THOMPSON v. THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC et al

Filing 45

OPINION & ORDER that the claims asserted against the defendant Amerigroup New Jersey, Inc., are DISMISSED. AMERIGROUP NEW JERSEY, INC. terminated. This action insofar as it has been brought against the defendants The Anthem Companies, Inc., and Amerigroup New York, LLC will now proceed in theDistrict of New Jersey. etc. Signed by Chief Judge Jose L. Linares on 2/11/2019. (dam, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-6676 (JLL)

SUGET THOMPSON,

OPINION & ORDER

Plaintiff,

V.

THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC;
AMERIGROUP NEW YORK, LLC; and
AMERIGROUP NEW JERSEY, INC.,

Defendants.

LINARES, Chief District Judge
IT APPEARING THAT:

1.

The defendants removed this action from New Jersey State Court based upon

diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 2$ U.S.C.

2.

§

1332. (ECF No. 1.)

The Court ordered the parties to show cause why this action should not be

remanded for lack of diversityjurisdiction. (ECF No. 36.) The Court presumes that the
parties are familiar with the factual context and the procedural history of this action, as
welt as the contents of the pending Order to Show Cause, and thus the Court will only set
forth the facts and arguments that are necessary to resolve the Order to Show Cause.

3.

The plaintiff, who is a New Jersey citizen, brought this action to recover

damages for employment discrimination under state law against her employers: (a) the
defendant The Anthem Companies. Inc. (hereinafter, “TAd”), which is deemed to be an

Indiana citizen; and (b) the defendant Amerigroup New York, LLC (hereinafter,
“AGNY”), which is TACI’s subsidiary, is

now

known as HealthPlus HP, LLC, and is

deemed to be a citizen of Delaware and Virginia. (ECF No. 37 at 2, 6 (the defendants’
assertions concerning citizenship);

see

also ECf No. 25 at I (the amended complaint

setting forth the plaintiff’s citizenship).)
4.

However, the plaintiff also named Amerigroup New Jersey, Inc. (hereinafter,

“the New Jersey Office”), which is deemed to be a New Jersey citizen, in this action. (ECF
No. 37 at 2.) If the New .Jersey Office is a properly-joined defendant, then diversity

jurisidiction would be lacking for this action.
5.

The defendants have now demonstrated without any refutation from the

plaintiff that: (a) the plaintiff reported to AGNY and TACI only; (b) when the plaintiff
telecommuted for work from her New Jersey home, she checked in with and took direction
from AGNY and TACT only; (c) the plaintiff’s paychecks were issued by AGNY and TACt
onlyz and (d) the plaintiff was terminated from her employment by TACI. (ECf No. 37 at

3-5; ECF No. 37-2 at 3-4;

see ct/so

ECF No. 37-2 at 19, 23, 25—33 (copies of paycheck

stubs and W-2 forms issued by TACI and AGNY to the plaintiff).) Furthermore, the
defendants have submitted a copy of a 2016 notice concerning the plaintiffs

unemployment benefits, wherein her employer is listed as TACI. (ECF No. 37-2 at 35.)
6.

The plaintif now admits that “her W—2 forms

.

.

.

were issued by [AGNY] and

[TACT],” and that she “never worked one day in the New Jersey office.” (ECF No. 43
at 2.) Furthermore, the plaintiff has submitted payroll and tax—related documents that
clearly indicate that her employers were only TACT and AGNY, and not the New Jersey
Office. (See ECF No. 43-3 at 1—2 (W-2 forms issued by TACI and AGNY); Id. at 3—4
(paycheck stubs issued to plaintiff by AGNY).)
7.

It is apparent that the New Jersey Office is not a properly-joined defendant to

this action, because it was neither the plaintiffs employer

nor

involved in overseeing her

work. Therefore, the Court dismisses the claims that the plaintiff has asserted against the
New Jersey Office. As a result, the Court possesses diversity jurisdiction over this action
because the remaining defendants are not deemed to be citizens of New Jersey.
8.

The Court notes that there is some uncertainty as to whether the District of

New Jersey is the proper venue for this action, as all of the underlying incidents and
decisions related to the plaintiffs employment occurred in New York. See Schwartz v.
Plancilytics, Inc., No. 16-3933, 2017 WL 2812878, at ‘2—4 (D.N.J. June 29, 2017)
(transferring an NJLAD employment action brought in the District of New Jersey by a
teleconrnuting New Jersey plaintiff to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, because the
plaintiffs job concerned matters for clients connected to the employer’s Pennsylvania
office, the plaintiffs job-related communications were with the Pennsylvania office, the

1

j

plaintiff would frequently report in person to the Pennsylvania office, and the decision to
terminate the plaintiff’s employment arose in the Pennsylvania office). However, it would
be more appropriate for the parties to raise the issue of venue via motion practice if a
change of venue is desired, rather than for the CocLrt to address that issue

sna sponte.

Therefore, the Court offers no opinion on the issue of venue at this juncture. For good
cause shown:

IT IS THEREFORE on this

/(

day of February, 2019, ORDERED

that the claims asserted against the defendant Amerigroup New Jersey, Inc., are
DISMISSED, and that the defendant Amerigroup New Jersey, Inc., is to be designated as
TERMINATED on the docket; and it is further
ORDERED that this action insofar as it has been brought against the defendants
The Anthem Companies, Inc., and Amerigroup New York, LLC. will now proceed in the
District of New Jersey.

O,E”L. LINARES
ç1Ifef Judge, United States District Court

4