Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00900/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00900-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332pr Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

- 1 -

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

ROBERT THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, WELLS 

FARGO BANK, NATION,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 17cv900-LAB (BLM)

ORDER OF REMAND

When a defendant removes a case from state court, and “it appears that the district 

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447. Wells 

Fargo & Company (California citizen) and Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (South Dakota citizen)

removed this case after Robert Thomas (California citizen) sued for employment retaliation 

under California law. Defendants argue diversity jurisdiction exists because Thomas 

fraudulently sued Wells Fargo & Company. The Court disagrees.

Under the fraudulent joinder doctrine, courts ignore a defendant’s citizenship only 

when the defendant meets its “heavy burden” to show it’s “obvious” the plaintiff has failed 

“to state a cause of action against a resident defendant” “according to the settled rules of 

the state.” Weeping Hollow Ave. Tr. v. Spencer, 831 F.3d 1110, 1113 (9th Cir. 2016)

(remanding because Wells Fargo N.A. failed to show fraudulent joinder). Defendants argue 

that Thomas doesn’t have any claims against Wells Fargo & Company because he wasn’t 

their employee. But Thomas says whether Wells Fargo & Company counts as his employer 

Case 3:17-cv-00900-LAB-BLM Document 17 Filed 08/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

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

is a key factual issue that’s not appropriate to resolve at this stage. And he points out that 

several of his causes of action contemplate the possibility of employees suing multiple 

employers. Thomas may not be right that Wells Fargo & Company can count as his 

employer; but it’s not “obvious” that he’s wrong. Id.1

Other important standards support this conclusion. First, Thomas is “the master of 

the complaint”—if he wants to avoid federal court by suing certain defendants for certain 

causes of action, he’s on firm ground. See, e.g., Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 

392 (1987). Second, there’s a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, and any 

doubts are resolved in favor of remand. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 

(9th Cir. 2009) (remanding because defendants failed to overcome presumption against 

removal based on fraudulent joinder). And third, since the only underlying claims turn on 

California law, “decisions of state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to 

promote justice between the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of 

applicable law.” United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). 

The Defendants failed to meet their heavy burden to show fraudulent joinder. Since 

the parties aren’t completely diverse, the Court lacks jurisdiction. The case is remanded to 

the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Central Division.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2017

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

 

1 Defendants maintain that two cases counsel in favor of denying remand: Vasquez v. Wells 

Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 77 F. Supp. 3d 911 (N.D. Cal. 2015) and Campidoglio LLC v. Wells 

Fargo & Co., 2012 WL 5844693 (W.D. Wash. 2012). Neither case is on point. Vasquez

turned on 28 U.S.C. §1447(e) and Campidoglio was at the summary judgment stage. Those 

standards aren’t in play here. Instead, the test is whether defendants met their heavy burden 

of showing it’s obvious under California law that Thomas can’t state a claim.

2 The Court declines to award Thomas fees since Wells Fargo had a reasonable basis for 

its argument and there’s nothing unusual about this case. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 

546 U.S. 132, 136, (2005) (“absent unusual circumstances, attorney's fees should not be 

awarded when the removing party has an objectively reasonable basis for removal”).

Case 3:17-cv-00900-LAB-BLM Document 17 Filed 08/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2