Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Maria Sanchez sued Michaels Stores and individual employees in Los Angeles Superior Court, asserting claims that included intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring and supervision, and workplace sexual harassment under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.
The defendants removed the case on diversity grounds. Sanchez moved to remand, arguing that the individual employee defendants could not be disregarded and that their presence prevented the complete diversity of citizenship required for federal jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted remand. It rejected the defendants’ contention that the individual employees were fraudulently joined. Under that demanding doctrine, a removing defendant must show there is no possibility the plaintiff could state a claim against the nondiverse defendant under state law. The allegations did not permit the court to make that finding as to the employees.
The defendants also failed to establish the employees’ citizenship. Although they identified Sanchez as a California citizen and Michaels as a citizen of Delaware and Texas, they did not address the citizenship of the two individual defendants. Because the removing parties bore the burden and could not prove complete diversity, the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and returned the case to Los Angeles Superior Court.
Key Takeaways
- Fraudulent joinder is a narrow exception and requires more than an argument that the claims against employee defendants are weak.
- The removing party must establish the citizenship of every relevant party, including individual employees.
- A defendant cannot rely on professed ignorance when information about its own employees’ citizenship can be investigated.
- Failure to prove complete diversity requires remand and ends the federal proceeding.
Why It Matters
California employment cases often name both a corporate employer and individual supervisors or coworkers. This order shows why those defendants must be analyzed carefully before removal: viable state claims against an employee may destroy diversity jurisdiction.
Defense counsel should develop admissible citizenship facts before filing a notice of removal, while plaintiffs seeking remand should test both fraudulent joinder and the evidence supporting each party’s citizenship. Jurisdiction cannot rest on an incomplete party-by-party showing.