Cynthia Padock v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al

Filing 27

MINUTES ORDER GRANTING Motion to Remand 15 and REMAINDING Case to Orange County Superior Court by Judge Fred W. Slaughter: The court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion and REMANDS this action to Orange County Superior Court as case number 30-2024-01387272-CU-OE-NJC. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)

_________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:24-cv-00890-FWS-JDE
Title: Cynthia Padock v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.

JS-6
Date: July 2, 2024

Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Melissa H. Kunig
Deputy Clerk
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
Not Present

N/A
Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND [15] AND
REMANDING CASE TO ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
Before the court is Plaintiff Cynthia Padock’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand (“Motion”
or “Mot.”). (Dkt. 15.) Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”), Prime Now, LLC (“Prime
Now”), and Whole Foods Market California, Inc. (“Whole Foods”) (collectively, “Defendants”)
oppose the Motion (“Opposition” or “Opp.”). (Dkt. 24.) Plaintiff also filed a Reply in support
of the Motion (“Reply”). (Dkt. 25.) The court finds this matter appropriate for resolution
without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) (“By rule or order, the court may provide for
submitting and determining motions on briefs, without oral hearings.”); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15
(authorizing courts to “dispense with oral argument on any motion except where an oral hearing
is required by statute”). Accordingly, the hearing set for July 11, 2024, is VACATED and off
calendar. Based on the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, the court GRANTS
the Motion and REMANDS this case to Orange County Superior Court.
I.

Background

Plaintiff “physically worked at [a] Whole Foods Market” location in Laguna Niguel,
California, “shop[ping] the store for various items, [and] fulfilling pre-designated orders”
customers made through Amazon and Prime Now. (Dkt. 1-2 (Complaint, “Compl.”) ¶ 8; see
Dkt. 24-1 (Declaration of Jennifer Sorace, “Sorace Decl.”) ¶ 7, Ex. A (Plaintiff’s Job
Description).) “For instance, if someone had a shopping list of 30 items – [Plaintiff] would
_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1

_________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:24-cv-00890-FWS-JDE
Title: Cynthia Padock v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.

JS-6
Date: July 2, 2024

shop for those 30 items, bag them, and prepare them for either pick up or delivery.” (Compl.
¶ 8.) After her employment was terminated, Plaintiff filed this case in Orange County Superior
Court, asserting claims including wrongful discharge, disability discrimination, and retaliation
against Amazon, Prime Now, and Whole Foods. (See generally Compl.)
Amazon and Prime Now removed the case to this court, arguing that complete diversity
exists because: (1) Plaintiff is a resident of California; (2) Amazon and Prime Now are citizens
of Delaware and Washington; and (3) Whole Foods was fraudulently joined such that its
California citizenship should be disregarded. (Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 11-29.) Plaintiff argues in the Motion
that Whole Foods was not fraudulently joined and thus the court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over this action. (See generally Mot.) The crux of the parties’ dispute is whether
Plaintiff could possibly state a claim against Whole Foods—a party that destroys otherwise
complete diversity—as an employer. (See generally Mot.; Opp.)
II.

Legal Standard

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction with subject matter jurisdiction over only
those suits authorized by the Constitution or Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,
511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). When a suit originates in state court, a defendant may remove to
federal court only when the suit could have been filed in federal court originally. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(a). “In civil cases, subject matter jurisdiction is generally conferred upon federal district
courts either through diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or federal question jurisdiction,
28 U.S.C. § 1331.” Peralta v. Hisp. Bus., Inc., 419 F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir. 2005).
Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the parties and that the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267
(1806); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978)
(“[D]iversity jurisdiction does not exist unless each defendant is a citizen of a different State
from each plaintiff.”); Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th
Cir. 2003) (“Jurisdiction founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires that the parties be in complete
diversity and the amount in controversy exceed $75,000.”); Lee v. Am. Nat. Ins. Co., 260 F.3d
_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2

_________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:24-cv-00890-FWS-JDE
Title: Cynthia Padock v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.

JS-6
Date: July 2, 2024

997, 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The diversity jurisdiction statute, as construed for nearly 200 years,
requires that to bring a diversity case in federal court against multiple defendants, each plaintiff
must be diverse from each defendant.”). If a party is a partnership, limited liability company, or
other unincorporated association, the court must consider the citizenship of each of the partners,
including limited partners, or members, must be alleged. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S.
185, 195-96 (1990); Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899. If a party is a corporation, the complaint must
allege both its state(s) of incorporation and principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c);
Harris v. Rand, 682 F.3d 846, 850 (9th Cir. 2012). If a party is a natural person, the complaint
must allege their state of domicile, which is their permanent home, where they reside with the
intention to remain or to which they intend to return. Ehrman v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc., 932 F.3d
1223, 1227 (9th Cir. 2019).
“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). “The removal statute is strictly
construed against removal jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls
to the party invoking the statute.” California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838
(9th Cir. 2004) (citing Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988));
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if
there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”) (citing Libhart v. Santa
Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)).
III.

Discussion

Plaintiff argues that this case should be remanded because the parties are not completely
diverse as 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 requires. (Mot. at 4.) The parties agree that Plaintiff and
Whole Foods are citizens of California, Amazon and Prime Now are citizens of Delaware and
Washington, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (See Mot. at 4; Opp. at 10.)
They dispute only whether Whole Foods’ citizenship can be disregarded under the doctrine of
fraudulent joinder. (See id.) In sum, the court’s subject matter jurisdiction depends upon
whether Whole Foods was fraudulently joined, which in turn depends on whether Plaintiff
_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
3

_________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:24-cv-00890-FWS-JDE
Title: Cynthia Padock v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.

JS-6
Date: July 2, 2024

could possibly state a claim against Whole Foods as an employer. (See Mot. at 14-15; Opp. at
2.)
“In determining whether there is complete diversity, district courts may disregard the
citizenship of a non-diverse defendant who has been fraudulently joined.” Grancare, LLC v.
Thrower ex rel. Mills, 889 F.3d 543, 548 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v.
Cockrell, 232 U.S. 146, 152 (1914)). However, courts apply both a “strong presumption against
removal jurisdiction,” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566, and a “general presumption against fraudulent
joinder,” Hamilton Materials, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Corp., 494 F.3d 1203, 1206 (9th Cir. 2007)
(citation omitted). Accordingly, “[a] defendant invoking federal court diversity jurisdiction on
the basis of fraudulent joinder bears a ‘heavy burden’” of proving fraudulent joinder by “clear
and convincing evidence.” Grancare, 889 F.3d at 548; see also Hamilton Materials, 494 F.3d
at 1206 (citing Pampillonia v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., 138 F.3d 459, 461 (2d Cir. 1998)).
A defendant may establish fraudulent joinder through: “(1) actual fraud in the pleading of
jurisdictional facts, or (2) inability of the plaintiff to establish a cause of action against the nondiverse party in state court.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 2009)
(quoting Smallwood v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 385 F.3d 568, 573 (5th Cir. 2004)). Under the second
method, “if there is a possibility that a state court would find that the complaint states a cause of
action against any of the resident defendants, the federal court must find that the joinder was
proper and remand the case to the state court.” Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1046 (quoting Tillman v.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, 340 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003)); see also Grancare, 889 F.3d at
549 (“A claim against a defendant may fail under Rule 12(b)(6), but that defendant has not
necessarily been fraudulently joined.”).
Defendants argue Whole Foods was fraudulently joined under the second theory,
contending that Plaintiff cannot establish a cause of action against Whole Foods because
“Plaintiff’s own allegations in the Complaint make clear that Whole Foods did not employ her,”
and “[t]o the extent that Plaintiff specifically references Whole Foods in the Complaint, those
allegations show that she did not work for Whole Foods and knew that she did not.” (Opp. at
11-16; see Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 18-29); see Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1044. In response, Plaintiff maintains
_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
4

_________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:24-cv-00890-FWS-JDE
Title: Cynthia Padock v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.

JS-6
Date: July 2, 2024

Whole Foods may be liable under three theories: (1) ostensible agency liability, (2) joint
employer liability, and (3) integrated enterprise liability (single employer liability). (Mot. at 6
(citing Compl. ¶¶ 6-7); Reply at 3.)
The court finds Amazon has not met its heavy burden of demonstrating by clear and
convincing evidence that Whole Foods was fraudulently joined. The parties agree that Plaintiff
may only assert employment-related claims against entities that served as her “employer.” But
“[t]he question whether an entity functions as an employer typically involves a ‘careful factual
inquiry.’” Vernon v. State of Cal., 116 Cal. App. 4th 114, 125 (2004). For example, regarding
Plaintiff’s argument that Defendants form an integrated enterprise, courts consider four factors
in determining “whether two corporations should be considered a single employer”:
(1) interrelation of operations, (2) common management, (3) centralized control of labor
relations, and (4) common ownership or financial control. Laird v. Cap. Cities/ABC, Inc., 68
Cal. App. 4th 727, 738 (1998). Common ownership or control alone is never enough to
establish parent liability, and courts often deem centralized control of labor relations the most
important factor. Id. Similarly, regarding Plaintiff’s argument that Whole Foods may be liable
as a joint employer, courts consider the “totality of circumstances that reflect upon the nature of
the work relationship of the parties,” with the most important factor being “the right to control
and direct the activities of the person rendering service, or the manner and method in which the
work is performed” on a day-to-day level. Gebran v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2016 WL
7471292, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2016) (cleaned up).
Given the factual issues involved in determining who may properly be considered an
employer, “district courts generally have not found the question of employer status suitable for
resolution in the fraudulent joinder context.” McBee v. Raytheon Techs. Inc., 2024 WL 182282,
at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2024) (collecting cases); see Maggiulli v. Wells Fargo & Co., 2018
WL 2021435, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2018) (remanding and recognizing concern with finding
no possibility of recovery against a possible employer “before discovery has commenced in this
lawsuit”); cf. Overrated Prods., Inc. v. Universal Music Grp., 2018 WL 1136881, at *3 (C.D.
Cal. Mar. 1, 2018) (“Because alter ego is a factual determination encompassing a host of
_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
5

_________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:24-cv-00890-FWS-JDE
Title: Cynthia Padock v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.

JS-6
Date: July 2, 2024

factors, the Court cannot summarily decide this issue without reaching the merits of Plaintiff's
claims. Moreover, Defendants rely on summary judgment decisions to support their arguments,
but here, Plaintiff has not even had the benefit of discovery yet. As such, Defendants’ argument
is one for the state court to decide.”) (cleaned up). “Thus, even when a defendant presents some
evidence that weighs against allegations of employer status, district courts have not concluded
that the burden of showing fraudulent joinder has been met.” Id.; see also Bustamante v.
Sleepmed Inc., 2022 WL 18358946, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2022) (noting that inquiry into
what entity or entities may be considered the plaintiff’s employer “is fact-specific and no one
factor is dispositive”) (citing Vernon, 116 Cal. App. 4th at 124-25 (noting that “[t]here is no
magic formula for determining whether an organization is a joint employer” because a court
“must analyze myriad facts surrounding the employment relationship” (cleaned up))); Atneosen
v. XPT, Inc., 2022 WL 1400847, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2022) (“Defendants have not shown
that Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their claims as to XPT, Inc. and/or NIO USA, Inc. as a matter
of law. Accordingly, the court cannot find that either entity was fraudulently joined. The court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action and grants Plaintiffs’ motion to remand.”).
This case presents the kinds of factual issues regarding who may be considered Plaintiff’s
employer, including under the integrated employer test, that make a finding of fraudulent
joinder improper. See McBee, 2024 WL 182282, at *4; Maggiulli, 2018 WL 2021435, at *3.
Plaintiff offers evidence that she worked inside a Whole Foods store, shopped Whole Foods
products using Whole Foods shopping carts, put the items she collected into Whole Foods bags
with Whole Foods receipts, and received help performing her duties from employees and
management wearing Whole Foods aprons or buttons. (Dkt. 15-3 [Plaintiff’s Declaration, “Pl.
Decl.”] ¶¶ 3-5.) In addition, Plaintiff declares, “When I worked at Whole Foods, I asked my
managers who I am working for – Whole Foods or Amazon. They told me that they are all the
same.” (Id. ¶ 7.) Perhaps most compelling is Plaintiff’s evidence that the human resources
representative to whom she sent her employment-related complaints, Jennifer Sorace, had an
email signature listed her title as “Reg. HR Business Partner | WFMoA - SoCal & PNW
[e-mail] GSF HR Resources | HR POC List.” (Pl. Decl. Ex. 1 (emphasis added);
_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
6

_________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:24-cv-00890-FWS-JDE
Title: Cynthia Padock v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.

JS-6
Date: July 2, 2024

see Compl. ¶¶ 11-12, 27-29 (describing the complaints Plaintiff sent Sorace); Sorace Decl. ¶ 8
(“For Human Resources issues during her employment, Plaintiff could contact me as the
Regional Human Resources Business Partner” or other human resources employees.”). To
determine whether Whole Foods could possibly be considered Plaintiff’s employer, a court
would have to weigh all of this evidence and consider how it applies to several factors. See
Laird, 68 Cal. App. 4th at 738; Gebran, 2016 WL 7471292, at *8. The court finds that doing so
in this case at this early stage without the benefit of discovery is inappropriate. See McBee,
2024 WL 182282, at *4; Maggiulli, 2018 WL 2021435, at *3; Overrated Prods., 2018 WL
1136881, at *3.
To be sure, Defendants have presented evidence that Whole Foods was not Plaintiff’s
employer, and have also presented argument that Plaintiff’s agency, joint employer, and
integrated enterprise theories are legally unworkable. (See generally Opp.) They also explain
that Sorace’s email signature merely “indicated that [she] assisted Prime Now employees who
worked as shoppers at Whole Foods stores in Southern California,” (Sorace Decl. ¶ 11.) In the
end, it may be that Whole Foods is not liable as Plaintiff’s employer. But courts remand cases
even when the potential liability against the purportedly-fraudulently-joined-defendant, “while
possible, is actually quite unlikely.” Waterman, 2018 WL 287171, at *7. And the court finds
that at this stage, Defendants have not shown by clear and convincing evidence that Plaintiff
cannot possibly state a claim against Whole Foods as her employer.1 See Grancare, 889 F.3d at
1

For example, many of Defendants’ arguments focus on the fact that Plaintiff seeks to use
agency and integrated enterprise theories to hold liable not the principal, but rather the
subsidiary. (See Opp. at 8, 10-11.) But courts regularly remand cases in which the plaintiff
seeks to hold a subsidiary liable as an employer. See, e.g., Bustamante, 2022 WL 18358946, at
*2 (remanding case in which the plaintiff contended both the parent company (BioSerenity) and
the subsidiary (SleepMed California) could be liable under a joint-employer theory,” when the
plaintiff “produce[d] evidence that she worked at SleepMed California's location in Pasadena,
California and scheduled appointments for patients who were treated by SleepMed California”);
Cohen v. Valeant Pharms. N. Am., LLC, 2018 WL 3409212, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 13, 2018)
_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
7

_________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:24-cv-00890-FWS-JDE
Title: Cynthia Padock v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.

JS-6
Date: July 2, 2024

549 (“A claim against a defendant may fail under Rule 12(b)(6), but that defendant has not
necessarily been fraudulently joined.”); McBee, 2024 WL 182282, at *6 (“The propriety of
remand based on fraudulent joinder depends solely on whether a claim against the purported
sham defendant may be stated, not whether one has been or may be stated based on the present
or future evidentiary record. . . For that reason, courts routinely grant motions to remand even
where, as here, a plaintiff has not yet stated a viable claim against the purportedly fraudulently
joined defendant and/or the present evidentiary record would not support liability as to the
purportedly fraudulently joined defendant.”) (cleaned up); Maggiulli, 2018 WL 2021435, at *3;
Waterman v. Wells Fargo & Co., 2018 WL 287171, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2018) (“The present
pre-discovery evidentiary record does not mean all that much, as the question is not whether
Plaintiff has already proven that WFB and WFC are an ‘integrated enterprise,’ but whether it is
possible for Plaintiff to state a claim against WFC under that theory.”); Gebran, 2016 WL
7471292, at *9 (“Plaintiff may still be able to amend her Complaint and offer evidence that
WFC qualifies as a joint employer under the integrated enterprise test. Accordingly, the Court
declines to find that Plaintiff fraudulently joined WFC.”); Scates v. FedEx Ground Package
Sys., Inc., 2020 WL 5759121, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2020) (remanding despite
determination that “Plaintiff fails to show that FedEx Corp. exercised control over her work
activities” because “FedEx Ground has not met its burden of establishing that Plaintiff is

(granting motion to remand, explaining that “[w]hile Defendants have provided evidence that
Plaintiff was technically employed by the parent company (VPNA) and not the subsidiary
(SPI), they have not shown by clear and convincing evidence that Plaintiff would be unable to
hold SPI liable as a joint employer as a matter of law, especially under the relevant ‘totality of
circumstances’ and ‘integrated enterprise’ tests”); Troisi v. Cannon Equip. Co., 2009 WL
249789, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2009) (“At this stage, the Court need not and should not
resolve whether Plaintiff will ultimately prevail in its claims against Cannon West[, subsidiary
of Cannon Eqipment]. The Court must only determine if there is at least a possibility of
liability as[] to Cannon West. Based on the facts alleged in the complaint, the Court finds that
there is.”).
_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
8

_________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:24-cv-00890-FWS-JDE
Title: Cynthia Padock v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.

JS-6
Date: July 2, 2024

incapable of amending her Complaint to state a valid claim against FedEx Corp. on a joint
employer theory”).
Based on the court’s finding that Defendants have not shown by clear and convincing
evidence that Plaintiff cannot possibly state a claim against Whole Foods, the court concludes
that Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing that Whole Foods was fraudulently
joined such that its citizenship should be disregarded for purposes of establishing diversity
jurisdiction. Considering Whole Foods’ citizenship means that the court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over this case and it must be remanded. See Caterpillar Inc., 519 U.S. at 68 (stating
diversity jurisdiction “applies only to cases in which the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse
from the citizenship of each defendant.”); Kuntz, 385 F.3d at 1181 (“For a case to qualify for
federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), there must be complete diversity of citizenship
between the parties opposed in interest.”). Therefore, the Motion is GRANTED and this case
is REMANDED to Orange County Superior Court.
Finally, Plaintiff asks the court to award her $11,050 in attorney fees under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c). (Mot. at 12; Reply at 7.) “An order remanding the case may require payment of just
costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 28
U.S.C. § 1447. “Absent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorney’s fees under
§ 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking
removal.” Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). “Conversely, when an
objectively reasonable basis exists, fees should be denied.” Id. “[R]emoval is not objectively
unreasonable solely because the removing party’s arguments lack merit, or else attorney’s fees
would always be awarded whenever remand is granted.” Lussier v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.,
518 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008). Whether to award costs and expenses is within a district
court’s discretion. See Jordan v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 781 F.3d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir. 2015).
After reviewing the parties’ arguments and the evidence presented, the Court exercises its
discretion to decline awarding fees here. Defendants’ argument that Whole Foods was
fraudulently joined did not lack any objectively reasonable basis, nor was Defendants’ asserted
basis for removal clearly foreclosed by relevant caselaw. See Martin, 546 U.S. at 141; Lussier,
_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
9

_________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:24-cv-00890-FWS-JDE
Title: Cynthia Padock v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.

JS-6
Date: July 2, 2024

518 F.3d at 1065; Waterman, 2018 WL 287171, at *8 (“Given that removal in this action was at
least colorable, Plaintiff’s request for costs and attorneys’ fees is DENIED.”). Accordingly, the
court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees.
IV.

Disposition

For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion and REMANDS this
action to Orange County Superior Court as case number 30-2024-01387272-CU-OE-NJC.
Initials of Deputy Clerk: mku

_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
10