Diallo v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Background

Fatima Diallo sued her former employer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., for workplace discrimination, wrongful termination, and related violations of state law. Wells Fargo removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Diallo then moved to amend her complaint to add her former manager, Sergiy Vladychkin, as a defendant. Because Vladychkin would destroy diversity jurisdiction, the proposed amendment would require the case to return to state court.

Legal Standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), after removal, a court may deny the addition of a defendant whose joinder would destroy subject-matter jurisdiction, or allow the addition and remand the case to state court. The court considered six factors: whether the proposed defendant was needed for a fair resolution, whether the statute of limitations would bar a state-court action, whether the request was delayed, whether the purpose was only to destroy diversity jurisdiction, whether the claims appeared valid, and whether denying joinder would prejudice Diallo.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that adding Vladychkin was needed for a fair resolution because Diallo would otherwise have to bring a separate state-court action. Wells Fargo had asserted that Vladychkin acted outside the scope of his employment, making his involvement relevant despite Wells Fargo’s argument that it could be responsible for his conduct.

The statute of limitations would not prevent a state-court action, but requiring Diallo to litigate essentially the same issues in two courts could waste judicial resources and create inconsistent results. The court also found that the request was timely because the case was still at its beginning: the complaint had been filed in April 2024, Wells Fargo removed the case about a month later, and Diallo moved to amend and remand after trying unsuccessfully to obtain Wells Fargo’s agreement.

The court did not find on the record that Diallo sought to add Vladychkin solely to destroy diversity jurisdiction. It noted that Vladychkin had been Diallo’s supervisor, figured in the alleged conduct, and was the subject of Wells Fargo’s defense that he acted outside the scope of his employment.

The proposed amended complaint asserted claims against Vladychkin for hostile work environment and discrimination and harassment under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress. Wells Fargo conceded that the hostile-work-environment claim likely would survive a motion to dismiss but challenged the other claims. The court concluded that Diallo had at least some potentially valid claims against Vladychkin.

Finally, the court found that denying joinder would prejudice Diallo by forcing her either to pursue redundant litigation or to give up potential claims against Vladychkin. The court noted that allowing the amendment would not prejudice Wells Fargo because discovery had not yet begun.

Disposition

The court granted Diallo’s motion to file the first amended complaint. It designated the proposed complaint docketed at ECF No. 11-1, pages 5–31, as the operative complaint and remanded the case to San Francisco County Superior Court. The order resolved ECF No. 11. Judge Laurel Beeler did not decide the underlying workplace-discrimination or other state-law claims.