Nazarenko v. Meta Platforms Inc.

Background

Mikhail M. Nazarenko, who was proceeding without a lawyer, originally filed the case in state court against Meta Platforms, TaskUs, and TaskUs Greece. The complaint was difficult to understand, but the court described it as asserting claims arising from Nazarenko’s employment and later termination by TaskUs Greece. The claims included emotional-distress, wrongful-termination, discrimination, accommodation, contract, labor-law, whistleblower, political-discrimination, retaliation, and criminal-history-screening claims. The complaint included a federal age-discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and state claims under California law.

Meta Platforms and TaskUs removed the case to federal court. Nazarenko moved to remand, meaning he asked the court to return the case to state court. He argued that TaskUs Greece had not consented to removal and that TaskUs’s consent was ineffective because its lawyers allegedly lacked authority to act for that company.

Federal Jurisdiction

The court held that it had federal-question jurisdiction because of Nazarenko’s federal age-discrimination claim. It also held that it could exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, because those claims arose from the same alleged discrimination, labor-law violations, retaliation, and termination. The court found that the federal and state claims involved intertwined evidence and legal issues and declined to separate the state claims.

Consent to Removal

Federal law generally requires all defendants who have been properly joined and served to consent to removal. The court found that Meta Platforms and TaskUs filed the removal notice within 30 days after Meta was formally served. Nazarenko did not dispute that TaskUs and TaskUs Greece had not been formally served.

Nazarenko argued that an email from counsel for TaskUs and TaskUs Greece waived formal service because it stated that counsel represented those defendants and asked Nazarenko to direct communications to counsel. The court rejected that argument. Under the California law discussed in the opinion, an attorney’s notice of appearance waives service when it is a written notice filed in the action for that purpose. The email was not filed in court, did not recognize the court’s authority, and did not otherwise agree to waive service. The court also found that the email did not prevent Nazarenko from serving the defendants through a third party, such as a process server.

Disposition

Judge Rita F. Lin denied Nazarenko’s motion to remand. The ruling kept the case in federal court. The opinion did not decide the merits of Nazarenko’s employment, discrimination, contract, or other underlying claims.