claims, including race harassment, age harassment, and IIED.
- Defendants removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332). Removal was facially defective because Plaintiff and Stylianoudakis are both California citizens.
- Defendants argued Stylianoudakis was fraudulently joined (a sham defendant) such that his citizenship could be disregarded for diversity.
- Plaintiff conceded he failed to exhaust administrative FEHA remedies against Stylianoudakis (DFEH) and was time-barred for the harassment claims against him.
- The IIED claim against Stylianoudakis in the operative complaint was factually conclusory and arose largely from employment decisions; Defendants argued the IIED claim failed as a matter of law.
- The court considered whether Defendants met the heavy burden to show fraudulent joinder (i.e., no possibility plaintiff could prevail or be granted leave to amend) and concluded Defendants did not meet that burden, so complete diversity was destroyed and remand was granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stylianoudakis is a sham (fraudulent joinder) | Stylianoudakis is a real, non-diverse defendant whose citizenship defeats diversity | Stylianoudakis was fraudulently joined because plaintiff cannot state viable claims against him (statute-barred harassment claims; IIED deficient) | Not a sham; defendants failed to show no possibility plaintiff could recover or that amendment would be futile; diversity destroyed |
| Viability of race- and age-harassment claims against Stylianoudakis | Rangel contends claims lie against defendants (but admits no DFEH exhaustion against Stylianoudakis) | Defendants: harassment claims are time-barred for lack of DFEH exhaustion and therefore fail as a matter of law | Harassment claims against Stylianoudakis fail as pleaded due to lack of DFEH exhaustion and statute of limitations; court treats those claims as legally insufficient |
| Viability of IIED claim against Stylianoudakis | IIED alleged; plaintiff argues facts could support supervisory liability and may be amended | Defendants: IIED allegations are conclusory, ordinary workplace conduct barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity, and insufficient as pleaded | IIED not adequately pleaded, but remand required because defendants failed to show plaintiff could not possibly amend to cure pleading defects |
| Attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) | Plaintiff seeks fees for improper removal ($4,800) | Defendants argue their removal was objectively reasonable | Fees denied: although removal was improper, defendants had an objectively reasonable basis to remove given pleading deficiencies against Stylianoudakis |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996) (complete diversity required under § 1332)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (strict construction of removal statute; burden on removing party)
- Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2009) (standards for considering fraudulent joinder and looking beyond the pleadings)
- McCabe v. General Foods Corp., 811 F.2d 1336 (9th Cir. 1987) (fraudulent joinder exists where plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against resident defendant under settled state law)
- Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co., 139 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 1998) (fraudulent joinder principles)
- Hamilton Materials, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Corp., 494 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir. 2007) (removing party must show failure to state a claim is obvious under settled state rules)
- Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2001) (courts may consider summary-judgment-type evidence when assessing fraudulent joinder)
- Christensen v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.3d 868 (Cal. 1991) (elements and extreme-outrage standard for IIED)
- Potter v. Ariz. S. Coach Lines, Inc., 202 Cal.App.3d 126 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (employment-related conduct giving rise to emotional distress claims falls under workers’ compensation exclusivity)