Keledjian v. Jabil Circuit, Inc. et al

Filing 20

ORDER Denying 11 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand; Granting 7 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Court DENIES Plaintiff leave to file the FAC, STRIKES the FAC, and DENIES Plaintiff's motion for remand. See Doc. Nos. 6, 11. Further, the Court GRANTS Defendant's unopposed motion to dismiss the Complaint, and DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims without prejudice. See Doc. Nos. 1, 7. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint, if any, on or before September 1, 2017. Plaintiff may not add new causes of action or additional parties without leave of court. The Clerk of Court is instructed to strike the FAC and terminate Contran Tibre as a defendant to this action. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 8/10/2017. (aef)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GEORGE KELEDJIAN,
v.

Case No.: 17CV0332-MMA (JLB)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND;

Plaintiff,

JABIL CIRCUIT, INC. d/b/a NYPRO
SAN DIEGO, INC.; AND SEAMUS
KEITH,

[Doc. No. 11]
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants.

[Doc. No. 7]

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

On February 17, 2017, Defendant Jabil Circuit, Inc. removed this employment
discrimination action to this Court from the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego. Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s original Complaint and requests that the
Court strike Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and Plaintiff moves to remand his
action to Superior Court. See Doc. Nos. 7, 8, 11. The Court took the matters under
submission on the briefs and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1.
For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff leave to file the FAC, STRIKES
the FAC, and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for remand. See Doc. Nos. 6, 11. Further, the
Court GRANTS Defendant’s unopposed motion to dismiss the Complaint, and
DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice. See Doc. Nos. 1, 7.

-1-

17CV0332-MMA (JLB)

1

BACKGROUND

2

On December 22, 2016, Plaintiff George Keledjian filed this action in the Superior

3

Court of California, County of San Diego, Case No. 37-2016-00045095-CU-OE-CTL,

4

alleging the following state law claims: Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”)

5

claims for disability discrimination, age discrimination, and retaliation,1 and claims for

6

discrimination based on perceived medical condition or disability, and wrongful

7

termination in violation of public policy. The Complaint alleged all claims against Jabil

8

Circuit, Inc., d/b/a Nypro San Diego, Inc., and Seamus Keith. On January 19, 2017,

9

Plaintiff served Defendant Jabil Circuit, Inc. with the Complaint and Summons. See Doc.

10

No. 1. On February 17, 2017, Defendant Jabil Circuit, Inc. removed this action to this

11

Court based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code,

12

sections 1332(a) and 1441(a). See Doc. No. 1. In Defendant’s notice of removal,

13

Defendant argued removal was proper despite that Defendant Keith is a citizen of

14

California because Keith is a “sham” defendant. Defendant noted that Plaintiff did not

15

serve Keith with the Complaint and Summons, and stated that under settled California

16

law, Keith could not be liable for any of Plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims.

17

On February 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). See

18

Doc. No. 6. The FAC alleges the aforementioned employment claims against Defendant

19

Jabil Circuit, Inc.,2 and asserts a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress

20

(“NIED”) against Contran Tibre, but omits Keith as a defendant. In support of the NIED

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

See Cal. Gov. Code § 12940.
Despite that the FAC states that Plaintiff’s employment claims are asserted against “All Defendants,”
Plaintiff’s briefing indicates that Plaintiff did not intend to assert those claims against Tibre. On several
occasions throughout the briefing, Plaintiff refers to the employment claims in the FAC as alleged
“against Jabil” only. See, e.g., Doc. No. 11 (referring to the employment claims as the “other claims
against Jabil” and the FEHA claims as “stem[ming] from Jabil’s negative impact on Plaintiff’s career”).
Also, Plaintiff does not dispute the veracity of Defendant’s argument that supervisors are not
individually liable for employment discrimination and retaliation claims. See Doc. No. 16; see also
Doc. No. 13 (citing California Supreme Court case law holding that non-employer individuals such as
supervisors are not liable for the employment claims included in the FAC). Accordingly, the Court
construes the FAC as alleging employment claims against Jabil Circuit, Inc. only.
2

-2-

17CV0332-MMA (JLB)

1

claim, the FAC alleges Tibre, Plaintiff’s “immediate supervisor,” called Plaintiff a

2

“senior citizen” and a “discount club member,” or something to that effect. See FAC,

3

Doc. No. 6, ¶¶ 17, 71.

4

On the same day that Plaintiff filed the FAC, Defendant3 filed a motion to dismiss

5

the original Complaint, and requested that the Court strike the FAC. See Doc. Nos. 7, 8.

6

Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Complaint.

7

Subsequently, on March 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand this action to

8

Superior Court, which Defendant opposes.

9

LEGAL STANDARD

10

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l

11

Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2007). Federal courts possess only that power

12

authorized by the Constitution or a statute. See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist.,

13

475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). Pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code, section

14

1332(a)(1), a federal district court has jurisdiction over “all actions where the matter in

15

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” and the

16

dispute is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The Supreme

17

Court has interpreted § 1332 to require “complete diversity of citizenship”, meaning each

18

plaintiff must be diverse from each defendant. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 67-

19

68 (1996). Title 28 of the United States Code, section 1441(a), provides for removal of a

20

civil action from state to federal court if the case could have originated in federal court.

21

If a matter is removable solely on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to § 1332,

22

the action may not be removed if any properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of

23

the forum state. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). If, after proper removal, subject matter

24

jurisdiction is destroyed, a plaintiff may file a motion to remand or the court may raise

25

the jurisdictional issue sua sponte. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S.

26

83, 93-94 (1998); see Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir.

27

28

3

Any reference to “Defendant” refers to Defendant Jabil Circuit, Inc. unless otherwise specified.
-3-

17CV0332-MMA (JLB)

1

1990); Sabag v. FCA US, LLC, No. 216CV06639CASRAOX, 2016 WL 6581154, at *7

2

(C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2016).

3

DISCUSSION

4

The parties do not dispute that removal was proper here. Accordingly, the Court

5

begins by addressing the propriety of Plaintiff filing the FAC without leave of court, as

6

well as the merits of Plaintiff’s motion to remand.

7

A.

8

Plaintiff “did not have the unilateral right to add [Tibre] to the complaint” because

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and Motion to Remand

9

Tibre, as a California citizen, would destroy complete diversity. See Wolff-Bolton v.

10

Manor Care-Tice Valley CA, LLC, No. 17-CV-02405-JSC, 2017 WL 2887857, at *3

11

(N.D. Cal. July 7, 2017). District courts in California agree that where a party “seeks to

12

join additional defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction,”

13

courts must consider whether to exercise their discretion to allow joinder under 28 U.S.C.

14

§ 1447(e), rather than under the permissive Rule 15(a) standard.4 See, e.g., San Jose

15

Neurospine v. Cigna Health & Life Ins. Co., No. 16-CV-05061-LHK, 2016 WL 7242139,

16

at *6–7 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2016); Clinco v. Roberts, 41 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1087 (C.D.

17

Cal. 1999). Specifically, section 1447(e) states that “[i]f after removal the plaintiff seeks

18

to join additional defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the

19

court may deny joinder, or permit joinder and remand the action to the State court.” See

20

28 U.S.C. § 1447(e). District courts in California generally consider six factors in

21

determining the “propriety and fairness” of permitting joinder:

22
(1) [W]hether the party sought to be joined is needed for just
adjudication and would be joined under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 19(a); (2) whether the statute of limitations would
preclude an original action against the new defendant[] in state
court; (3) whether there has been unexplained delay in

23
24
25
26

27

4

28

Rule 15(a) allows amendment as a matter of course in some circumstances. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).
Otherwise, a party must obtain the opposing party’s written consent or leave of court, which should be
liberally granted where justice so requires. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
-4-

17CV0332-MMA (JLB)

requesting joinder; (4) whether joinder is intended solely to
defeat federal jurisdiction; (5) whether the claims against the
new defendant appear valid; and (6) whether denial of joinder
will prejudice the plaintiff.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

See, e.g., Lara v. Bandit Indus., Inc., No. 2:12-CV-02459-MCE-AC, 2013 WL 1155523,
at *1–2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2013) (quoting IBC Aviation Serv., Inc. v. Compania
Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V., 125 F. Supp. 2d 1008, 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2000));
Medina v. Oanda Corp., No. 5:16-CV-02170-EJD, 2017 WL 1159572, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
Mar. 29, 2017); see Clinco, 41 F. Supp. 2d at 1082. Courts “look at the factors as a
whole.” See IBC Aviation Servs., Inc., 125 F. Supp. 2d at 1013. “Any of the factors
might prove decisive, and none is an absolutely necessary condition for joinder.” Yang v.
Swissport USA, Inc., No. C 09–03823 SI, 2010 WL 2680800, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 6,
2010).
Because Plaintiff did not seek leave of court prior to filing the FAC, Defendant

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

requests the Court strike the FAC without considering the propriety of the amendments.
See Doc. No. 8. Defendant is correct that Plaintiff was required to request leave to
amend, and that the Court could strike the FAC on those grounds. However, it would be
inefficient for the Court to strike the FAC only to allow Plaintiff to file a motion for leave
to file an identical pleading. See Wolff-Bolton, 2017 WL 2887857, at *4 (“This Court
believes the better approach is to presently consider whether joinder is appropriate, rather
than strike the FAC, deny the motion to remand, and then decide the issue after Plaintiffs
file a formal motion for leave to amend and another motion to remand.”). Further, the
parties have sufficiently contested the application of the above factors in briefing
Plaintiff’s motion to remand. Accordingly, the Court construes Plaintiff’s FAC as a
motion for leave to file the FAC. The Court discusses the above factors in turn below.
//

27
28
-5-

17CV0332-MMA (JLB)

1

1.

2

Whether Defendant Tibre is a Necessary Party5

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 requires joinder of persons whose absence

3

would preclude the grant of complete relief, or whose absence would impede their ability

4

to protect their interests or would subject any of the parties to the danger of inconsistent

5

obligations.” IBC Aviation Servs., Inc., 125 F. Supp. 2d at 1011 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.

6

19(a)). However, “amendment under § 1447(e) is a less restrictive standard than for

7

joinder under [Rule] 19.” Id. Where the non-diverse defendants are “only tangentially

8

related to the cause of action or would not prevent complete relief,” courts do not permit

9

joinder. Id. at 1012. However, where failure to join those defendants would result in

10

“separate and redundant actions,” joinder is proper. Id. at 1011.

11

Plaintiff argues that if he is not permitted to join Tibre, Plaintiff will have to

12

litigate separate and redundant actions in state and federal court. Plaintiff urges that a

13

separate lawsuit against Tibre would involve “the same documents, depositions,

14

interrogatories, and admissions involved in the present suit because Tibre’s alleged

15

conduct occurred at Jabil.” See Doc. No. 11. Further, because Tibre’s conduct occurred

16

at Jabil Circuit, Inc., Plaintiff contends that the conduct “gave rise to Plaintiff’s claims

17

against Jabil.” See Doc. No. 11. Defendant argues Tibre is not a necessary party because

18

Plaintiff can obtain complete relief from Defendant Jabil for “claims related to his

19

employment from Jabil and separation therefrom.” See Doc. No. 13.

20

The Court finds this factor weighs slightly in favor of allowing joinder. On one

21

hand, it is clear that Rule 19 does not require that Tibre be joined, and there is little, if

22

any, overlap between the legal issues pertinent to Plaintiff’s employment claims and

23

those relevant to Plaintiff’s proffered NIED claim. On the other hand, the facts giving

24
25
26
27
28

5

In support of Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to remand, Defendant requests the Court
take judicial notice of a copy of the charge of discrimination that Plaintiff filed with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission. See Doc. No. 13-2. However, the Court need not consider that
document in determining whether to allow amendment. The Court accordingly DENIES Defendant’s
request without prejudice.

-6-

17CV0332-MMA (JLB)

1

rise to Plaintiff’s employment claims overlap to an extent with those underlying

2

Plaintiff’s NIED claim. The overlap is such that Defendant is more than “tangentially

3

related” to the pending employment claims and there is some risk of redundancy. IBC

4

Aviation Servs., Inc., 125 F. Supp. 2d at 1012.

5
6

2.

Whether a Separate Action Against Tibre Would be Time-Barred

This factor weighs slightly against permitting joinder. Plaintiff does not argue that

7

the statute of limitations would prevent Plaintiff from commencing a separate action

8

against Tibre in state court. See Clinco, 41 F.Supp.2d at 1083 (stating that because the

9

plaintiff did not argue the claim would be time-barred, this “factor [did] not support

10

amendment”).

11

3.

Whether There Has Been Unexplained Delay

12

Regarding this factor, some courts have focused on whether plaintiffs adequately

13

explain any delay in seeking amendment, whereas others have focused on the length of

14

the delay, and others have considered both. See, e.g., IBC Aviation Servs., Inc., 125 F.

15

Supp. 2d at 1012 (considering only the length of the delay); Yang, 2010 WL 2680800, at

16

*4 (relying mainly on the plaintiffs’ “reasonable explanation for the delay in seeking to

17

amend”); Wolff-Bolton, 2017 WL 2887857, at *5 (considering both).

18

The Court considers both the length of the delay and whether Plaintiff adequately

19

explains his failure to include Defendant Tibre in the original Complaint. Plaintiff filed

20

the FAC approximately 39 days after serving Defendant Jabil Circuit, Inc. with the

21

Summons and Complaint. Plaintiff filed the FAC only ten days after removal. This case

22

is in its infancy and Plaintiff did not unreasonably delay in seeking amendment. See IBC

23

Aviation Servs., Inc., 125 F. Supp. 2d at 1012 (stating that the plaintiff acted in a timely

24

fashion where it sought amendment around one month after removal, and two months

25

after the filing of the complaint).

26

However, Plaintiff’s explanation as to why he did not include a NIED claim

27

against Tibre in the first instance is weak. Plaintiff states that he “inadvertently” failed to

28

“enumerate a separate cause of action for Tibre’s conduct” despite that the factual
-7-

17CV0332-MMA (JLB)

1

allegations regarding his conduct were included in the Complaint. See Doc. No. 11. But,

2

those factual allegations did not name Tibre as the perpetrator of the conduct.

3

Further, Plaintiff’s explanation of inadvertence is undermined by defense counsel’s

4

declaration under penalty of perjury. Defense counsel states that she called Plaintiff’s

5

counsel shortly after removal, on February 23, 2017, in order to meet and confer

6

regarding the motion to dismiss that Defendant planned to file. See Doc. No. 13-1, ¶ 2.

7

According to the declaration, Plaintiff’s counsel stated that he planned to amend the

8

Complaint to add a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Seamus

9

Keith. Ultimately, Plaintiff did not file an intentional infliction of emotional distress

10

claim against Keith. Instead, Plaintiff filed the FAC, which alleges a NIED claim against

11

Tibre. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s contention that he had always intended to

12

allege a NIED claim against Tibre, but later realized that he mistakenly omitted it, is

13

dubious.

14

Further, Plaintiff does not argue that he did not know the identity of Tibre or any of

15

the factual allegations underpinning his NIED claim. See San Jose Neurospine, 2016 WL

16

7242139, at *11 (stating that where new factual allegations were not unknown to the

17

plaintiff at the time the plaintiff filed the original complaint, one can “justifiably suspect .

18

. . amendment . . . was caused by the removal rather than an evolution of” the plaintiff’s

19

case).

20
21
22

In sum, the Court finds this factor weighs against permitting joinder.
4.

Whether Plaintiff Solely Intends to Defeat Federal Jurisdiction

In a similar vein, it appears that Plaintiff’s intent in seeking joinder is primarily, if

23

not solely, to defeat federal jurisdiction by destroying diversity. “The Ninth Circuit has

24

instructed that, because ‘motive in seeking joinder’ is a relevant factor in determining

25

whether amendment is appropriate, ‘a trial court should look with particular care at such

26

motive in removal cases, when the presence of a new defendant will defeat the court’s

27

diversity jurisdiction.” See San Jose Neurospine, 2016 WL 7242139, at *10 (quoting

28

Desert Empire Bank v. Ins. Co of N. Am., 623 F.2d 1371, 1376 (9th Cir. 1980)). Without
-8-

17CV0332-MMA (JLB)

1

any evidence of improper motive, the Court would not “impute an improper motive to

2

Plaintiff simply because Plaintiff seeks to add a non-diverse defendant post-removal.”

3

See IBC Aviation Servs., Inc., 125 F. Supp. 2d at 1012. “Suspicion of diversity

4

destroying amendments is not as important now that § 1447(e) gives courts more

5

flexibility in dealing with the addition of such defendants.” Id. However, defense

6

counsel’s declaration states that, upon informing Plaintiff’s counsel of Defendant’s plan

7

to file a motion to dismiss the Complaint, Plaintiff’s counsel responded that he would

8

amend the pleadings “to add a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional

9

distress against Seamus Keith ‘to try to get the case remanded.’” See Doc. No. 13-1, ¶ 2

10

(emphasis added). Plaintiff’s counsel does not attempt to dispute the veracity of defense

11

counsel’s declaration. Thus, the Court is faced with uncontroverted evidence of

12

Plaintiff’s motive to amend the pleadings to destroy complete diversity.

13

Further, as noted above, Plaintiff did not file an intentional infliction of emotional

14

distress claim against Keith, but instead attempted to add a NIED claim against Tibre.

15

This fact heightens suspicions because it leaves the Court with the sense that, in the wake

16

of removal and a potential motion to dismiss, Plaintiff began to contemplate potentially

17

viable claims against non-diverse defendants.

18

Also, “in evaluating motive, courts have considered whether the plaintiff was

19

‘aware of the removal’” and that “the basis for removal was diversity jurisdiction” at the

20

time the plaintiff amended the pleadings to add a non-diverse defendant. See San Jose

21

Neurospine, 2016 WL 7242139, at *10. Here, Plaintiff filed the FAC ten days after

22

removal, Defendant’s notice of removal states that removal is based on diversity

23

jurisdiction, and that Plaintiff’s claims against Keith fail as a matter of law because

24

individual supervisors are not liable for the claims alleged, pursuant to settled California

25

law. See Doc. No. 1. On that note, it is also somewhat suspicious that Plaintiff named

26

Keith, a non-diverse defendant, in the original Complaint, but did not serve him with the

27

Complaint and Summons. See Doc. No. 1.

28

Lastly, “courts have inferred an improper motive where the plaintiff’s proposed
-9-

17CV0332-MMA (JLB)

1

amended complaint contains only minor or insignificant changes to the original

2

complaint.” See San Jose Neurospine, 2016 WL 7242139, at *10 (quoting Forward-

3

Rossi v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 2016 WL 3396925, at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 13,

4

2016)). Here, the FAC is substantially similar to the original Complaint. The FAC

5

alleges the same claims against Defendant Jabil Circuit, Inc., and includes essentially

6

identical factual allegations. Plaintiff merely adds a claim for NIED against a new

7

defendant.

8
9
10
11

On the whole, the record indicates that Plaintiff is attempting to manipulate the
forum, and this factor accordingly weighs heavily against permitting joinder.
5.

Whether Plaintiff’s NIED Claim Appears Valid

In considering this factor, courts “‘need only determine whether the claim seems

12

valid,’ which is not the same as the standard in either a motion to dismiss or a motion for

13

summary judgment.” See Meggs v. NBC Universal Media, LLC, No.

14

217CV03769ODWRAOX, 2017 WL 2974916, at *8 (C.D. Cal. July 12, 2017) (quoting

15

Freeman v. Cardinal Health Pharm. Servs., LLC, No. 14-cv-01994-JAM, 2015 WL

16

2006183, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 2015)). Plaintiff seeks to add a NIED claim. “[T]here is no

17

independent tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress.” See Doe v. Gangland

18

Prods., Inc., 730 F.3d 946, 961 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Potter v. Firestone Tire &

19

Rubber Co., 863 P.2d 795, 807 (1993)). Rather, a plaintiff asserting a cause of action for

20

NIED must assert the elements of a negligence claim: duty, breach of duty, causation,

21

and damages. See Evans v. Gilmore, No. 15-CV-01772-MEJ, 2017 WL 713143, at *8

22

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2017). There are two types of NIED cases: bystander cases and direct

23

victim cases. See Evans v. Gilmore, No. 15-CV-01772-MEJ, 2017 WL 713143, at *8

24

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2017) (citing Wooden v. Raveling, 61 Cal. App. 4th 1035, 1037

25

(1998)). Bystander cases “are typically based on breach of a duty owed to the public in

26

general.” Id. (quoting Moon v. Guardian Postacute Servs., Inc., 95 Cal. App. 4th 1005,

27

1009 (2002)). Otherwise, “unless the defendant has assumed a duty to plaintiff in which

28

the emotional condition of the plaintiff is an object, recovery is available only if the
-10-

17CV0332-MMA (JLB)

1

emotional distress arises out of the defendant’s breach of some other legal duty and the

2

emotional distress is proximately caused by that breach of duty.” See Gangland Prods.,

3

Inc., 730 F.3d at 961 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Potter, 863 P.2d at 807–08).

4

To succeed on a NIED claim, a plaintiff must prove “severe” emotional distress,

5

meaning “of such substantial quantity or enduring quality that no reasonable man in a

6

civilized society should be expected to endure it.” See Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc.,

7

797 F.2d 727, 737 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Fletcher v. W. Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 10 Cal.

8

App. 3d 376, 396 (1970)); see Wong v. Tai Jing, 189 Cal. App. 4th 1354, 1377–78, 117

9

Cal. Rptr. 3d 747, 767–68 (2010) (“[S]erious emotional distress may be found where a

10

reasonable man, normally constituted, would be unable to adequately cope with the

11

mental stress engendered by the circumstances of the case.”).

12

Here, the FAC states that Tibre called Plaintiff a “senior citizen” and a “discount

13

club member,” or something similar. See FAC, ¶¶ 17, 71. However, based on the facts,

14

it appears unlikely that Plaintiff would be able to demonstrate that “no reasonable man”

15

would be expected to endure the stress he suffered as a result of those comments. Also,

16

the FAC does not describe Plaintiff’s emotional distress, but merely asserts that Plaintiff

17

suffered “severe emotional distress.” See FAC, ¶ 75. Further, as the circumstances only

18

provide for liability under a direct victim theory, Plaintiff cannot rely on a general duty to

19

the public. “[T]here is no duty to avoid negligently causing emotional distress to another,

20

and [thus] damages for emotional distress are recoverable only if the defendant has

21

breached some other duty to the plaintiff.” See Evans, 2017 WL 713143, at *8 (quoting

22

Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 6 Cal. 4th 965, 984 (1993)). Plaintiff states that

23

Tibre “owed a duty of care to Plaintiff to refrain from engaging in harassing conduct

24

against Plaintiff,” but Plaintiff fails to provide any basis for the existence of such a duty.

25

See FAC, ¶ 71.

26

In addition to those deficiencies apparent on the face of the pleadings, Defendant

27

argues Plaintiff’s NIED claim is not supported by California law. First, Defendant argues

28

Plaintiff’s NIED claim fails because it is based on intentional conduct. Some courts have
-11-

17CV0332-MMA (JLB)

1

held that “[a]n employer’s supervisory conduct is inherently ‘intentional,’” and

2

accordingly “does not support a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional

3

distress.” See, e.g., Semore v. Pool, 217 Cal. App. 3d 1087, 1105 (1990); Miller, 797

4

F.2d at 738 (stating evidence that an employer “intentionally retaliated” against an

5

employee “preclude[s] an assertion that this same intentional action constituted

6

negligence”); U.S. ex rel. Knapp v. Calibre Sys., Inc., No. CV 10-4466 ODW JCGX,

7

2011 WL 3204454, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2011); Walker v. Boeing Corp., 218 F. Supp.

8

2d 1177, 1185 (C.D. Cal. 2002); Edwards v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 848 F. Supp. 1460,

9

1466 (N.D. Cal. 1994), aff’d, 74 F.3d 1245 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[W]here the conduct alleged

10

is intentional, it cannot be used as a basis for a negligent infliction of emotional distress

11

claim.”). Plaintiff does not contest Defendant’s argument.

12

Second, Defendant argues that a NIED claim is preempted by the California

13

Workers’ Compensation Act because Plaintiff sustained the alleged emotional injuries “in

14

the course of employment.” See Doc. No. 13. While Defendant may be correct if

15

Plaintiff were suing his employer for NIED, Plaintiff asserts the NIED claim against

16

Tibre, an individual. As such, it is unclear whether Plaintiff’s claim is preempted, and

17

neither party discusses this seemingly important distinction. Accordingly, the Court

18

declines to rely on Defendant’s second argument.
Weighing the above, the Court concludes that this factor is neutral.6

19
20

6.

21

Whether Denial of Joinder Would Prejudice Plaintiff

Neither party addresses the prejudicial effect of denying joinder. District courts

22

have stated that “[p]rejudice exists if the proposed defendant is ‘crucial’ to the case,” but

23

“does not exist if complete relief can be afforded without that defendant.” Sabag, 2016

24

WL 6581154, at *6 (quoting McCarty v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 1:10-cv-00350-OWW-

25

DLB, 2010 WL 2629913, *9 (E.D. Cal. 2010)). Another district court has stated that a

26

27

6

28

Further, even were the Court to assume that the NIED claim “appears valid,” and consequently that
this factor weighs in favor of allowing joinder, the Court’s ultimate determination would remain the
same.
-12-

17CV0332-MMA (JLB)

1

plaintiff suffers prejudice if denying joinder “would force the plaintiff to choose between:

2

(1) engaging in ‘redundant litigation’ in state court arising out of the ‘same facts and

3

involving the same legal issues’; or (2) foregoing its potential claims against the to-be-

4

added party.” Negrete v. Meadowbrook Meat Co., No. ED CV 11-1861 DOC, 2012 WL

5

254039, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2012) (citing IBC Aviation Servs., Inc., 125 F.Supp.2d

6

at 1013).

7

Under either iteration, this factor weighs against allowing Plaintiff to amend.

8

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendant is “crucial” to this case. Nowhere in the

9

briefing does Plaintiff argue that he could not obtain complete relief for his injuries if

10

joinder is denied. As discussed above, while there is some overlap between the facts

11

underlying Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant and those underlying Plaintiff’s proposed

12

NIED claim, the legal issues are distinct. Thus, the risk of redundancy appears to be

13

minimal. Because Plaintiff states a NIED claim would not be time-barred, he would not

14

necessarily have to forego that claim if the Court does not allow amendment. However,

15

the Court affords this factor little weight because some of the issues overlap with issues

16

discussed above, and its application to the facts of this case has not been fully briefed by

17

the parties.

18

In sum, out of six factors, four weigh against permitting amendment, while one

19

factor weighs slightly in favor of permitting amendment, and one factor is neutral.

20

Considering the circumstances as a whole, the Court finds it inappropriate to allow

21

Plaintiff to amend the pleadings to add a diversity-destroying defendant. As such, the

22

Court DENIES Plaintiff leave to file the FAC, STRIKES the FAC from the docket, and

23

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to remand.

24

B.

25

As noted, Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s original Complaint,

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

26

which Plaintiff does not oppose. The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may

27

grant an unopposed motion to dismiss where a local rule permits, but does not require, it

28

to do so. See generally, Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, Civil
-13-

17CV0332-MMA (JLB)

1

Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c provides, “[i]f an opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner

2

required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting

3

of a motion or other request for ruling by the court.” As such, the Court has the option of

4

granting Defendant’s motion on the basis of Plaintiff’s failure to oppose.7 Generally,

5

public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits. See Hernandez v. City of El

6

Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998). However, a case cannot move forward toward

7

resolution on the merits where the plaintiff fails to defend his or her complaint against a

8

Rule 12 motion. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s unopposed motion to

9

dismiss, and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice.

10

CONCLUSION

11

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff leave to file the FAC,

12

STRIKES the FAC, and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for remand. See Doc. Nos. 6, 11.

13

Further, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s unopposed motion to dismiss the Complaint,

14

and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice. See Doc. Nos. 1, 7. Plaintiff may

15

file an amended complaint, if any, on or before September 1, 2017. Plaintiff may not

16

add new causes of action or additional parties without leave of court.

17
18

The Clerk of Court is instructed to strike the FAC and terminate Contran Tibre as a
defendant to this action.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: August 10, 2017

22

_____________________________
Hon. Michael M. Anello
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26

27

7

28

Also, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the provisions of Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2 constitutes a failure
to comply with the provisions of this Court’s Local Rules, which serves as an additional basis for
dismissal under Civil Local Rule 41.1.b.
-14-

17CV0332-MMA (JLB)