Rodolfo Cruz v. Hilton Resorts Corporation et al

Filing 23

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS)(IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Plaintiff's Motion to Remand by Judge R. Gary Klausner. In light of the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. IT IS SO ORDERED. Case remanded to State Court Case Remanded to BC645223. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (lom)

JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-00891-RGK (JEMx)

Title

RODOLFO CRUZ v. HILTON RESORTS CORP., et al

Present: The
Honorable

Date

April 3, 2017

R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Sharon L. Williams (Not Present)

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:
I.

(IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (DE 15)

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On December 28, 2016, Rodolfo Cruz (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Hilton Resorts
Corporation, and Hilton Worldwide Inc. (“Hilton”). Plaintiff’s Complaint arises out of his employment
with Defendant at the Beverly Hilton Hotel. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant discriminated against
Plaintiff when it passed him over for promotion twice, then committed retaliatory acts against Plaintiff
when he complained. Plaintiff asserts state claims for wrongful discharge, racial discrimination,
harassment on the basis of age and race, and retaliation.
On February 3, 2017, Hilton removed the action to federal court on the ground of diversity
jurisdiction. Hilton’s basis for removal were that Plaintiff is a California citizen, Hilton is a Delaware
citizen, and the amount in controversy, as alleged in the complaint, is at least $500,000.
On March 3, 3017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint that adds Oasis West Realty, LLC
(“Oasis”), a California citizen, as a named defendant.
By way of the current motion, Plaintiff seeks an order remanding the action to state court for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
II.

JUDICIAL STANDARD

A defendant may remove a case from state court when the federal court would have had original
jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The Ninth Circuit "strictly construe[s] the removal statute against
removal jurisdiction." Gaus v. Miles Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The strong presumption
against removal jurisdiction places the burden on the defendant to show by a preponderance of the
evidence that removal is proper. Id. at 566-67.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-00891-RGK (JEMx)

Title

RODOLFO CRUZ v. HILTON RESORTS CORP., et al

Date

April 3, 2017

“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also ARCO Envtl. Remediation v.
Dep't of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000) (“If a case is improperly
removed, the federal court must remand the action because it has no subject-matter jurisdiction to decide
the case.”) The court “resolves all ambiguity in favor of remand.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582
F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2000).
III.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks remand of the action on the ground that, as a citizen of California, Oasis destroys
complete diversity of citizenship. Upon review of the parties’ arguments the Court grants Plaintiff’s
request.
Under 28 U.S.C. §1447(e), “if after removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants
whose joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or permit joinder
and remand the action to State court.”
Here, the First Amended Complaint adds Oasis, a California citizen, as a named defendant.
Plaintiff alleges that, at all relevant time, Oasis was the owner of the Beverly Hilton Hotel, and the joint
employer of Plaintiff. (First Amended Complaint, ¶ 5.) Plaintiff further alleges that Oasis shared with
Hilton authority and control over personnel and employment practices. (First Amended Complaint, ¶ 6.)
Assuming these allegations true, there is no reason to believe that Oasis was misjoined. Nor does Hilton
make such an argument. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s joinder of Oasis under Rule 20 is
proper, and remand of this action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate.
IV.

CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of
Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2