Villarroel v. Staples, Inc.

Background

Pamela Villarroel brought employment-related claims against Staples, Inc., and two other Staples-associated entities. The claims included harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, arising from her work at Staples from 2018 through 2021. Villarroel originally filed the case in California state court. Staples removed it to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, asserting that Villarroel was a California citizen and that Staples was a Delaware corporation principally operating out of Massachusetts.

Villarroel moved to remand the case to state court and sought leave to amend her complaint to add Roland Flores, her former supervisor and a California citizen. Adding Flores would have eliminated complete diversity—the requirement that no plaintiff share state citizenship with any defendant—and would have required remand if joinder were allowed. Staples opposed both motions and requested Rule 11 sanctions against Villarroel and her counsel.

Motion for Leave to Amend

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), which gives a district court discretion to deny joinder of a defendant whose addition would destroy subject-matter jurisdiction, or to allow joinder and remand the case. The court considered factors including whether Flores was necessary, whether the claims against him appeared valid, whether Villarroel delayed seeking joinder, whether the proposed joinder was intended to defeat federal jurisdiction, whether the claims might be barred by the statute of limitations, and whether denying joinder would prejudice Villarroel.

The court denied leave to amend. It concluded that the proposed religious-harassment claim against Flores did not appear valid because the allegations concerned one personnel decision and one set of statements, rather than the repeated or generalized conduct required for a workplace-harassment claim under California law. The court also concluded that the proposed intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim did not appear valid because the alleged failure to promote Villarroel and Flores's related statements did not appear to constitute the required outrageous conduct.

The court further found that the remaining factors did not support joinder. Villarroel had not shown that she could obtain relief from Flores that she could not obtain from Staples, and she could obtain Flores's testimony as a third-party witness. The original complaint had identified Flores by first name and alleged the same conduct, but Villarroel waited until after removal to seek to add him. The court stated that this suggested that defeating federal jurisdiction was at least part of the purpose of the proposed joinder. Villarroel also recognized that the proposed claims were time-barred, and she had not shown that the claims would relate back under California law. Finally, the court found no showing of prejudice from denying joinder.

Motion to Remand

The court denied the motion to remand. It explained that a removal notice generally needs only a short and plain statement plausibly alleging the facts supporting federal jurisdiction; it does not ordinarily need to include all supporting evidence at that stage. In response to Villarroel's challenge, Staples submitted additional evidence, including a declaration from in-house counsel and California Statements of Information. The court found that this evidence showed that none of the named or unnamed Staples entities was a California citizen. Because Flores would not be added and Staples had adequately established diversity jurisdiction, the court kept the case in federal court.

Sanctions Request

The court denied Staples's request for Rule 11 sanctions. Staples sought attorney fees based on allegations that Villarroel's counsel had copied and pasted pleadings. The court stated that Rule 11 requires the party challenging the pleading to give the opposing party 21 days to address the alleged violation before filing a sanctions motion, and requires the sanctions motion to be filed separately. Because Staples had not complied with those requirements, its sanctions request was denied.

Case Management

The court adopted the parties' proposed schedule, including deadlines for discovery, expert disclosures, alternative dispute resolution, dispositive-motion hearings, the pretrial conference, and trial.

Disposition

Judge P. Casey Pitts denied Villarroel's motions for leave to amend and to remand. The court also denied Staples's request for Rule 11 sanctions.