Eric Dean Aleshire v. Amazon.com Service LLC et al

Filing 22

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND 12 ; AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS 13 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 12), and REMANDS the case to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90012, No. 23STCV22830. In light of the remand, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 13.) (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) (MD JS-6. Case Terminated) (rolm)

O
JS-6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

ERIC DEAN ALESHIRE,
Plaintiff,

12

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

v.

13
14

Case No. 2:23-cv-8853-ODW (ASx)

AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC et al.,

DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

Defendants.

15

MOTION TO REMAND [12]; AND
TO DISMISS [13]

16
17

I.

INTRODUCTION

18

On September 21, 2023, Plaintiff Eric Dean Aleshire filed this action for

19

violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) in the Superior

20

Court of California, County of Los Angeles. (Decl. Cassidy C. Veal ISO Notice

21

Removal Ex. A (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1-2.)

22

Amazon.com Services, LLC and Mildred Linares removed this action based on federal

23

diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Notice Removal (“NOR”) ¶ 13,

24

ECF No 1.) Aleshire now moves to remand. (Mot. Remand (“Motion” or “Mot.”), ECF

25

No. 12.)

26

REMANDS this action to the Los Angeles Superior Court.1

On October 20, 2023, Defendants

For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion and

27
28

1

After carefully considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court
deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.

II.

1

BACKGROUND

2

On November 1, 2021, Amazon hired Aleshire. (First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) ¶ 11,

3

ECF No. 11.) Aleshire reported to Linares, an Amazon employee with managerial

4

authority over him. (See id. ¶ 15.)

5

On March 11, 2022, Aleshire requested six days leave from Linares, for his son’s

6

medical treatment. (Id. ¶ 12.) On March 20, 2023, Aleshire developed pneumonia and

7

requested an additional five days of medical leave. (Id. ¶ 14.) Aleshire alleges that

8

during this period, Linares created a hostile work environment and subjected him to

9

oppressive conduct by (1) repeatedly failing to provide correct information to Aleshire

10

and Amazon’s “DLS department” to approve Aleshire’s leave; and (2) falsely

11

professing on March 28, 2023, “you’re not going to lose your job.”

12

Defendants initially terminated Aleshire on March 31, 2023. (Id. ¶ 11.) Despite

13

Aleshire’s appeal of the termination decision, on April 3, 2023, Amazon confirmed his

14

termination. (Id. ¶¶ 16–17.)

(Id. ¶ 15.)

15

On September 21, 2023, Aleshire filed this lawsuit against Defendants in the

16

Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. (NOR ¶ 2.) In the Complaint,

17

and the First Amended Complaint, Aleshire asserts eight causes of action against

18

Amazon: (1) discrimination based on physical disability; (2) associational disability;

19

(3) failure to accommodate actual or perceived physical disability; (4) failure to engage

20

in good faith interactive process; (5) hostile work environment harassment; (6) failure

21

to prevent discriminatory practices; (7) retaliation for requesting/taking California

22

Family Rights Act Leave; and (8) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

23

(See FAC ¶¶ 20–112; see also Compl. ¶¶ 18–110.)

24

Defendants removed this action to federal court based on federal diversity

25

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (NOR ¶ 13.) Aleshire now moves to

26

remand. (See generally Mot.) The Motion is fully briefed. (Opp’n, ECF No. 16; Reply,

27

ECF No. 17.)

28

2

III.

1

LEGAL STANDARD

2

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject-matter

3

jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. U.S. Const.

4

Art. III, § 2, cl. 1; e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377

5

(1994). Federal courts have original jurisdiction where an action presents a federal

6

question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A

7

defendant may remove a case from a state court to a federal court pursuant to the federal

8

removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, based on federal question or diversity jurisdiction.

9

There is a strong presumption that a court is without federal jurisdiction unless

10

affirmatively proven otherwise. Fifty Assocs. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 446 F.2d

11

1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1970); see Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)

12

(“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in

13

the first instance.”). The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal

14

jurisdiction. Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. To exercise diversity jurisdiction, a federal court

15

must find both complete diversity of citizenship among the adverse parties, and that the

16

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, usually exclusive of interest and costs.

17

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
IV.

18

DISCUSSION

19

Although Aleshire and Linares are both citizens of California, (FAC ¶¶ 3–6),

20

Defendants argue the complete diversity requirement is met because Linares is a “sham”

21

defendant who is fraudulently joined (NOR ¶¶ 13–33.) As Defendants do not dispute

22

that Linares is a citizen of California, (see Opp’n 2), the question is whether Linares is

23

a proper party to the action or fraudulently joined such that the Court may disregard her

24

citizenship. The Court finds that complete diversity is destroyed because Linares is not

25

a “sham” defendant.

26

Where a defendant invokes diversity of citizenship as the basis of the court’s

27

subject matter jurisdiction, as Defendants have done here, the Supreme Court has

28

consistently held 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires complete diversity. E.g. Exxon Mobil Corp.

3

1

v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005). Meaning, that the presence of a

2

single defendant from the same state as a single plaintiff will generally deprive federal

3

courts of original diversity jurisdiction. Id. An exception to this rule arises “where a

4

non-diverse defendant has been ‘fraudulently joined.’” Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc.,

5

236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001).

6

There is a presumption against finding fraudulent joinder and defendants have a

7

heavy burden of persuasion. See Hamilton Materials, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Corp.,

8

494 F.3d 1203, 1206 (9th Cir. 2007). To support a claim that a non-diverse defendant

9

has been fraudulently joined, or is a “sham” defendant, the removing party must show

10

that the plaintiff “fails to state a cause of action . . . and the failure is obvious according

11

to the settled rules of the state.” Id. Accordingly, a non-diverse defendant is deemed a

12

“sham” defendant if, after all disputed questions of fact and ambiguities in the

13

controlling state law are resolved in the plaintiff’s favor, there is no “possibility that a

14

state court would find that the complaint states a cause of action against” the defendant

15

whose joinder is questioned. Grancare, LLC v. Thrower by & through Mills, 889 F.3d

16

543, 548 (9th Cir. 2018). If the court finds the non-diverse defendant is fraudulently

17

joined, it may disregard that defendant’s citizenship for purposes of the complete

18

diversity analysis. See id.; Revay v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-03391-

19

RSWL (ASx), 2015 WL 1285287, at *2, 3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2015) (noting that “[o]ne

20

exception to the requirement of complete diversity is where a non-diverse defendant has

21

been ‘fraudulently joined’ . . . and the defendant’s presence in the lawsuit is ignored for

22

purposes of determining diversity”).

23

Under California law, actions for discrimination and actions for harassment are

24

distinguishable. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a), (j). Under FEHA, it is unlawful for

25

an employer or any other person to engage in harassment. See id. § 12940(a), (j)(1).

26

To establish a claim for harassment, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) he is a

27

member of a protected group; (2) he was subjected to harassment because he belonged

28

to this group; and (3) the alleged harassment was so severe that it created a hostile work

4

1

hostile work environment. Lawler v. Montblanc N. Am., LLC, 704 F.3d 1235, 1244

2

(9th Cir. 2013). A “plaintiff must also show a ‘concerted pattern’ of harassment of a

3

repeated, routine or a generalized nature.” Id. Ultimately, remand must be granted

4

unless the defendant shows that the plaintiff would not be afforded leave to amend his

5

complaint to cure the purported deficiency. Burris v. AT&T Wireless, Inc., No. C

6

06-02904 JSW, 2006 WL 2038040, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2006).

7

Conversely, personnel related management decisions such as hiring, firing,

8

discipline, performance, evaluations, compensation, requests for accommodation or job

9

assignments cannot constitute unlawful harassment, for they are inside the scope of

10

managerial employment. Janken v. GM Hughes Elecs., 46 Cal. App. 4th 55, 64 (1996);

11

see Reno v. Baird, 18 Cal. 4th 640, 645–46 (1998) (finding that harassment usually

12

consists of “a type of conduct not necessary for performance of a supervisory job”).

13

The California Supreme Court acknowledged that personnel management

14

decisions can be evidence of harassment where they are used as the means to

15

communicate a harassing message or create a hostile work environment. See Roby v.

16

McKesson Corp., 47 Cal. 4th 686, 708 (2009), as modified (Feb. 10, 2010) (“[I]n some

17

cases the hostile message that constitutes the harassment is conveyed through official

18

employment actions, and therefore evidence that would otherwise be associated with a

19

discrimination claim can form the basis of a harassment claim.”). Thus, allegations “of

20

biased personnel management actions” may support a claim of harassment so long as

21

they are “relevant to prove the communication of a hostile message.” Id.

22

Here, Aleshire alleges that Linares (1) repeatedly provided false information to

23

Aleshire and Amazon regarding the approval of Aleshire’s leave; and (2) falsely

24

professed “you’re not going to lose your job.” (FAC ¶ 15.) Aleshire argues these

25

actions amounted to hostile work environment harassment. (Id.) Defendants contend

26

Linares’s alleged actions fall inside the scope of managerial employment and do not

27

constitute harassment under the law. (Opp’n 4–6.)

28

5

1

Under the current set of factual allegations, Aleshire could sufficiently allege a

2

“concerted pattern” regarding Linares’s actions. (See FAC ¶¶ 15, 16, 70–80.) By

3

resolving all disputed questions of fact and ambiguities in the controlling state law in

4

the plaintiff’s favor, a state court could find Aleshire’s allegation that Linares

5

“repeatedly” provided false information plausible.

6

889 F.3d at 548.

(See id.); see also Grancare,

7

In light of the foregoing, Defendants fail to meet their burden of establishing that

8

there is no possibility a state court would find the First Amended Complaint, or a

9

subsequent amendment, states a cause of actions against Linares.

Therefore,

10

Defendants fail to establish Linares is a “sham” defendant, particularly considering the

11

“strong presumption against removal jurisdiction.” See Hunter v. Philip Morris USA,

12

582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the Court finds Linares is not a

13

“sham” defendant and the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction.
V.

14

CONCLUSION

15

For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to

16

Remand, (ECF No. 12), and REMANDS the case to the Superior Court of the State of

17

California for the County of Los Angeles, 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA,

18

90012, No. 23STCV22830. In light of the remand, the Court DENIES AS MOOT

19

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 13.)

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

March 12, 2024

24
25
26
27

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

6