Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff James Williams sued his former employer, Access Information Management Shared Services, LLC, and a former supervisor, Jeff Cimorelli, in state court for wage-and-hour violations. Access removed the case, contending Cimorelli was a sham defendant whose citizenship should be disregarded for diversity jurisdiction. Williams moved to remand, and Cimorelli's motion to dismiss was stayed pending that ruling.
The parties agreed remand turned on whether Williams could state a viable claim against Cimorelli under Labor Code section 558.1, which reaches a director, officer, or managing agent and borrows the Civil Code section 3294(b) definition. Under White v. Ultramar, Inc., 21 Cal. 4th 563 (1999), a managing agent is more than a mere supervisory employee and includes only those who exercise substantial independent authority and judgment such that their decisions ultimately determine corporate policy.
The complaint alleged no job title or specific conduct, only conclusory assertions that Cimorelli was a director, officer, or managing agent who oversaw Access's operations. Williams's declaration said Cimorelli was his direct supervisor for part of his employment and directed work at the Livermore facility through meetings, calls, and texts. As described in the order, it did not assert that Cimorelli set or influenced company policy. Cimorelli's declaration said he was a temporary supervisor and Senior Market Leader with facility-level profit-and-loss and productivity responsibilities but no discretion over wage-and-hour policy, which Access sets corporately. A senior human resources director added that the role is one of more than 20 nationally and about four levels below executive leadership.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied remand, finding Cimorelli fraudulently joined. It called the facts on all fours with Rodriguez v. Residence Inn By Marriott, LLC, 2023 WL 8234643 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2023), which Williams did not address in reply. As in Rodriguez, Access's declarations described Cimorelli's duties and limited authority in enough detail to support a reasonable inference that he lacked substantial discretionary authority over significant aspects of the business. Williams alleged no facts showing Cimorelli could determine or formulate company policy, and authority to implement policies and control a work schedule does not meet the California Supreme Court's definition.
The court followed Rodriguez in concluding there was no possibility a state court would find a claim stated against Cimorelli. It cited Nguyen v. Ericsson, Inc., 2018 WL 2836076 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2018), as consistent. Williams conceded that diversity jurisdiction exists if Cimorelli's citizenship is disregarded, so remand was denied.
Leave to amend was denied because the complaint pleads no theory of individual liability independent of managing-agent status, and Williams proposed no amendments. Cimorelli was dismissed without leave to amend, and his motion to dismiss was terminated as moot. The order does not address the merits of the claims against Access.
Key Takeaways
- A facility-level supervisor who implements corporate policy but cannot set or change it is not a managing agent under Labor Code section 558.1.
- Conclusory allegations that a defendant is a director, officer, or managing agent do not withstand detailed employer declarations describing the defendant's limited authority.
- Day-to-day control of an employee's work, as Williams described, does not by itself show the policy-making authority White requires.
- Leave to amend may be denied when the plaintiff proposes no amendment and pleads no theory of liability independent of managing-agent status.
- Because the order is an unreported district court decision that follows an out-of-district ruling, it is persuasive authority only.
Why It Matters
The order applies an established test to a common removal tactic in California wage-and-hour litigation, in which a local manager is named as a defendant to defeat diversity. It shows a federal court weighing declarations about a manager's actual duties, rather than titles or labels, to decide whether any possible claim exists against the individual under section 558.1, and it notes that Williams did not respond to Rodriguez in his reply.
The ruling is limited to this record. White treats the scope of a corporate employee's authority as a question of fact decided case by case, so the order does not hold that facility managers can never be managing agents. As an unreported district court order, it binds no other court. The wage-and-hour claims against Access itself remain unaddressed, and nothing here resolves their merits.