Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01713/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01713-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISELDA GUAJARDO and LARISSA )

SIANEZ, ) 2:07-CV-1713-GEB-EFB

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

ITT TECHNICAL INSTITUTE, INC. and )

DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiffs move to amend their Complaint to join Robert

Wickstrom (“Wickstrom”) as a defendant, and contend this joinder

destroys diversity jurisdiction and therefore this action should be

remanded to the state court from which it was removed. Plaintiffs are

California citizens and sued Defendant ITT Technical Institute, Inc.

(“ITT”) in state court based on Plaintiffs’ claims that ITT’s

employees sexually harassed Plaintiffs in violation of the California

Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), retaliated against

Case 2:07-cv-01713-GEB-EFB Document 20 Filed 01/09/08 Page 1 of 4
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

Plaintiffs in violation of the FEHA, and constructively terminated

Plaintiffs. (Compl. ¶¶ 23-43.) ITT was incorporated in Delaware and

has its principal place of business in Indiana. (Def.’s Not. of

Removal at 2-3.)

When “[a] plaintiff seeks to join [an] additional

defendant[] [after removal] whose joinder would destroy subject matter

jurisdiction,” the motion is determined under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e). 

“[A] wide range of factors” may be considered when deciding whether to

permit joinder, including whether joinder is intended solely to defeat

diversity jurisdiction and whether the claims against the new

defendant appear valid. Gunn v. Wild, 2002 WL 356642, at *3 (N.D.

Cal. Feb. 26, 2002); see Palestini v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 193 F.R.D.

654, 658 (C.D. Cal. 2000).

ITT argues that Plaintiffs seek to join Wickstrom, a

California citizen who was Plaintiffs’ supervisor at ITT, “for the

sole purpose of destroying diversity.” (Def.’s Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot.

for Leave to Am. and to Remand (“Opp’n”) at 1:25.) ITT contends,

inter alia, that “Wickstrom as an individual cannot bring relief to

the Plaintiffs different from the relief [Plaintiffs seek from ITT].” 

(Opp’n at 3:1-2.) “However, in addition to [ITT’s] potential

liability, [Wickstrom] could be personally liable [under the FEHA]”

because the FEHA “has been interpreted to provide that an individual

supervisor can be held liable . . . under the FEHA, separate and

distinct from the liability incurred by an employer.” Bakshi v. Bayer

Healthcare, LLC, 2007 WL 1232049, at *3 (N.D. Cal. April 26, 2007)

(holding that under the FEHA plaintiff could seek to make her

supervisor personally liable for her damages even though she was also

seeking to establish her employer was liable). Plaintiffs allege that

Case 2:07-cv-01713-GEB-EFB Document 20 Filed 01/09/08 Page 2 of 4
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

Wickstrom was Plaintiffs’ “supervisor/co-employee”; that he verbally

and physically harassed Plaintiffs, in part by showing them

“pornographic material depicting [] Wickstrom masturbating”; and that

Wickstrom wore a “pornographic sexual explicit costume” to a company

party. (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 15.) Since Plaintiffs allege Wickstrom was the

perpetrator of the sexual harassment and Wickstrom could be liable for

this FEHA claim, ITT has not shown that Plaintiffs’ motion to join

Wickstrom as a defendant was brought solely for the purpose of

defeating diversity jurisdiction.

ITT also argues that Plaintiffs’ allegations against

Wickstrom are not valid since Plaintiffs failed to name Wickstrom in

the caption of the administrative complaints that Plaintiffs filed in

the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. (Opp’n at 2:6-18.) 

ITT argues that since the caption only names ITT, Plaintiffs have not

exhausted administrative remedies applicable to their action against

Wickstrom. (Opp’n at 2:22-24.) Plaintiffs counter that since they

named Wickstrom as the perpetrator of the sexual harassment in the

body of their administrative complaints, ITT has not shown that

Plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies against

Wickstrom. (See Decl. of Jessica Butterfield in Supp. of Opp’n, Exs.

A & B.) ITT’s argument fails to defeat Plaintiffs’ motion.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to amend is granted and

Plaintiffs’ proposed first amended complaint filed on September 11,

2007 (attachment number 1 to docket number 11) is deemed filed and

served on the date on which this Order is filed. Since the amended

complaint destroys diversity jurisdiction, this action is remanded to

the California Superior Court for the County of San Joaquin, Stockton

Branch, from which it was removed. Lastly, Plaintiffs’ request for

Case 2:07-cv-01713-GEB-EFB Document 20 Filed 01/09/08 Page 3 of 4
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

attorney’s fees incurred as a result of bringing their remand motion

is denied since when ITT removed the action there was complete

diversity. See Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141

(2005) (holding that courts may award attorney’s fees for remand

motions “only where the removing party lacked an objectively

reasonable basis for seeking removal.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-01713-GEB-EFB Document 20 Filed 01/09/08 Page 4 of 4