Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mahan Ayazi worked for Southern California Gas Company from 2001 until his termination on September 13, 2024. His state-court complaint alleges six causes of action, including disability discrimination and wrongful termination, following a workplace injury, light-duty work, leave, disability benefits, and an unsuccessful effort to obtain another position with the company. He seeks lost wages, general and punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. Ayazi moved from California to North Carolina before his termination, sold his California house, bought a North Carolina house, and registered to vote there, while maintaining that he intended eventually to return to California.
Ayazi filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court on May 21, 2026. SCGC removed the action on June 8, and Ayazi effected service on June 16. His July 8 motion to remand argued that both sides were California citizens, that SCGC had not adequately established the amount in controversy, and that the forum-defendant rule barred removal by a California defendant. SCGC opposed the motion, and Ayazi replied. U.S. Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver previously vacated the August 5 hearing as suitable for decision without oral argument and decided the motion in an October 16, 2026 order.
The Court’s Holding
The court found complete diversity because Ayazi was domiciled in North Carolina when he sued. Although his declared desire to return to California mattered, objective facts—including selling his California home, buying and placing his North Carolina home in a living trust, registering to vote there, and receiving support from nearby relatives—showed an indefinite North Carolina residence. His conditional hope of returning after obtaining suitable employment was a floating intention, not a fixed plan with a definite endpoint. The court also found the jurisdictional amount established by a preponderance of the evidence. Using Ayazi’s $49,505.62 in 2023 compensation and calculating lost wages from his September 2024 termination through the June 2026 removal produced $86,634.85, exceeding $75,000 without relying on emotional-distress damages, punitive damages, or fees.
The court separately rejected the procedural challenge to snap removal. Because the Ninth Circuit had not issued a binding decision on that question, it began with § 1441(b)(2)’s text, which restricts removal based on forum defendants who have been properly joined and served. SCGC removed eighteen days after the complaint was filed and eight days before service, so the court held that the plain language permitted removal. It rejected Ayazi’s ambiguity argument because his proposed alternative would make service a prerequisite to removal, contrary to Ninth Circuit authority. It also held that possible unfairness or burdens from pre-service removal did not satisfy the demanding absurdity doctrine, since Congress rationally could have chosen service as a bright-line event. The motion to remand was denied; the order did not decide the merits of Ayazi’s employment claims.
Key Takeaways
- A person’s stated hope of returning to a former state may carry little weight when objective conduct establishes an indefinite home elsewhere.
- The court treated an uncertain possibility of reinstatement as different from a temporary stay with a concrete endpoint, such as completing education or a professional project.
- Lost wages through the removal date alone supported the amount in controversy, so the court left unresolved the district’s disagreement over whether wages should instead be projected through trial.
- The order joins decisions reading § 1441(b)(2) to permit a forum defendant to remove before being properly joined and served, while acknowledging contrary concerns about snap removal.
- The ruling resolves jurisdiction and removal procedure only; it does not determine whether SCGC discriminated against or wrongfully terminated Ayazi.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how domicile and removal timing can determine whether an employment case remains in federal court even when the plaintiff seeks a state-court forum. It also provides a detailed application of snap-removal statutory analysis in the absence of a binding Ninth Circuit ruling, addressing both ambiguity and absurdity rather than relying solely on policy concerns.
The amount-in-controversy analysis is deliberately narrow: the court accepted a payroll-based declaration and actual prior compensation as a conservative lost-wages measure, without deciding other damages categories or choosing between competing approaches to future wage calculations.