Tina Scott v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. et al.

Summary

The Central District of California granted Tina Scott’s motion to remand her employment-related action to Riverside County Superior Court. The court held that removal was timely because the removal period began upon receipt of the certified deposition transcript, but defendants failed to establish fraudulent joinder of the nondiverse individual defendants based on the alleged defamation claim.

Holdings

1. A rough draft deposition transcript does not start the second thirty-day removal period when the grounds for removal do not become unequivocally clear and certain until the defendant receives the certified transcript. Defendants' removal was therefore timely.
2. The individual California defendants were not shown to be fraudulently joined because Defendants failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that there was no possibility that Plaintiff could state a defamation claim against them in state court. Their citizenship therefore could not be disregarded, and complete diversity was absent.
3. Plaintiff was not entitled to attorney's fees or sanctions because Defendants had an objectively reasonable basis for removal and their position on the removal deadline was not frivolous.

Questions Presented

1. Whether receipt of a rough draft deposition transcript triggered the thirty-day removal period under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
2. Whether the California individual defendants were fraudulently joined such that their citizenship could be disregarded for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
3. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to attorney's fees or sanctions based on Defendants' removal position.

Disposition

remanded