Madel Grageola v. Walmart Associates, Inc. et al

Filing 23

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHETHER PLAINTIFF CAN PLEAD SUFFICIENT FACTS TO STATE THE SECOND AND NINTH CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT BRIANA GONZALEZ 10 by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. The court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause ("OSC") in writing, within fourteen (14) days of this Order, whether Plaintiff can plead sufficient facts to state the second and ninth causes of action against Gonzalez. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) (rolm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MADEL GRAGEOLA,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

Case No. 5:23-cv-02210-FLA (SHKx)

v.
WALMART ASSOCIATES, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
WHETHER PLAINTIFF CAN
PLEAD SUFFICIENT FACTS TO
STATE THE SECOND AND NINTH
CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST
DEFENDANT BRIANA GONZALEZ
[DKT. 10]

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1

1

ORDER

2

On August 8, 2023, Plaintiff Madel Grageola (“Plaintiff” or “Grageola”) filed a

3

Complaint in the Riverside County Superior Court, asserting nine causes of action for:

4

(1) discrimination in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act

5

(“FEHA”), Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940; (2) harassment in violation of FEHA; (3)

6

retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or

7

retaliation in violation of FEHA; (5) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA; (6)

8

failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of FEHA; (7)

9

wrongful termination in violation of California public policy; (8) breach of

10

oral/implied contract; and (9) intentional infliction of severe emotional distress. Dkt.

11

1-1 (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 14–80.1

12

Plaintiff asserts all causes of action against Defendants Walmart, Inc. and Wal-

13

Mart Associates, Inc. (the “Walmart Defendants”), and additionally asserts the second

14

and ninth causes of action against Defendants Briana Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”), Alex

15

Doe, and Rebecca Doe. Id. On October 27, 2023, the Walmart Defendants removed

16

the action to this court, alleging the existence of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

17

§ 1332 (“§ 1332”). Dkt. 1 (“NOR”) at 3–5.

18

On November 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Remand to State Court

19

(“Motion”). Dkt. 10 (“Mot.”); Dkt. 10-1 (“Mot. Br.”). Plaintiff contends the action

20

was improperly removed because complete diversity does not exist between the

21

parties. Mot. Br. at 2–3, 5–6. The Wal-Mart Defendants respond the removal was

22

proper because the non-diverse Defendant, Gonzalez, is a sham Defendant whose

23

citizenship should be disregarded under the doctrine of fraudulent joinder. Dkt. 14

24

(“Opp’n”) at 2.

25

///

26
27
28

1

Although the caption of the Complaint also lists a cause of action for violation of the
California Family Rights Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 12945.2 (Compl. at 1), Plaintiff did
not plead such a cause of action in the body of the Complaint.
2

1

Diversity jurisdiction under § 1332 “requir[es] complete diversity: In a case

2

with multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, the presence in the action of a single

3

plaintiff from the same State as a single defendant deprives the district court of

4

original diversity jurisdiction over the entire action.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah

5

Servs., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005). “In determining whether there is complete

6

diversity, district courts may disregard the citizenship of a non-diverse defendant who

7

has been fraudulently joined.” GranCare, LLC v. Thrower, 889 F.3d 543, 548

8

(9th Cir. 2018) (citing Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Cockrell, 232 U.S. 146, 152

9

(1914)). “There are two ways to establish fraudulent joinder: (1) actual fraud in the

10

pleading of jurisdictional facts, or (2) inability of the plaintiff to establish a cause of

11

action against the non-diverse party in state court.” Id. (quotation marks and citation

12

omitted). “Fraudulent joinder is established the second way if a defendant shows that

13

an individual joined in the action cannot be liable on any theory.” Id. (quotation

14

marks, citation, and brackets omitted).

15

“[R]emoval statutes should be construed narrowly in favor of remand to protect

16

the jurisdiction of state courts.” Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 698

17

(9th Cir. 2005). It is not enough for a defendant to show that a plaintiff is unlikely to

18

prevail on her claim; “if there is a possibility that a state court would find that the

19

complaint states a cause of action against any of the [non-diverse] defendants, the

20

federal court must find that the joinder was proper and remand the case to the state

21

court.” GranCare, 889 F.3d at 548 (emphasis in original, quotation marks and

22

citation omitted). “A defendant invoking federal court diversity jurisdiction on the

23

basis of fraudulent joinder bears a heavy burden since there is a general presumption

24

against finding fraudulent joinder.” Id. (quotation marks and brackets omitted).

25

The Walmart Defendants contend “Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable

26

claim for relief against Defendant Briana Gonzalez, whom Plaintiff alleges to be her

27

‘supervisor/manager’ and whom Plaintiff named as defendant to the Second Cause of

28

Action for Harassment in Violation of California Government Code Section 12940(j)
3

1

and the last purported cause of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

2

(‘IIED’).” Opp’n at 4. According to the Walmart Defendants, Plaintiff has not

3

pleaded and cannot plead specific facts regarding conduct by Gonzalez sufficient to

4

constitute harassment under FEHA (id. at 7–8) or “that is so extreme and outrageous

5

as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and

6

utterly intolerable in a civilized society,” as required to support a claim for IIED (id. at

7

6). Plaintiff did not file a reply or respond to this argument.

8
9

As this action must be remanded “if there is a possibility that a state court
would find that the complaint states a cause of action against [Gonzalez],” see

10

GranCare, 889 F.3d at 548 (emphasis in original), the court ORDERS Plaintiff to

11

show cause (“OSC”) in writing, within fourteen (14) days of this Order, whether

12

Plaintiff can plead sufficient facts to state the second and ninth causes of action

13

against Gonzalez. Plaintiff’s response shall not exceed 8 pages and shall identify

14

specifically the facts sufficient to state these claims that she has pleaded or will plead

15

if given leave to amend. Failure to respond timely may be deemed an admission that

16

these claims lack merit and result in the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against

17

Gonzalez with prejudice. Defendants may file a response within seven (7) days of

18

Plaintiff’s response, if any is filed.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: July 25, 2024

______________________________
FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
4