Ron Lomboy v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Background

Ron Lomboy worked at Wells Fargo from 2007 until Wells Fargo terminated him in January 2024. Lomboy alleged that Stephen Hitchcock was the main decision-maker in the termination and falsely accused him of fraud involving an incident in which Lomboy helped an allegedly emancipated minor open a bank account. Lomboy also alleged that he had to disclose the accusations during later job interviews and that the investigation was a pretext for terminating him because of his disabilities.

Lomboy previously brought discrimination and retaliation claims against Wells Fargo in federal court. After Wells Fargo declined to agree to an amended complaint adding a defamation claim, Lomboy filed this separate lawsuit in Contra Costa County alleging one defamation claim against Wells Fargo and Hitchcock. The defendants removed that lawsuit to the Northern District of California and moved to dismiss. Lomboy moved to remand the case to state court.

Remand standard

The defendants relied on diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires more than $75,000 in dispute and complete diversity—meaning that every plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state from every defendant. The opinion states that Lomboy and Hitchcock were both citizens of California. The court explained that a nondiverse defendant’s citizenship may be disregarded if that defendant was fraudulently joined, meaning the plaintiff could not possibly state a claim against that defendant under settled state-law rules.

The party that removed the case bears a heavy burden to prove fraudulent joinder. The court also explained that this inquiry is different from deciding whether the complaint would survive a motion to dismiss. If there is any possibility that the plaintiff can state a claim, or can correct the complaint through amendment, the federal court must treat the joinder as proper and remand the case.

Court’s analysis

The defendants argued that Lomboy had not adequately alleged that defamatory statements were published to a third party. The court found that Lomboy alleged Wells Fargo and Hitchcock made statements accusing him of fraud to third parties, including other employees. Although the allegations were not detailed, the court found at least a possibility that Lomboy could state a claim under state law. The court also noted that Lomboy might be able to amend the complaint with more specific information about the third parties who allegedly received the statements.

The defendants also argued that California’s common-interest privilege barred the defamation claim. The court explained that the privilege does not apply to statements made with actual malice. The court could not conclude that it was impossible for Lomboy to plead actual malice, including his allegation that Hitchcock fabricated the fraud accusation because of hostility toward Lomboy’s disabilities and protected leaves.

The court declined to resolve disputed facts or decide whether Lomboy would ultimately succeed on the defamation claim. It concluded that the defendants had not shown by the required standard that Lomboy could not possibly state a claim against Hitchcock. Hitchcock therefore was not fraudulently joined, and his California citizenship prevented complete diversity.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted Lomboy’s motion to remand. The court remanded the case to the Superior Court of Contra Costa County, terminated the defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot, directed the Clerk to remand the case and close the federal file, and entered the order on October 6, 2025. The federal court did not decide the ultimate merits of the defamation claim.