Golden v. Microsoft Corporation
- Pitts
- 5:23-cv-04224
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 10
In Golden v. Microsoft, Judge Pitts remanded the case because diversity jurisdiction was lacking and denied dismissal motions without prejudice.
Bryan Golden’s case was returned to Santa Clara County Superior Court. Microsoft Corporation’s and Mark Weiss’s motions to dismiss and strike were denied without prejudice; the opinion did not decide the underlying employment claims.
What happened
In Golden v. Microsoft Corporation, Bryan Golden sued Microsoft and four individual employees under California law, alleging age, sex, and gender discrimination and other wrongdoing connected to his termination. Microsoft and one employee removed the case from state court, arguing that the individual defendants had been improperly added to defeat federal diversity jurisdiction.
The court found that the individual defendants were properly joined because Golden had at least a possible claim against them for harassment under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. That possibility meant their California citizenship counted, so complete diversity was lacking and the federal court did not have jurisdiction.
Judge P. Casey Pitts granted Golden’s motion to remand and ordered the case returned to Santa Clara County Superior Court. The court denied Microsoft’s and Mark Weiss’s motions to dismiss and strike the complaint without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Golden v. Microsoft Corporation · No. 5:23-cv-04224
- Pitts
- Mar. 29, 2024
Background
Bryan Golden filed the case in Santa Clara County Superior Court against Microsoft Corporation, Mark Weiss, Izumi Kawahara, Steve Miczak, Garrett Faulkner, and unnamed defendants. He alleged 18 causes of action under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, California’s unfair-competition statute, and California common law. The claims arose from his termination from Microsoft in June 2021 and included allegations of age, sex, and gender discrimination, harassment, interference with contractual and economic relationships, emotional distress, and negligence.
Microsoft and Weiss removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. They argued that the individual defendants—who, like Golden, were California residents—had been fraudulently joined and that their citizenship therefore should be disregarded. Before the court were Golden’s motion to remand and Microsoft’s and Weiss’s motions to dismiss and strike the complaint.
Analysis
The court explained that federal courts have limited jurisdiction. Because Golden’s complaint asserted only California-law claims, federal-question jurisdiction did not exist. Diversity jurisdiction also required complete diversity of citizenship and more than $75,000 in controversy.
The court rejected the fraudulent-joinder argument. Fraudulent joinder can be shown when a plaintiff cannot establish any cause of action against a nondiverse defendant. But the removing defendants had a heavy burden, and the court needed to determine only whether there was a possibility that a California court would find that Golden stated a claim against any individual defendant.
The court concluded that possibility existed for Golden’s Fair Employment and Housing Act harassment claims. Golden alleged that the individual defendants, whom he alleged were younger than him, colluded to defame him and remove him from Microsoft because of his age, sex, and gender. The court held that these allegations were sufficient at this stage to create at least a possible viable harassment claim under California law.
The court also rejected the defendants’ reliance on California decisions concerning supervisory personnel decisions and employee reporting. It explained that those decisions did not foreclose Golden’s statutory harassment claims against individual employees. The defendants’ sworn denials of the alleged conduct also did not establish that Golden could not state a claim.
Because the individual defendants were properly joined California citizens, complete diversity was absent. The court therefore concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and did not address the remaining claims against those defendants.
Disposition
The court granted Golden’s motion to remand. It ordered the Clerk to remand the case to Santa Clara County Superior Court. The court denied Microsoft’s and Weiss’s motions to dismiss and strike the complaint without prejudice.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.