Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01540/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01540-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332ed Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

1

18cv1540-CAB-BGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGELA COHEN, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS 

NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware 

limited liability company; SALIX 

PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a 

Delaware corporation; ROB 

GAMBRELL, an individual; and DOES 1 

through 50, inclusive,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv1540-CAB-BGS

ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING 

CASE TO STATE COURT

On June 4, 2018, Plaintiff Angela Cohen (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in the 

Superior Court of California in and for the County of San Diego, titled Angela Cohen v. 

Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America, LLC, et al., Case No. 31-2018-00027566-CUWT-CTL, against Defendants Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America, LLC (“VPNA”), 

Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“SPI”), Robert Gambrell (“Gambrell”), and Does 1 through 

50. Doc. No. 1-5 (the “Complaint”). The Complaint alleges claims against all of the 

Defendants for, inter alia, gender discrimination and harassment under California’s Fair 

Case 3:18-cv-01540-CAB-BGS Document 4 Filed 07/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18cv1540-CAB-BGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).1 On July 6, 2018, Defendants timely filed a 

notice of removal, arguing the Court has diversity jurisdiction because Plaintiff, on the 

one hand, and VPNA and Gambrell, on the other hand, are diverse, and that SPI is a 

“sham defendant” whose citizenship should be disregarded because “SPI never employed 

Plaintiff or any of the individuals alleged of improper conduct, nor can it be held liable 

under a joint-employer theory.” [Doc. No. 1 at 4, ¶12.]

“Joinder of a non-diverse defendant is deemed fraudulent, and the defendant's 

presence in the lawsuit is ignored for purposes of determining diversity, ‘[i]f the plaintiff 

fails to state a cause of action against a resident defendant, and the failure is obvious 

according to the settled rules of the state.’” Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 

1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting McCabe v. General Foods Corp., 811 F.2d 1336, 

1339 (9th Cir. 1987)). “If there is any possibility that the state law might impose liability 

on a resident defendant under the circumstances alleged in the complaint, or in a future 

amended complaint, the federal court cannot find that joinder of the resident defendant 

was fraudulent, and remand is necessary.” Revay v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:14-

CV-03391-RSWL, 2015 WL 1285287, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2015) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). “There is a presumption against finding fraudulent joinder, 

and defendants who assert that plaintiff has fraudulently joined a party carry a heavy 

burden of persuasion.” Plute v. Roadway Package Sys., Inc., 141 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1008 

(N.D. Cal. 2001). “Fraudulent joinder must be proven by clear and convincing 

evidence.” Hamilton Materials, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Corp., 494 F.3d 1203, 1206 (9th Cir. 

2007). “[A] defendant must essentially show that the plaintiff cannot assert a claim 

against the non-diverse party as a matter of law.” Amarant v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 

No. 1:13-CV-00245-LJO-SK, 2013 WL 3146809, at *4 (E.D. Cal. June 18, 2013) 

(emphasis added) (citation omitted).

 

1 All of the claims are for violations of California law.

Case 3:18-cv-01540-CAB-BGS Document 4 Filed 07/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18cv1540-CAB-BGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Here, Defendants’ evidence that Plaintiff was not technically employed by SPI 

does not satisfy its heavy burden. Plaintiff alleges that she was an employee of VPNA 

and SPI, and that her title was West Regional Sales Manager for Salix Pharmaceuticals 

Specialty Pain Division. [Complaint, ¶¶1, 14.] Thus Plaintiff is essentially asserting that 

VPNA and SPI were joint employers.

In determining whether a defendant is a joint employer for the purposes of FEHA, 

California courts consider the “ ‘totality of circumstances’ that reflect upon the nature of 

the work relationship of the parties.” Kasperzyk v. Shetler Sec. Servs., Inc., No. C-13-

3358 EMC, 2014 WL 1760040, at *6 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2014) (citing Vernon v. State, 

116 Cal. App. 4th 114, 124 (2004)). The key factor to consider in analyzing whether an 

entity is an employer is “the right to control and direct the activities of the person 

rendering service, or the manner and method in which the work is performed.” Doe I v. 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Serv. Emps. Int'l Union 

v. Cty. of L.A., 225 Cal. App. 3d 761 (1990) (internal quotations and citation omitted)). 

“A finding of the right to control employment requires ... a comprehensive and immediate 

level of ‘day-to-day’ authority over employment decisions.” Id. (citing Vernon, 116 Cal. 

App. 4th at 114). In addition, California utilizes the “integrated enterprise” test to 

determine whether separate corporate entities should be deemed a single employer. Laird 

v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 68 Cal.App.4th 727, 737 (1998).

Here, while Defendants have provided evidence that Plaintiff was technically 

employed by the parent company (VPNA) and not the subsidiary (SPI), they have not 

shown by clear and convincing evidence that Plaintiff would be unable to hold SPI liable 

as a joint employer as a matter of law, especially under the relevant “totality of 

circumstances” and “integrated enterprise” tests. See Gebran v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,

CV 16-07616 BRO (MRWx), 2016 WL 7471292, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 

2016)(defendants’ argument that plaintiff sued the wrong corporate entity failed to trigger 

removability under fraudulent joinder doctrine). Moreover, even if the complaint 

currently fails to adequately allege that SPI is Plaintiff’s joint employer, Defendants have

Case 3:18-cv-01540-CAB-BGS Document 4 Filed 07/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18cv1540-CAB-BGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

not met their burden of establishing that Plaintiff is incapable of amending her Complaint 

to state a valid claim against SPI on a joint-employer theory. See Nasrawi v. Buck 

Consultants, LLC, 776 F.Supp.2d 1166, 1170 (E.D. Cal. 2011)(“Remand must be granted 

unless the defendant shows that the plaintiff would not be afforded leave to amend his 

complaint to cure the purported deficiency.”)2

Therefore, the Court hereby REMANDS this action to the San Diego County 

Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §1447(c).3 The 

Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2018

 

2 The fact that SPI answered the complaint, instead of moving to dismiss, is further support that Plaintiff 

either states a claim, or could state a claim, against SPI.

3 A district court may remand an action where the court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, 

either by motion or sua sponte. Washington v. United Parcel Serv. Inc., 2009 WL 1519894 (C.D. Cal. 

2009).

Case 3:18-cv-01540-CAB-BGS Document 4 Filed 07/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4