Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00888/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00888-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS GUILTRON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-00888 CRB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO AMEND AND

REMANDING CASE

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. 

After carefully considering the papers submitted by the parties, the Court finds that oral

argument is unnecessary, see L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS the motion. As both parties agree

that the amendment to the complaint destroys diversity of the parties, this action is

accordingly REMANDED to San Mateo County Superior Court.

BACKGROUND

According to the allegations in the complaint, plaintiff was hired as a driver for UPS

in 1993 and sustained serious injuries while working in June 2000. In September 2002,

plaintiff was terminated. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a complaint through his union’s grievance

procedure. On August 17, 2004, plaintiff filed a complaint in San Mateo Superior Court,

alleging disability discrimination under Cal. Labor Code § 132(a), a violation of public

policy under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 and a common law negligence per se claim. 

Case 3:05-cv-00888-CRB Document 23 Filed 08/15/05 Page 1 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

2

On October 20, 2004, the arbitrator overseeing the previously-filed grievance procedure

concluded that plaintiff was terminated without cause and ordered reinstatement of his

employment. On March 2, 2005, UPS removed this case to this Court. The next month,

plaintiff was again terminated. He alleges the termination was in retaliation for his earlier

complaints of disability discrimination. After exhausting his administrative remedies,

plaintiff filed a motion in this Court for leave to file a first amended complaint to include

claims for discrimination and retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing

Act (“FEHA”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12900 et seq., based on the second termination and

events leading up to it. The retaliation claim in the new complaint also was brought against

Robert Chase, plaintiff’s former supervisor. Plaintiff complains that Chase demanded that he

work excessive hours, aggravating his disability, that he refused to provide accommodations

for the disability, that he threatened to fire plaintiff, gave negative job assessments, and

participated in plaintiff’s termination. 

DISCUSSION

Title 28, United States Code, section 1447(e) provides that:

If after removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants

whose joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court

may deny joinder, or permit joinder and remand the action to the

State Court.

In considering whether to allow joinder under section 1447(e), courts have considered

several factors: 

(1) whether the party sought to be joined is needed for just

adjudication and would be joined under Federal Rule of Civil

procedure Rule 19(a); (2) whether the statute of limitations would

preclude an original action against the new defendants in state

court; (3) whether there has been an unexplained delay in

requesting joinder; (4) whether joinder is intended solely to

defeat federal jurisdiction; (5) whether the claims against the new

defendant appear valid; and (6) whether denial of joinder will

prejudice the plaintiff.

IBC Aviations Servs. v. Compañia Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A., 125 F.Supp.2d 1008, 1011

(N.D. Cal. 2000). The determination of whether to allow this kind of joinder is within the

discretion of the district court. Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686, 691 (9th Cir.

1998). 

Case 3:05-cv-00888-CRB Document 23 Filed 08/15/05 Page 2 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

3

Application of the six factors described above leads to the conclusion that joinder

should be permitted. Regarding the first factor, it is important to note that joinder under

section 1447(e) is more freely granted than joinder under Rule 19. IBC Aviations, 125

F.Supp.2d at 1012. In general, courts allow joinder where “failure to join will lead to

separate and redundant actions, “ but not where the new defendants “are only tangentially

related to the cause of action or wold not prevent complete relief.” Id. at 1011.

Here, this Court finds that the non-diverse defendant that plaintiff seeks to add, Robert

Chase, is not tangentially related to the cause of action and that the failure to join will lead to

a waste of judicial resources and risks inconsistent rulings. See id. at 1011. Plaintiff has

stated a valid claim for retaliation under FEHA against Chase. In order to do so, plaintiff

must allege: (1) he engaged in activities protected by FEHA; (2) his employer subsequently

took adverse employment action against him; and (3) there was a causal connection between

protected the activity and the adverse employment action. See Miller v. Dept. of Corrections,

36 Cal.4th 446, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 797, 819 (Cal. 2005). Plaintiff has adequately pled these

three elements by alleging: (1) he engaged in the protected activity of filing a labor dispute

contesting his termination; (2) Chase participated in his termination; and (3) the adverse

actions were caused by the protected activity. In addition, a supervisor is individually liable

for retaliatory discrimination under FEHA. See Walrath v. Sprinkel, 99 Cal.App.4th 1237,

1242 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002); Winarto v. Toshiba America Electronics Components, 274 F.3d

1276, 1288 (9th Cir. 2001). Because plaintiff has stated a legal claim against Chase, and

because Chase appears to be a central figure in plaintiff’s retaliation claim, it cannot be

claimed that Chase is only tangentially related to this action. Although plaintiff is not

precluded by the statute of limitations from making these claims against Chase in state court,

“requiring [plaintiff] to litigate essentially the same issues in two forums would be a waste of

judicial resources and risks inconsistent results.” IBC Aviations, 125 F.Supp.2d at 1012.

The third factor also weighs in favor of granting leave to amend. Not only was the

motion to amend timely, it is clear that plaintiff could not have filed it any sooner. All the

new claims in the proposed amended complaint--including those made against Chase--are

Case 3:05-cv-00888-CRB Document 23 Filed 08/15/05 Page 3 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2005\0888\order 1 remand.wpd 4

based on events that occurred after the filing of the original complaint. Plaintiff moved to

amend the complaint immediately after he exhausted his administrative remedies.

Defendant claims that plaintiff’s sole purpose in adding Chase as a defendant is to

destroy diversity post-removal. While the plaintiff’s motive is relevant to this inquiry, see

IBC Aviation, 125 F.Supp.2d at 1012, it is not as important as it was prior to Congress’s

passage of section 1447(e) which “gives courts more flexibility in dealing with the addition

of such defendants.” Id. Defendant’s claim of an improper motive is also undercut by the

fact that plaintiff could not have included claims against Chase in the original complaint

since the factual predicates of those claims had not yet occurred. This Court therefore finds

plaintiff’s interest in adding Chase as a defendant to be “reasonable and justifiable.” See id. 

The final two factors also favor joinder. As mentioned above, it appears that plaintiff

has stated a valid claim against Chase. Moreover, “denying the amendment would require

Plaintiff to choose between redundant litigation arising out of the same facts and involving

the same legal issues or foregoing its potential claims against [Chase], while allowing

amendment will not prejudice the Defendants as discovery has not yet begun.” Id. at 1013.

This Court agrees with plaintiff that greater judicial economy is created by trying the

claims made in the original complaint together with the claims plaintiff seeks to add. For this

reason, and for those stated above, the Court GRANTS the motion for leave to file a first

amended complaint. The case is therefore REMANDED to San Mateo County Superior

Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2005

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00888-CRB Document 23 Filed 08/15/05 Page 4 of 4