Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05502/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05502-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR MIELKE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONOCOPHILLIPS CO., et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C04-5502 TEH 

ORDER GRANTING REMAND

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand this action to the Superior Court of Contra Costa

County. This case stems from a state court complaint filed on November 19, 2004. In the

complaint, plaintiff, a gasoline tanker truck driver, alleges that his employer failed to retain or

rehire him while he was on a medical leave covered by the California Family Rights Act

(CFRA), and in retaliation for his protests regarding various safety issues. Plaintiff named as

defendants his employer, Sentinel Transportation LLC, and the owner of the trucking fleet,

ConocoPhillips Company. Plaintiff also named three individuals in the suit, alleging

supervisorial liability. The corporate defendants and one individual are not California

residents, but two of the individuals are. Defendants based their removal on the position that

the two California residents are “sham” defendants, so that complete diversity exists and

federal jurisdiction is proper. 

This matter was noticed for hearing on May 9, 2005. However, having thoroughly

reviewed the extensive pleadings by both parties, the Court finds that oral argument is

unnecessary, and therefore vacates the May 9 hearing date and issues this ruling on the papers.

Case 3:04-cv-05502-TEH Document 23 Filed 05/04/05 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

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

LEGAL STANDARD

Defendants can properly remove this case only if there is complete diversity between

the parties and none of the parties joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the state in

which the action is brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). A party’s presence may be disregarded in

determining jurisdiction only if the party’s joinder is “fraudulent” or a “sham” -- terms of art

meaning that the complaint obviously fails to state a cause of action against the party. McCabe

v. General Foods Corp., 811 F.2d 1336 (9th Cir. 1987). In determining whether there has

been a fraudulent joinder of a defendant, the Court must determine whether there is a

possibility that plaintiff has at least one valid claim against at least one of the California

resident defendants. The Court must construe all disputed issues of fact, and all ambiguities in

California law, in favor of plaintiff. See Macey v. Allstate Porp. & Cas. Co., 2002 F.Supp.2d

1116, 1117 (N.D. Cal. 2002). Thus, it is not for the Court to decide whether “the plaintiff will

actually or even probably prevail on the merits, but [rather to] look only for a possibility that he

may do so.” Dodson v. Spiliada Maritime Corp., 951 F.2d 40, 43 (5th Cir. 1992). In short,

claims against a defendant must be “patently spurious” or provide “no reasonable basis for

imposing liability” before that defendant can be disregarded for purposes of determining

jurisdiction. Parks v. New York Times Co., 308 F.2d 474, 477 (5th Cir. 1962).

DISCUSSION

The central argument here is whether plaintiff’s supervisor is subject to personal

liability for the alleged retaliation. If he is subject to personal liability, he is a proper

defendant and diversity is incomplete. If he is not subject to personal liability, he is a sham

defendant and the Court must recognize that complete diversity exists.

The statute itself limits liability to “employers,” who are defined in relevant part as

“[a]ny person who directly employs 50 or more persons to perform services for a wage or

salary.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 12945.2(c)(2). However, a regulation promulgated by the

California Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC) appears to allow individual

supervisorial liability in CFRA cases. The regulation states, in relevant part:

Case 3:04-cv-05502-TEH Document 23 Filed 05/04/05 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

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

1

 Defendants also argue that the FEHC regulation effectively has been overruled by

Reno v. Baird, 18 Cal.4th 640 (1998), in which the California Supreme Court held that the

definition of employer under the anti-discrimination provisions of the Fair Employment and

Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940, does not include supervisors. However, in Reno and

subsequent decisions, the courts have recognized that supervisorial liability remains intact for

harassment and retaliation, where the statutory language encompasses all persons. See

Walrath v. Sprinkel, 99 Cal.App.4th 1237 (2002). This may allow a sufficient basis for a

court to find that retaliation under the CFRA lies outside the scope of Reno. While this Court

might not be inclined to make such a finding, the standard of review compels this Court to

defer to the state courts for this determination.

3

[I]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for any person to discharge, fine,

suspend, expel, punish, refuse to hire, or otherwise discriminate against any individual,

except as otherwise permitted in this subchapter, because that individual has:

(a) exercised his or her right to CFRA leave...

Cal. Admin. Code Title 2, § 7297.7 (emphasis added). The California Supreme Court has

stated that the FEHC’s construction of the statutes under which it operates should be given

“substantial weight.” Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 1019, 1029

(2003). This Court’s own research indicates that there appears to be no case law directly

addressing the question of personal liability under the CFRA, and the statute does not appear to

have been amended since promulgation of the regulation quoted above.1

Therefore, in light of the FEHC regulation, and given the legal standard recited above,

the Court finds that there is sufficient ambiguity in California law to warrant a remand.

CONCLUSION 

Based on the discussion above, the Court concludes that this action should be remanded

to state court. Accordingly, with good cause appearing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED on the ground that this action was

improvidently removed and federal jurisdiction is lacking;

2. This action is HEREBY REMANDED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), to the

Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra Costa; and

Case 3:04-cv-05502-TEH Document 23 Filed 05/04/05 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

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

4

3. The May 9, 2005 hearing date is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED May 4, 2005 /s/ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:04-cv-05502-TEH Document 23 Filed 05/04/05 Page 4 of 4