Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Raymond Pliego brought this employment action against Charter Communications, LLC, and Kisha Wright in San Bernardino County Superior Court. Charter removed the case to the Central District of California based on diversity jurisdiction. The court then ordered Charter to show cause why the action should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Charter and Pliego filed responses, and Pliego also filed a motion to remand.
The jurisdictional problem concerned Wright's citizenship. Charter did not identify her citizenship, while Pliego alleged—and Charter conceded—that she was a California resident, suggesting that she was a California citizen like Pliego. Charter did not dispute California citizenship in its response. Instead, it argued that Wright had been fraudulently joined, which would permit the court to disregard her citizenship when assessing diversity.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Mark C. Scarsi explained that fraudulent joinder requires either actual fraud in pleading jurisdictional facts or an inability to establish a state-court cause of action against the non-diverse defendant. The removing defendant bears a heavy burden, and remand is required if a state court could possibly find a claim viable. The court therefore concentrated on Pliego's FEHA harassment claim against all defendants. FEHA expressly imposes personal liability on an employee for prohibited harassment the employee perpetrates, and Charter had not shown that any pleading deficiency could not possibly be cured through amendment.
Charter relied on a human-resources declaration and investigation summary to portray Wright's involvement as limited to one introductory telephone call. The court found that Charter's own evidence undermined that account: another declaration placed Wright on a later dismissal call, and the investigation summary identified her as its preparer and listed her among the decisionmakers recommending termination. The summary also supported aspects of Pliego's account concerning pressure to participate in an investigation during disability-related medical leave. These materials created factual disputes that could not be resolved against Pliego in the fraudulent-joinder inquiry.
The court rejected Charter's remaining arguments about severe or pervasive conduct, personnel management, and harassment during leave as merits arguments that did not establish the impossibility of a viable claim. It cited California authority recognizing that a single incident can create a triable hostile-environment issue and that official employment actions may communicate hostility. Because Charter failed its burden even with its evidence considered, the court did not address Pliego's other claims against Wright or his evidentiary objections. It remanded the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), denied Pliego's remand motion as moot, vacated the hearing, and directed immediate remand and closure of the federal case.
Key Takeaways
- A removing defendant asserting fraudulent joinder must show more than weaknesses in the current complaint; it must overcome the possibility that a state court would find a claim viable, including after amendment.
- FEHA's express provision for personal liability for harassment made Wright's citizenship central to the diversity analysis and required close examination of the claim against her.
- Charter's own declarations and investigation summary created disputes about Wright's role, and those disputes could not be resolved against Pliego at the jurisdictional stage.
- Arguments that conduct was insufficiently severe or pervasive, constituted personnel management, or occurred during medical leave did not establish that no California court could possibly sustain the harassment claim.
- The court remanded the entire action, denied Pliego's separate remand motion as moot, and left unresolved Charter's arguments about Pliego's other claims and Pliego's objections to Charter's evidence.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the demanding fraudulent-joinder standard governing removal based on diversity. A defendant cannot secure federal jurisdiction merely by presenting evidence that a claim against the non-diverse defendant is weak or potentially dismissible. Where the defendant's own materials leave material factual disputes and amendment remains possible, the strong presumption against removal supports returning the case to state court. The court's refusal to weigh that evidence against Pliego reflects the summary, plaintiff-favorable posture of the fraudulent-joinder inquiry.
The ruling also separates jurisdictional screening from the ultimate merits of FEHA harassment liability. The court did not decide that Pliego would prevail against Wright; it held only that Charter had not shown the claim could not possibly be sustained. That distinction allowed the state court, rather than the removing defendant's merits arguments, to address the claim in the first instance.