Jared Rasmussen v. Fox Corporation; Fox Cable Network Services, LLC; Christopher Ganny; Gregory Ochotorena; Diijon Williams; Anna Druker; and Does 1-20, inclusive

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Jared Rasmussen’s motion to remand his employment-related action against Fox entities and individual defendants. The court held that the individual defendants were fraudulently joined because the claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress were barred by California’s two-year statute of limitations. After discounting those defendants’ citizenship, the court concluded that removal was proper and did not reach the parties’ remaining arguments concerning snap removal and other grounds for fraudulent joinder.

Holdings

1. The fraudulent-joinder doctrine applies when a forum-state defendant triggers the forum defendant rule but does not destroy complete diversity; a defendant who was not properly joined because no viable state-law claim can be stated against that defendant need not be considered under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).
2. The Individual Defendants were fraudulently joined because Rasmussen's intentional- and negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims accrued no later than his July 21, 2023 termination and were barred by California's two-year statute of limitations when he filed suit on August 27, 2025.
3. After disregarding the Individual Defendants as fraudulently joined, the remaining parties did not violate the forum defendant rule, and removal was proper.
4. Section 1446(b)(1) does not bar a defendant from filing a notice of removal before formal service; the statute establishes a removal deadline rather than a period during which removal is prohibited.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Individual Defendants were fraudulently joined because Rasmussen's intentional- and negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims against them were barred by California's two-year statute of limitations.
2. Whether fraudulent joinder may be applied when a nondiverse defendant implicates the forum defendant rule but does not destroy complete diversity.
3. Whether removal before formal service was procedurally barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
4. Whether the Individual Defendants' citizenship should be disregarded for purposes of applying the forum defendant rule.

Disposition

other