Niloofar Vaghar v. Costco Wholesale Corporation et al, No. 2:2019cv02147 - Document 19 (C.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand 10 . The matter is remanded to Superior Court of California Ventura County, Case No. 56-02019-00524426-CU-OE-VTA. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated. ) (gk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Niloofar Vaghar v. Costco Wholesale Corporation et al Doc. 19 1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 NILOOFAR VAGHAR, 11 12 13 14 15 16 Case No. 5:19-cv-02147 AB (AFMx) Plaintiff, v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; BARRY MEIZEL; RUDY GARCIA; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants. 17 18 On April 19, 2019, Plaintiff Niloofar Vaghar (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to 19 20 Remand. (Dkt. No. 10.) Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation et al. (“Costco”) 21 opposed the motion and Plaintiff filed a reply. (Dkt. Nos. 16, 17.) The Court took the 22 matter under submission on May 16, 2019. For the following reasons, the Court 23 GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 A. The Parties 26 Plaintiff is a resident of California. Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶ 1 (Dkt. No. 10-2). 27 Plaintiff began her employment in November 2011 as a pharmacist at various Costco 28 locations in California. Id. ¶ 11. During Plaintiff’s employment with Costco, she was 1. Dockets.Justia.com 1 managed by Regional Pharmacy Supervisor, Barry Meizel (“Meizel”). Id. At all 2 relevant times, Meizel was employed by Costco Wholesale Corporation in Ventura 3 County. Id. ¶ 3. Defendant Rudy Garcia, at all relevant times, was employed by 4 Costco Wholesale Corporation in Ventura County and served as Plaintiff’s store 5 manager. Id. ¶¶ 4, 14. 6 Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation is a Washington corporation with its 7 principal place of business in Washington. (Notice of Removal, ¶¶ 24-26 (Dkt. No. 8 1)). 9 10 B. Plaintiff’s Allegations Plaintiff’s Complaint raises four state law claims against Costco: (1) 11 discrimination based on gender, national origin/ancestry, religion, and/or age under 12 FEHA; (2) retaliation under FEHA; (3) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, 13 and retaliation; and (4) wrongful termination. Plaintiff also alleges a state law claim, 14 under FEHA, for harassment on the bases of gender, national origin or ancestry, 15 religion, and age against Meizel and Garcia. 16 Plaintiff alleges Defendants Meizel and Garcia “engaged in a discriminatory 17 and harassing course of conduct against plaintiff, at least in part, on the basis of 18 plaintiff’s gender, national origin/ancestry, religion and/or age” during her time at 19 Costco. Compl. ¶ 40. Plaintiff alleges examples of harassment including: giving 20 Plaintiff unfair and untrue performance evaluations, giving Plaintiff unwarranted 21 discipline and threats of discipline in a demonstrably unfair manner, especially when 22 compared to her male co-workers, giving plaintiff conflicting directions and punishing 23 her when she could not follow both sets of directions, demoting Plaintiff and 24 promoting an underqualified male counterpart, and speaking to Plaintiff in a 25 demeaning and condescending manner. Id. ¶ 11. 26 C. Removal to This Court 27 On March 21, 2019, Costco removed the case to this Court from the 28 Superior Court of California Ventura County. (See Notice of Removal (Dkt. No. 1)). 2. 1 According to Costco, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case because 2 the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is complete diversity of 3 citizenship amongst the parties. Id. Costco does not challenge Meizel and Garcia are 4 California citizens, instead, it alleges that Defendants Meizel and Garcia are “sham” 5 defendants whose citizenship should be disregarded when evaluating diversity. Id. ¶¶ 6 27-40. 7 II. LEGAL STANDARD 8 A. Removal 9 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that 10 jurisdiction as authorized by the Constitution and federal statute. Kokkonen v. 11 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) 12 (“Section 1441”), a civil action may be removed to the district court where the action 13 is pending if there is diversity jurisdiction. A federal district court has diversity 14 jurisdiction over a dispute between “citizens of different States” that places more than 15 $75,000 in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Section 16 1332(a)(1) requires complete diversity such that “the citizenship of each plaintiff is 17 diverse from the citizenship of each defendant.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 18 61, 68 (1996). 19 B. Diversity Jurisdiction–Fraudulent Joinder 20 A non-diverse party may be disregarded for purposes of determining whether 21 jurisdiction exists if the court determines that the party’s joinder was “fraudulent” or a 22 “sham.” Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co., 139 F.3d 1313, 1318 (9th Cir. 1998). 23 “Fraudulent joinder” occurs, for the purpose of determining diversity jurisdiction, 24 where the plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against the resident defendant, and 25 the failure is obvious according to settled rules of state. McCabe v. Gen. Foods Corp., 26 811 F.2d 1336 (9th Cir. 1987). “But if there is a possibility that a state court would 27 find that the complaint states a cause of action against any of the resident defendants, 28 the federal court must find that the joinder was proper and remand the case to the state 3. 1 court.” Grancare, LLC v. Thrower by & through Mills, 889 F.3d 543, 548 (9th Cir. 2 2018) (quotations omitted). 3 The defendant has a high burden of proof when establishing fraudulent joinder. 4 A removing defendant may present evidence to prove fraudulent joinder, but the 5 district court must resolve all disputed questions of fact in the plaintiff’s favor. See 6 Grancare, 889 F.3d at 549. Thus, a defense should not require “a searching inquiry 7 into the merits of the plaintiff's case, even if that defense, if successful, would prove 8 fatal.” Id. In this regard, “[r]emand must be granted unless the defendant shows that 9 the plaintiff would not be afforded leave to amend his complaint to cure [a] purported 10 deficiency” in its allegations against the non-diverse defendant. Padilla v. AT & T 11 Corp., 697 F. Supp. 2d 1156, 1159 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (quotations omitted). Ultimately, 12 “[f]raudulent joinder must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.” Hamilton 13 Materials, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Corp., 494 F.3d 1203, 1206 (9th Cir. 2007). 14 III. DISCUSSION 15 A. The Court Does Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction 16 Costco asserts that there is complete diversity of citizenship because Meizel and 17 Garcia are “sham” defendants that should be ignored for purposes of determining 18 diversity jurisdiction. Defendants do not dispute that Meizel and Garcia are California 19 citizens; further, Costco is a citizen of Washington. Thus, absent Plaintiff’s claims 20 against Meizel and Garcia, diversity jurisdiction exists. Subject matter jurisdiction in 21 this case rests on the issue of whether there is complete diversity because the parties 22 do not dispute that the amount in controversy, in this case, exceeds $75,000. The 23 Court finds that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case. 24 1. Harassment Claim 25 For a claim to constitute harassment, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a 26 defendant’s conduct was “sufficiently severe or pervasive to ‘alter the conditions of 27 [the victim’s] employment and create an abusive work environment.’” Fisher v. San 28 Pedro Peninsula Hosp., 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 609 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (citation 4. 1 omitted). When determining if the conduct complained of is sufficiently pervasive or 2 severe, a court should look at the totality of the circumstances. Id. at 610. 3 Additionally, it is established that “harassment by a high-level manager of any 4 organization may be more injurious to the victim because of the prestige and authority 5 that the manager enjoys.” Roby v. McKesson Corp., 47 Cal.4th 686, 709 (Cal. 2009). 6 Plaintiff’s allegations, viewed in the totality of the circumstances, support a 7 plausible harassment claim against Meizel and Garcia. Plaintiff alleges numerous 8 grievances against Defendants, specifically that Defendants engaged in discriminatory 9 behavior based on Plaintiff’s gender, ethnicity, religion, and age. In addition, Plaintiff 10 alleges that Defendants unfairly provided false performance evaluations, disciplined 11 her without proper grounds, and threatened to discipline her unfairly when compared 12 to her male co-workers. Finally, Plaintiff alleges she was unfairly kept from 13 promotion without merit. 14 Costco argues that Meizel and Garcia were fraudulently joined because 15 managerial privilege precludes their personal liability with respect to their personnel 16 decisions. See Costco Opposition at 7. Costco attempts to assert that each of 17 Plaintiff’s claims are “based solely on personnel decisions.” Id. However, as 18 addressed above, Plaintiff’s harassment claim is based on discrimination, threats of 19 disciplinary action, and unwarranted disciplinary action. Plaintiff was micromanaged 20 and disciplined in ways she perceived to be different from her male counterparts, 21 creating a belief that Plaintiff’s age, ethnicity, religion and gender were the motivating 22 factors for her supervisors’ severe treatment of her. “[A]cts of discrimination can 23 provide evidentiary support for a harassment claim by establishing discriminatory 24 animus on the part of the manager responsible for the discrimination, thereby 25 permitting the inference that rude comments or behavior by that same manager was 26 similarly motivated by discriminatory animus.” Roby, 27 Cal.4th at 709. Plaintiff has 27 provided allegations to support her harassment claim. 28 Costco asserts that Plaintiff has not plead facts to support the pervasiveness of 5. 1 the harassment. “With respect to the pervasiveness of harassment, courts have held an 2 . . . employee must show a concerted pattern of harassment of a repeated, routine, or a 3 generalized nature.” Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Prods., 38 Cal. 4th 264, 283 4 (2006). Plaintiff cites numerous incidents over the span of her years-long 5 employment with Costco that may support her claims against Defendants. Ultimately, 6 Plaintiff’s allegations establish a pattern of harassing conduct. 7 Plaintiff’s allegations are to be viewed in the totality of circumstances. The 8 Court does not take the position that, as a matter of law, Plaintiff’s claim against 9 Meizel and Garcia must fail. Further, Costco has failed to meet its burden to establish 10 that Plaintiff could not cure whatever potential defects exist in her pleadings at this 11 stage. See Padilla v. AT&T Corp., 697 F.Supp.2d 1156, 1169-70 (C.D. Cal. 2009). In 12 light of this failure, the Court sees no reason why Plaintiff would not have leave to 13 amend her Complaint to more robustly allege her harassment claim against Meizel and 14 Garcia. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence that Plaintiff could not allege 15 claims against Meizel and Garcia, the Court must remand the case to state court. 16 B. Attorneys’ Fees Are Not Proper 17 While the Court disagrees with Costco’s position and remands the action back 18 to the state tribunal, attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) may only be granted “where the 19 removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin 20 v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). Here, Costco brought its claim 21 for perceived deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Complaint regarding her harassment claims 22 against Meizel and Garcia. The law does not cut in Defendants’ favor here, but their 23 attempt at removal was not so unreasonable as to warrant an award of attorney’s fees. 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 6. 1 2 3 IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. The matter is remanded to Superior Court of California Ventura County. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 8 9 Dated: May 21, 2019 _______________________________________ HONORABLE ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
