Phillips v. Berkeley Unified School District

Background

Rachel Phillips sued her former high school teacher, Matthew Bissell, and Berkeley Unified School District over alleged sexual harassment while Phillips was a student at Berkeley High. Phillips filed the case in state court. Berkeley Unified removed it to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction after learning that Phillips was a resident of Oregon when she filed and continued to be one.

Phillips sought leave to amend her complaint to add seven women who allegedly were also harassed by Bissell while they were students at Berkeley High. Some of the proposed plaintiffs are California citizens, as are defendants. Berkeley Unified opposed the motion; no other defendant filed an opposition.

Forum-Defendant Rule

The court asked the parties to brief whether removal was proper under the forum-defendant rule. That rule generally prevents removal of a diversity case when a properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the state where the lawsuit was filed. The court concluded that the removal violated that rule, but Phillips had not moved to remand on that basis within the required period. The court therefore treated the issue as waived and did not remand on that ground.

Joinder and Amendment

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, which allows plaintiffs to join in one case when their claims arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of occurrences and when at least one legal or factual question is common to all plaintiffs.

The court found both requirements satisfied. Phillips and the proposed plaintiffs allegedly were harassed or assaulted while they were students at Berkeley High by the same person. The court found a logical relationship among the claims because they involved an alleged pattern or practice of exploiting a position at the high school to harass female students. It also found that evidence concerning the alleged pattern of conduct and Berkeley Unified’s knowledge could involve common legal or factual questions, even though each plaintiff would have individual facts to prove.

The court then applied Rule 15, which generally requires courts to freely allow amendments when justice requires. Berkeley Unified primarily argued that Phillips acted in bad faith to destroy federal jurisdiction and that the amendment would prejudice the district. The court stated that the bad-faith argument had some merit but that it was not clear Phillips sought joinder solely to destroy diversity jurisdiction. The court also found that Berkeley Unified had not shown prejudice from the delay, noting that it would face the claims whether they were brought in one case or eight separate cases and that no case deadlines had been set.

The court rejected Berkeley Unified’s argument that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) governed because that statute addresses adding defendants after removal, while Phillips sought to add plaintiffs. The court noted that some of the same considerations could be relevant under Rule 15.

Disposition

The court granted Phillips’s motion for leave to amend and allowed her to join the seven proposed plaintiffs. Because some of those plaintiffs are California citizens, complete diversity no longer existed, and the court lacked diversity jurisdiction. The court therefore remanded the case to state superior court.

The court also granted the proposed plaintiffs’ request to proceed anonymously. It stated that the state court could revisit that issue. The order disposed of Docket No. 12. The order addressed amendment, joinder, jurisdiction, remand, and anonymity; it did not decide the underlying allegations or liability.