Fityan v. World Courier, Inc.

Background

Abed Fityan filed an employment discrimination action in San Mateo County Superior Court against World Courier, Inc., Cencora, Inc., Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation, Amerisourcebergen Services Corporation, Amerisourcebergen Specialty Group, LLC, and Rina Savaiinaea. His complaint asserted ten state-law claims, including disability discrimination, disability retaliation, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, failure to engage in the interactive process, violation of the California Family Rights Act, race and national-origin discrimination and retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The corporate defendants removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Fityan moved to remand, arguing, among other things, that removal was untimely and that diversity jurisdiction was lacking. He also requested attorney’s fees for the allegedly improper removal.

Court’s Analysis

The court assumed, without deciding, that the notice of removal was timely. It held that remand was still required because complete diversity was absent. Fityan and Savaiinaea were both alleged to be California residents, and the court applied the principle that a person’s place of residence is generally treated as that person’s domicile unless contrary facts are shown. The defendants offered no such facts.

The defendants argued that Savaiinaea’s citizenship should be disregarded because they had completed a “snap removal”—removal before a defendant was served. The court explained that snap removal may concern the forum-defendant rule, but it cannot create federal jurisdiction when complete diversity is otherwise missing.

The defendants also argued that Savaiinaea was fraudulently joined. Fraudulent joinder means naming a resident defendant against whom the plaintiff has no possible state-law claim, so that the defendant’s citizenship can be disregarded for diversity purposes. The court found that the defendants had not met their heavy burden. Fityan alleged that Savaiinaea dismissed him, refused accommodations without a good-faith interactive process, required him to attend an in-person meeting while he was on medical leave and then terminated him, and favored Filipino employees while discriminating against non-Filipino employees. The court concluded that a state court could potentially find these allegations sufficient to support an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim against Savaiinaea.

Because Fityan and Savaiinaea were both California citizens, complete diversity did not exist. Fityan alleged no federal claim, so the court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court did not reach the parties’ remaining arguments about whether diversity jurisdiction was lacking for other reasons.

Disposition

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted Fityan’s motion to remand. The Clerk was instructed to remand the action to San Mateo County Superior Court and close the federal case. The court found that the corporate defendants lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal. It did not award attorney’s fees in this order; instead, it stated that Fityan may file a motion for fees in compliance with Civil Local Rule 54-5.