Oiyemhonlan v. Aramark Management Services, Inc.

Background

Raymond Oiyemhonlan originally filed the action in San Francisco County Superior Court in March 2022. He alleged that Aramark Facility Services, LLC wrongfully terminated him because of his age and national origin. He also alleged retaliation for reporting health and safety violations concerning the cleaning of an operating room at a San Francisco medical center. The complaint stated that Matthew Bailey disliked Oiyemhonlan because he was from the African continent and spoke with an accent, and that Bailey used Oiyemhonlan's safety complaints as a reason to terminate him.

Aramark removed the action to federal court in May 2022 based on diversity jurisdiction. Aramark asserted that Oiyemhonlan was a California citizen and that Aramark was a citizen of Delaware and Pennsylvania. Oiyemhonlan then moved to add California residents Don Hall, William Butler, and Matthew Bailey as defendants and moved to remand, or return, the case to state court. The parties agreed that adding those individuals would destroy complete diversity and require remand if joinder were allowed.

Motion for Joinder

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), after removal a court may deny a request to add defendants whose presence would destroy federal jurisdiction, or may allow the addition and remand the case. The court considered factors including whether the proposed defendants were needed for a fair resolution, whether a new state-court action would be time-barred, whether Oiyemhonlan delayed, whether the request was intended to defeat federal jurisdiction, whether the proposed claims appeared valid, and whether denying joinder would prejudice him.

The court found that Hall, Butler, and Bailey allegedly played principal rather than merely tangential roles in the conduct underlying Oiyemhonlan's claims. It found no unreasonable delay because Oiyemhonlan sought joinder about three and a half months after filing the complaint and seven weeks after removal, before a deadline for amendment had been set and before formal discovery appeared to have occurred. The court considered Oiyemhonlan's motive ambiguous: Aramark argued that he sought joinder only to defeat diversity jurisdiction, while Oiyemhonlan asserted that he needed additional information to develop claims against Hall and Butler.

The court nevertheless found that no valid claims were currently asserted against the proposed defendants. Oiyemhonlan had not moved for leave to amend the complaint, had not detailed the new allegations he intended to make, and did not dispute Aramark's argument that individuals could not be held liable for discrimination or retaliation as such. Oiyemhonlan instead said he intended to assert harassment claims, for which the opinion discussed potential liability under California law. Because those claims were only hypothetical, the court could not assess their validity. It also found no apparent risk of redundant litigation or resulting prejudice from denying joinder.

The court therefore denied the motion for joinder without prejudice. It noted that Oiyemhonlan could move for leave to amend the complaint to add harassment claims against Hall, Butler, and Bailey, including a proposed amended complaint, if counsel could do so consistently with the required factual and legal basis for filing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The court stated that if valid harassment claims were alleged, joinder would likely be appropriate under the circumstances.

Motion for Remand

Because the court denied joinder, Hall, Butler, and Bailey were not added to the case. Complete diversity therefore remained, and the court denied the motion to remand.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied the motion for joinder without prejudice and denied the motion for remand. The court allowed Oiyemhonlan 14 days from the order's date to seek leave to amend the complaint and renew the joinder request. It also set a telephonic case-management conference for February 28, 2023, and directed the parties to meet and confer and submit a joint case-management statement by February 21, 2023.