William Crigler v. XPO, Inc., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted William Crigler’s motion to remand his employment-related action against XPO, Inc. and Saundra Coyle to San Bernardino County Superior Court. The court held that Coyle was not fraudulently joined because there was at least some possibility that the complaint stated a viable racial-harassment claim against her under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, defeating complete diversity. The court denied Crigler’s request for attorney’s fees and directed the clerk to close the federal case.

Holdings

1. Coyle was not fraudulently joined because there was at least some possibility that a California state court would find that Crigler's complaint stated a FEHA harassment claim against her. Because Crigler and Coyle were both California citizens, complete diversity was absent and the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; remand was therefore required.
2. Crigler was not entitled to attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because the defendants had an objectively reasonable basis for removal, notwithstanding the court's conclusion that remand was required.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Coyle was fraudulently joined such that her California citizenship could be disregarded for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
2. Whether the allegations against Coyle presented at least a possibility that a California court would find a viable FEHA harassment claim.
3. Whether Crigler was entitled to attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for obtaining remand.

Disposition

remanded