Timothy Ashcroft v. HEC Global, Inc. et al

Filing 23

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REMAND (Doc. 16) by Judge Josephine L. Staton: For the reasons stated above, the Court REMANDS the action to the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case Number 30-2017-00948385-CU-OE-CJC. The Court declines to impose sanctions. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (es)

JS-6

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:17-cv-01996-JLS-JDE
Title: Timothy Ashcroft v. HEC Global, Inc.

Date: January 25, 2018

Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Terry Guerrero
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:

Not Present

N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND (Doc. 16)

Before the Court is Plaintiff Timothy Ashcroft’s Motion to Remand Case. (Doc.
16.) Defendant HEC Global, Inc. opposed, and Ashcroft replied. (Opp., Doc. 21; Reply,
Doc. 22.) The Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. R. 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set for January 26,
2018, at 2:30 p.m., is VACATED. Having read and considered the papers, the Court
GRANTS Ashcroft’s Motion.
I.

BACKGROUND

This case arises from a contract and employment dispute between Ashcroft and his
employer, HEC. (Compl. ¶¶ 12-20 , Doc 1-2.) Ashcroft asserts that in or around
November 2016, HEC offered him a new position based in Taiwain. (Id. ¶ 13.) Because
the position would necessitate moving his family to Taiwan, Plaintiff alleges that he
sought assurances that he would be with the company for a significant enough period to
justify the move. (Id. ¶ 14.) He alleges that he relied upon assurances from the company
that he was “like family,” but was ultimately terminated four months after relocating to
Taiwan. (Id. ¶¶ 16-17.)
Following his termination, Ashcroft filed suit in Orange County Superior Court.
(Compl.) His Complaint alleged the following causes of action: (1) breach of
employment contract; (2) misrepresentation pursuant to Labor Code section 970; (3)
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1

JS-6

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:17-cv-01996-JLS-JDE
Title: Timothy Ashcroft v. HEC Global, Inc.

Date: January 25, 2018

negligent misrepresentation; (4) intentional misrepresentation; (5) waiting time penalties
in violation of California Labor Code sections 201 through 203; and (6) defamation (Id.
¶¶ 21-58). On November 10, 2017, HEC removed the action on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction. (Not. of Removal, Doc. 1.) In its Notice of Removal, HEC stated that
Ashcroft is a resident of Taiwan and should be considered a citizen thereof for purposes
of removal. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9). It stated that it was a citizen of California, as it was
incorporated in and has its principal place of business in California. (Id. ¶ 10.) Finally,
because Ashcroft claimed in his complaint that he was due severance in an amount equal
to his annual salary of $250,000, HEC alleged that the amount in controversy
requirement for diversity jurisdiction was satisfied. (Id. ¶ 14.)
Eleven days later, HEC filed an Amended Notice of Removal. (Doc. 12.) HEC
still claimed that the Court had jurisdiction because the parties were diverse, but alleged
that Ashcroft was not a citizen of Taiwan and instead should be considered a citizen of
Oregon, the state where he received his paychecks. (Id. ¶ 6.) HEC claimed that it had
been erroneously sued and the proper defendant was HEC International, Ltd., which is
headquartered in Taipei. (Id.) HEC explained that it “inadvertently omitted” this
information from its original Notice of Removal. (Id.) This briefing followed.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1441(b)(2), a “civil action otherwise removable
solely on the basis of [diversity jurisdiction] may not be removed if any of the parties in
interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such
action is brought.” In the Ninth Circuit, the removal statute is “strictly construed . . .
against removal jurisdiction.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992). Third-party
defendants cannot remove actions to federal court. Westwood Apex v. Contreras, 644
F.3d 799, 805-806 (9th Cir. 2011).
III.

DISCUSSION

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2

JS-6

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:17-cv-01996-JLS-JDE
Title: Timothy Ashcroft v. HEC Global, Inc.

Date: January 25, 2018

There is no dispute that the defendant sued in the state court action is a citizen of
California. Accordingly, absent some exception to the rule against a local defendant
removing a case to federal court, the Court must remand. HEC has alleged no authority
supporting its position that it can unilaterally substitute a different defendant for the one
named in the complaint. Moreover, citizenship is determined by the citizenship of the
parties as of the filing of the original complaint. See Morongo Band of Mission Indians v.
California State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.3d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). The complaint
was unambiguously filed against HEC Global; HEC Global is the entity that removed the
action. HEC offers no legal authority that would allow the Court to determine citizenship
based an Amended Notice of Removal filed eleven days after the first notice and more
than a month after the allegedly incorrect entity had originally been served. Nor is the
Court convinced that the amendment was due to an inadvertent omission; the Amended
Notice entirely upends the citizenship of the parties as pleaded in the original Notice of
Removal.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that this action was improperly removed by a
local defendant.
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court REMANDS the action to the Superior
Court of California, County of Orange, Case Number 30-2017-00948385-CU-OE-CJC.
The Court declines to impose sanctions.
Initials of Preparer: tg

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
3