Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted Plaintiff Susana Reyes’s motion to remand her employment-related action to California state court. The court held that Defendant Brian Baiza was not shown by clear and convincing evidence to have been fraudulently joined, but denied Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees because removal was not objectively unreasonable.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Federal Express established by clear and convincing evidence that Brian Baiza was fraudulently joined because the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim was preempted by the California Workers' Compensation Act.
- Whether there was any non-fanciful possibility that Plaintiff could establish an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim against Baiza under California law.
- Whether Plaintiff was entitled to attorneys' fees and costs incurred because of the removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Holdings
- Federal Express failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Baiza was fraudulently joined based on Workers' Compensation Act preemption. Because Plaintiff could potentially amend her complaint to allege that Baiza's discriminatory, retaliatory, or harassing conduct exceeded the risks inherent in the employment relationship, the claim could not be disregarded for diversity purposes.
- There was a non-fanciful possibility that Plaintiff could establish an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim against Baiza; therefore, Baiza was not fraudulently joined and remand was required.
- Plaintiff was not entitled to attorneys' fees and costs because Federal Express had an objectively reasonable basis for removal, even though the removal ultimately failed.
Key quotations
“A defendant seeking removal has the burden to establish that removal is proper and any doubt is resolved against removability.” (3)
“if there is a possibility that a state court would find that the complaint states a cause of action against any of the resident defendants, the federal court must find that the joinder was proper and remand the case to the state court.” (4)
“To state a claim for IIED, a plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant subjected him to extreme and outrageous conduct; (2) the defendant’s intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (3) plaintiff suffered severe or extreme emotional distress; and (4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by defendant’s outrageous conduct.” (7)
“Because there is a non-fanciful possibility of IIED liability against Defendant Baiza, a finding of fraudulent joinder is inappropriate.” (8)
Factual background
Plaintiff alleged that she worked for Federal Express beginning in 2018 and that supervisor Brian Baiza subjected her to age- and disability-related mistreatment, including denying or interfering with rest breaks, making an age-related remark, disregarding a physician's work restriction, and refusing accommodations. She further alleged that Baiza suspended and terminated her after an incident involving food taken from a workplace refrigerator, and that the termination was motivated by discrimination and retaliation. Her complaint asserted employment-related statutory and common-law claims against Federal Express and an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim against Baiza.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed suit in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, against FedEx Corporation and Brian Baiza. She later dismissed FedEx Corporation and substituted Federal Express Corporation as the correct employing entity. Federal Express removed the action based on diversity jurisdiction, asserting that Baiza, a nondiverse defendant, had been fraudulently joined because the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim against him was preempted by the California Workers' Compensation Act and inadequately pleaded. The district court granted the motion to remand, denied attorneys' fees and costs, and remanded the action to state court.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs; Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees and costs was denied.