March et al v. Total Renal Care Inc et al
Filing
26
ORDER GRANTING 16 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND AND REMAND. Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED in part. Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) is DENIED as moot. Case remanded to Franklin County Superior Court. File is CLOSED. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Rice. (SG, Case Administrator)
1
2
FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
3
Sep 25, 2024
4
SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
6
7
8
LISA MARCH and CHARLES
MARCH, husband and wife,
Plaintiff,
9
10
11
12
13
v.
CASE NO: 4:24-CV-5079-TOR
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO AMEND AND
REMAND
TOTAL RENAL CARE INC., a
foreign for profit corporation d/b/a
DAVITA; RENAL TREATMENT
CENTERS-WEST, INC., a foreign for
profit corporation; and DOES 1-5,
Defendants.
14
15
BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, Remand, or
16
Dismiss (ECF No. 16). Defendants have requested oral argument on this motion.
17
ECF No. 22 at 1. The Court has reviewed the briefing and the record and files
18
herein and is fully informed on the issues without the need for oral argument.
19
Therefore, this motion is submitted for consideration without oral argument.
20
//
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO AMEND AND REMAND ~ 1
1
BACKGROUND
2
Plaintiffs Lisa March and Charles March (“Plaintiffs”) filed their initial
3
Complaint May 26, 2024, in Franklin County Superior Court. ECF No. 1-1. The
4
complaint alleges Plaintiff Lisa March (“March”) was employed by Total Renal
5
Care Inc. and Rental Treat Centers – West, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) as the
6
mid-Columbia Kidney Center Manager in Franklin County, Washington. ECF No.
7
1-1 at 3, ¶ 9. In September of 2022, March reported her supervisor, Alan Grimm
8
(“Grimm”), to human resources (“HR”) for inappropriately touching her while at
9
work. Id., ¶ 15. Shortly after, March received a “write-up” from Grimm over “a
10
trivial comment made by” March. Id., ¶ 21. March reported this to HR but never
11
received a response. Id., ¶ 23. After March sent a follow up email to HR
12
regarding the harassment report against Grimm, HR arranged a three-way call
13
between HR, March, and Grimm. Id. at 3, ¶ 24, at 4 ¶ 8. The complaint alleges
14
that after the call, March started receiving random, unsubstantiated complaints of
15
misconduct and work performance issues from Grimm despite Grimm having only
16
visited March’s facility two or three times. Id. at 4, ¶ 19.
17
In March 2023, March followed up with HR about concerns of mistreatment
18
and retaliatory behavior she was receiving from Grimm since coming forward with
19
the sexual harassment claim against him. Id. at 5, ¶ 13. On April 24, 2023, HR
20
responded that no further investigation of March’s complaints would take place.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO AMEND AND REMAND ~ 2
1
Id., ¶ 23. The complaint alleges that from March 2023 to March’s termination on
2
August 16, 2023, March was specifically targeted and scrutinized by Grimm. Id. at
3
6, ¶ 1.
4
The complaint also alleges March and other female employees of
5
Defendants were repeatedly bullied by another co-worker, Jesse Fazio (“Fazio”),
6
and March received no response from HR after filing a formal complaint against
7
Fazio in June 2023. Id. at 7, ¶¶ 1, 5. March alleges she was ultimately terminated
8
August 2023 in retaliation for coming forward about Fazio’s abusive behavior and
9
Grimm’s sexual harassment. Id., ¶14. March further alleges Defendants
10
consistently refused to support March and “systematically and consistently
11
disregarded Mrs. March’s concerns regarding the facilities and risks posed to
12
employees and patients.” Id. at 8, ¶¶ 1, 7.
13
Plaintiffs filed this action in Franklin County Superior Court (including
14
DOES 1-5), asserting state law claims for discrimination and retaliation, wrongful
15
termination, and loss of consortium. Defendants timely filed a Notice of Removal
16
on July 8, 2024, to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
17
§ 1332(c). ECF No. 1. On August 16, 2024, Plaintiffs simultaneously filed three
18
motions. The first for leave to file an amended complaint adding claims against
19
Defendants and additional non-diverse defendants, the second to remand the case
20
back to state court, and the third for voluntary dismissal if remand is denied. ECF
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO AMEND AND REMAND ~ 3
1
No. 16. As discussed below, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend
2
the complaint to add additional parties. Accordingly, the case will be remanded to
3
Franklin County Superior Court for all further proceedings.
4
5
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs seek to amend their complaint pursuant to the Federal Rules of
6
Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) Rule 15 to both add two additional claims and
7
previously unidentified non-diverse defendants. The Court has not set a
8
scheduling order in this case, yet. Plaintiffs cite to FRCP Rule 15 and 20 as a basis
9
for adding defendants in the amended complaint, however, where a plaintiff seeks
10
to join additional defendants in a previously removed case that would subsequently
11
destroy the Court’s jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) supplies the proper standard.
12
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447, “[i]f after removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional
13
defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may
14
deny joinder, or permit joinder and remand the action to the State court.”
15
28 U.S.C. § 1447(e). Therefore, the Court will treat Plaintiffs’ motion to amend to
16
add additional defendants as a motion for joinder under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e).
17
“The decision regarding joinder of a diversity[-]destroying-defendant is left
18
to the discretion of the district court . . .” Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d
19
686, 691 (9th Cir.1998). In a joinder analysis, district courts in the Ninth Circuit
20
generally consider the following six factors:
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO AMEND AND REMAND ~ 4
1
2
3
4
5
(1) Whether the party sought to be joined is needed for just
adjudication and would be joined under [FRCP] 19(a); (2) whether the
statute of limitations would preclude an original action against the
new defendants in state court; (3) whether there has been unexplained
delay in requesting joinder; (4) whether joinder is intended solely to
defeat federal jurisdiction; (5) whether the claims against the new
defendant appear valid; and whether denial of joinder will prejudice
the plaintiff.
6
Falcon v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2006 WL 2434227, at *2 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 21,
7
2006).
8
9
1. Just adjudication and Federal Rules of Procedure rule 19
Under the first factor, “[FRCP] Rule 19(a) requires joinder of persons whose
10
absence would preclude the grant of complete relief, or whose absence would
11
impede their ability to protect their interests or would subject any of the parties to
12
the danger of inconsistent obligations.” Falcon, 2006 WL 2434227, at *2.
13
Defendants argue this factor weighs against joining Grimm and Fazio as
14
defendants because they are not necessary parties under FRCP 19. ECFR No. 22
15
at 9. Defendants argue because Plaintiffs are proceeding under a theory of
16
vicarious liability, any of Plaintiffs’ damages could be fully satisfied by existing
17
defendants. Id. However, Defendants’ argument necessarily presumes Plaintiffs
18
would even be successful on a vicarious liability claim. See, e.g., Walth v. Staples
19
the Office Superstore, LLC, 2018 WL 616139 (E.D. Wash. Jan. 29, 2018)
20
(“Although Defendants have stated that Spar would have vicarious liability for Mr.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO AMEND AND REMAND ~ 5
1
Udby’s conduct, the Court finds that at this point in the litigation, Spar’s assertions
2
of liability may be undermined by later motion practice.”). If Defendants were to
3
succeed in avoiding liability under a vicarious liability theory, Plaintiffs would
4
need to refile any claims in state court against the proposed defendants.
5
Additionally, Plaintiffs seeks to bring an additional state claim directly
6
against Grimm and Fazio. ECF No. 16-2 at 16. As discussed below, if Plaintiffs
7
state a plausible claim for relief against the proposed defendants regarding the
8
additional claim, the denial of joinder would prevent Plaintiffs complete relief.
9
Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of joining the proposed defendants.
10
11
12
13
14
2. Statute of limitations
Both parties agree there is no statute of limitations issue. ECF Nos. 24 at 6;
22 at 10.
3. Timeliness
“When determining whether to allow a plaintiff to amend [a] complaint to
15
add a non-diverse party, courts consider whether the amendment was attempted in
16
a timely fashion.” Falcon, 2006 WL 2434227, at *3. Plaintiffs filed this motion to
17
amend the pleadings August 16, 2024 (ECF No. 16), forty days after this action
18
was removed on July 8, 2024. Before removal, Plaintiffs’ counsel had filed a
19
notice of unavailability with the state court May 21, 2024, indicating her absence
20
from July 1 to July 25, 2024. ECF No. 1-3 at 29. The day after removal,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO AMEND AND REMAND ~ 6
1
Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a notice of unavailability with this court reiterating her
2
absence from July 9 to July 25, 2024, and additionally July 31 to August 9, 2024.
3
ECF No. 7. On July 29, Plaintiffs’ counsel hired co-counsel, F. Dayle Andersen,
4
to assist with the litigation. ECF No. 16-4 at 7. It was after co-counsel reviewed
5
the case file August 12, 2024, that additional claims were identified addressing the
6
proposed new defendants. Id. Given these facts, the Court finds Plaintiffs filed the
7
amended pleadings in a timely fashion without unreasonable delay, therefore, this
8
factor weighs in favor of joinder.
9
10
4. Motive for joinder
“[A] trial court should look with particular care at such motive in removal
11
cases[] when the presence of a new defendant will defeat the court’s diversity
12
jurisdiction and will require a remand to the state court.” Desert Empire Bank v.
13
Insurance Co. of North America, 623 F.2d 1371, 1376 (9th Cir. 1980).
14
Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ sole motivation in wanting to join additional
15
defendants is to destroy the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the case. ECF
16
No. 22 at 12-13. According to Defendants, this intent is evidenced by both a
17
statement made by Plaintiffs in the docket filings (ECF Nos. 22 at 13 (“As the
18
addition of individual defendants will eliminate full diversity, plaintiffs assert that
19
this warrants remand back to the Franklin County Superior Court.”)) and Plaintiffs’
20
request to dismiss the case if joinder and remand is denied. ECF No. 16-4 at 8, ¶ 1.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO AMEND AND REMAND ~ 7
1
The Court disagrees. Defendants cited “evidence” does not persuade the Court that
2
Plaintiffs’ motive for joinder was an improper one, particularly in light of
3
Plaintiffs’ allegations in the amended complaint that appear to have merit as
4
discussed below.
5
6
5. Validity of claims
Next, the Court must look to the apparent merit of the claims against the new
7
defendants. “The existence of a facially legitimate claim against the putative
8
defendant weighs in favor of permitting joinder under section 1447(e).” Wilner v.
9
Okta, 2022 WL 5133743, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 5, 2022) (quoting Taylor v.
10
Honeywell Corp., 2010 WL 1881459, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2010)). Plaintiffs
11
seek to add both proposed defendants, Grimm and Fazio, to the existing claims of
12
discrimination and retaliation, wrongful termination, and loss of consortium, as
13
well as to the proposed tortious interference claim. ECF No. 16-2 at 13-17.
14
Grimm was Plaintiff, Lisa March’s supervisor while she was employed with
15
Defendants. ECF No. 1-1 at 3, ¶ 13. Plaintiffs’ existing claims against Defendants
16
stem both directly and indirectly from Grimm’s alleged behavior as March’s
17
supervisor. Id. at 3-10. The fact that Plaintiffs are pursuing a vicarious liability
18
claim against Defendants does not make Grimm immune to personal liability. As
19
such, the existing claims appear to have some merit with regard to Grimm.
20
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO AMEND AND REMAND ~ 8
1
In contrast, Fazio was March’s co-worker with no mentioned supervisorial
2
role over March. ECF No. 16-2 at 5, ¶ 21. Plaintiffs’ claims of discrimination and
3
retaliation under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”) applies
4
to employer/employee or similar relationships. See, e.g., Pardee v. Evergreen
5
Shores Beach Club, 13 Wash.App.2d 1111 (2020) (“The Pardees cannot satisfy the
6
elements of a retaliation claim. The relationship between Shannon and the ESBC
7
is neither an employee-employer relationship nor its functional equivalent.”).
8
Likewise, Plaintiffs’ wrongful termination claim and any loss of consortium as a
9
result of termination and the retaliation claim require an employer-employee like
10
relationship between March and Fazio, which by Plaintiffs’ own admission was not
11
the case here. ECF No. 16-2 at 5, ¶ 21. Thus, Plaintiffs’ claims against Fazio as to
12
the first three causes of action appear to lack merit.
13
Of the two proposed additional claims, the handbook claim does not appear
14
to implicate Grimm and Fazio, only Defendants. ECF No. 16-2 at 17, ¶ 7. As for
15
the tortious interference claim, Defendants argue that because Plaintiffs allege
16
Grim and Fazio were acting within the scope of their employment under Plaintiffs’
17
vicarious liability theory, a simultaneous claim that Grim and Fazio were acting
18
outside of their scope of employment for the tortious interference claim is invalid.
19
ECF No. 22 at 14. However, FRCP 8(d)(3) permits this very action: “A party may
20
state as many separate claims or defenses as it has, regardless of consistency.”
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO AMEND AND REMAND ~ 9
1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(3). If Grim and Fazio are found to have been acting outside
2
the scope of their employment, the Court finds Plaintiffs factual assertions, if
3
proven true, support a basis for liability under the tortious interference claim.
4
Therefore, Plaintiffs have stated viable claims against both proposed defendants,
5
which favors permitting joinder.
6
6. Prejudice to Plaintiffs
7
Preventing Plaintiffs from joining non-diverse defendants, Fazio and
8
Grimm, in this action would require Plaintiffs to choose between pursuing parallel
9
action arising from the same facts and circumstances as this action or foregoing
10
any claims against Fazio and Grimm. Any parallel litigation would also be a waste
11
of judicial resources and risk inconsistent results. As such, the Court finds
12
Plaintiffs will suffer prejudice if joinder is denied.
13
CONCLUSION
14
Considering all the factors discussed, the Court finds joinder of non-diverse
15
defendants Fazio and Grimm is warranted in this case, thereby divesting the Court
16
of jurisdiction over this action. The Court reserves Plaintiffs’ motion to amend to
17
bring additional claims against Defendants to the state court. The Court need not
18
address Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss.
19
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
20
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED in part.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO AMEND AND REMAND ~ 10
1
2. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED.
2
3. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) is DENIED as moot.
3
4. This case is hereby REMANDED to the Franklin County Superior Court
4
5
for all further proceedings.
The District Court Executive is hereby directed to enter this Order, furnish
6
copies to counsel, mail a certified copy to the Clerk of the Franklin County
7
Superior Court, and CLOSE the file.
8
DATED September 25, 2024.
9
10
11
THOMAS O. RICE
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO AMEND AND REMAND ~ 11
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?