Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Fabio Acuna sued Western Union, LLC, Hector Grinacoff, and Doe defendants in Los Angeles County Superior Court on March 29, 2026. His complaint asserted five causes of action: disability discrimination and retaliation under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, harassment and failure to prevent harassment under FEHA, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Western Union removed the action to the Central District of California on July 17, 2026. Acuna moved to remand on September 24, Western Union opposed, and Acuna did not file a reply. The court decided the motion without oral argument and vacated the November 13, 2026 hearing.
The complaint alleged that Acuna took protected short-term disability leave from January 31 through May 5, 2025, to manage anxiety and type 2 diabetes, and was treated differently after returning. He alleged exclusion from market tours, placement on a performance improvement plan, and termination on August 19, 2025. The complaint attributed to Grinacoff decisions about market-tour participation and the performance plan, as well as the remarks “Oh, I was just testing you!” and “Who promoted you?” The court noted contradictory employment timelines in the complaint, including a 2020 start date and references to twenty-five years of employment.
Acuna sought remand on the grounds that the parties lacked complete diversity and the action presented no federal question. Western Union countered that Grinacoff was a sham defendant whose joinder was a textbook attempt to defeat diversity. The dispute therefore centered on whether Acuna could state any colorable claim against Grinacoff, whose California citizenship would otherwise destroy complete diversity.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that removal requires federal subject-matter jurisdiction and that the removing defendant bears the burden of establishing it, with doubts resolved against removal. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity and more than $75,000 in controversy. Acuna argued that complete diversity was absent and no federal question existed; Western Union responded that Grinacoff was a sham defendant joined to defeat diversity. Applying the presumption against fraudulent joinder and Western Union’s heavy burden, the court asked whether Acuna could possibly recover against Grinacoff after resolving factual disputes and state-law ambiguities in Acuna’s favor. It found that burden satisfied because Acuna asserted only two claims against Grinacoff and neither was colorable.
On negligent infliction of emotional distress, the court stated that California recognizes no independent NIED tort apart from negligence. It nevertheless did not assess whether Acuna adequately pleaded negligence because NIED resulting from employment dismissal is barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity. Since Acuna’s claim rested on conduct within the scope of employment, the court agreed that the fifth cause of action failed as a matter of law.
On FEHA harassment, the court treated the market-tour and performance-plan allegations as personnel management decisions that cannot constitute unlawful harassment. It then held that the two quoted remarks lacked allegations connecting them to Acuna’s protected status. The remarks also fell short of severe and pervasive harassment or individually severe or humiliating conduct sufficient for a reasonable jury to find a hostile work environment. Because both claims against Grinacoff failed to state a colorable claim, the court deemed him fraudulently joined, denied the remand motion, and vacated the hearing.
Key Takeaways
- A removing defendant invoking fraudulent joinder faces a heavy burden, but can meet it by showing that no colorable claim exists against the non-diverse defendant.
- The court held that Acuna’s employment-based NIED claim was barred by California’s workers’ compensation exclusivity rule.
- Market-tour assignments, performance improvement plans, and performance feedback were treated as personnel management decisions rather than FEHA harassment.
- The two remarks attributed to Grinacoff were insufficient because the complaint did not allege that they were connected to a protected characteristic and they were not sufficiently severe or pervasive.
- The order resolved remand and fraudulent joinder; it did not dismiss the entire action or adjudicate the merits of Acuna’s remaining claims against Western Union.
Why It Matters
The decision keeps Acuna’s removed employment action in federal court by disregarding Grinacoff’s citizenship for diversity purposes. It illustrates how fraudulent-joinder analysis can turn on a summary assessment of whether any claim against the non-diverse defendant is legally viable, even under standards favoring remand.
The ruling also distinguishes ordinary managerial decisions and isolated offensive remarks from actionable FEHA harassment. Its analysis is tied to the allegations against Grinacoff and does not decide whether Acuna can pursue his other employment claims against Western Union.