Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01786/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01786-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dennis Brown
Defendant
Ronny Chiu
Defendant
Mariam Kamara
Plaintiff
Walgreens, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIAM KAMARA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WALGREENS, INC.; RONNY CHIU; 

DENNIS BROWN, and DOES 1-100

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 05-01786 SC

ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO

REMAND AND GRANTING

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

FOR COSTS AND

ATTORNEY'S FEES 

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Mariam Kamara ("Plaintiff") filed this action in

Alameda County Superior Court on February 4, 2005 against her

former employer Walgreens, Inc. ("Walgreens"), and also Ronny Chiu

("Chiu") and Dennis Brown ("Brown"), and Does 1-100 (collectively

"Defendants"). Chiu and Brown are currently employees of

Walgreens and were formerly Plaintiff's supervisors. Defendants

removed the action to Federal Court on April 29, 2005. Plaintiff

now moves for remand to state court and for costs and expenses

incurred in bringing the motion. For the reasons contained

herein, this Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's motion and REMANDS

the matter to Alameda County Superior Court. Plaintiff's motion

Case 3:05-cv-01786-SC Document 20 Filed 09/28/05 Page 1 of 7
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

for costs and expenses is GRANTED. 

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, a citizen of California, filed this action under

California's Fairness in Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA")

seeking damages for alleged racial, national origin, and gender

discrimination; unlawful retaliation; intentional and negligent

infliction of emotional distress; bad faith; negligence;

attorney's fees and costs, and punitive damages. Compl. p. 1. 

Specifically, Plaintiff, who worked as a Pharmacy Manager for

Walgreens in Berkeley, California, alleges that Chiu and Brown

illegally mistreated her because she was an African-American

female from Liberia. Id. at 3-5. 

Plaintiff filed this action in The Superior Court for the

County of Alameda on February 4, 2005. On April 29, 2005,

Defendants removed the action to Federal Court, claiming that

diversity exists between Plaintiff and Defendants. Plaintiff now

moves this Court to remand the case to state court.

The parties agree that Plaintiff, Chiu and Brown are

residents of California. The parties dispute, however, whether

Chiu and Brown are proper defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff

contends that Chiu and Brown are proper defendants and that their

presence destroys the Court's diversity jurisdiction over the

case. Plaintiff's Memorandum, at 3. Defendants contend that Chiu

and Brown are fraudulently joined defendants and that the Court

should not count their presence in determining whether it has

jurisdiction over the case. Defendants' Notice at 2-3. 

Case 3:05-cv-01786-SC Document 20 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 7
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 3

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Suits filed in state court may be removed to federal court

where the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over

the action in the first instance. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The

federal courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions

where the matter is between citizens of different states and the 

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of

interests and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The removal statute is strictly construed against removal. 

See Boggs v. Lewis, 863 F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir. 1988). The

defendant seeking removal of an action to federal court has the

burden of establishing grounds for federal jurisdiction in the

case. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc. 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 

"The burden of proving a fraudulent joinder is a heavy one. 

The removing party must prove that there is absolutely no

possibility that the plaintiff will be able to establish a cause

of action against the in-state defendant." Davis v. Prentiss

Properties Ltd., Inc., 66 F.Supp.2d. 1112, 1113 (C.D. Cal. 1999),

citing Green v. Amerada Hess Corporation, 707 F.2d 201, 205 (5th

Cir. 1983) (emphasis added). Because there is a presumption

against fraudulent joinder, a court should resolve "all disputed

questions of fact and all ambiguities in the controlling state law

in favor of the non-removing party." Id. 

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand

Defendants contend that Chiu and Brown cannot destroy

Case 3:05-cv-01786-SC Document 20 Filed 09/28/05 Page 3 of 7
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

diversity because they are fraudulently joined defendants. 

Specifically, Defendants contend that the two "cannot be

individually liable for their actions taken as agents of

Walgreens, or in the course and scope of their employment." 

Defendants' Notice at 3. Rather, Defendants contend, "any

liability imposed on Chiu and Brown for such actions would be

'passed through' to Walgreens." Id.

The Court finds that Defendants' contentions are without

merit. Defendants contend that the California Supreme Court, in

Reno v. Baird, 18 Cal.4th 640 (1988), ruled that employers, not

individual managers and supervisors, are liable under FEHA,

California Government Code Section 12926, for facially legitimate

management decisions - hiring, termination, assignment of duties,

etc. - later determined to be discriminatory. The actions of Chiu

and Brown, Defendants contend, were within the legitimate scope of

their duties as supervisors. This being so, if these actions were

discriminatory, Plaintiff cannot permissibly sue Chiu and Brown. 

While this may be true for some of Plaintiff's claims,

Plaintiff does allege that Chiu's and Brown's actions were also

retaliatory. Compl. at 8. Although the California Supreme Court,

in Reno v. Baird, limited the applicability of California

Government Code Section 12926 to employers, the California Court

of Appeal, in a later case, overturned summary judgment for

defendant supervisor on plaintiff's retaliation claim under

Section 12940(h). See Walrath v. Sprinkel, 99 Cal.App.4th. 1237,

1242 (2002). The Court of Appeal distinguished Baird on the

ground that the statute addressed in Baird lacked the "any person"

Case 3:05-cv-01786-SC Document 20 Filed 09/28/05 Page 4 of 7
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 5

language of Section 12940(h), thus 12940(h) allows plaintiffs to

state claims of retaliation against supervisors. Id. The Court

of Appeal based its decision in part on an earlier Ninth Circuit

decision, Winarto v. Toshiba America Electronics Components, 274

F.3d 1276, 1288 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Plaintiff does allege that Chiu's and Brown's actions were

retaliatory. Compl. at 8. Because FEHA permits Plaintiff to sue

her supervisors for retaliation, she has the possibility of

sustaining a cause of action against Chiu and Brown. Thus,

Defendants have not demonstrated that there is absolutely no

possibility that Plaintiff can establish a cause of action against

Chiu and Brown. Therefore, Chiu and Brown are not fraudulently

joined defendants and their presence in the case is proper. 

Because their presence destroys diversity, the Court must remand

the case to the Superior Court for the County of Alameda. 

B. Plaintiff's Motion for Costs and Attorney's Fees

 Plaintiff asks the Court to award her attorney's fees and

costs in the amount of $2,025.00 or an amount the Court deems

appropriate.

The Court, on granting a motion for remand, may order the

defendant to pay plaintiff its "just costs and any actual

expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred as a result of the

removal." 28 U.S.C.§ 1447(c). An award of attorney's fees under

the statute is purely discretionary. Valdes v. Wal-Mart Stores,

Inc., 199 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 2000). The defendant's good

faith is immaterial. Tenner v. Zurek, 168 F.3d 328, 329-330. 

Case 3:05-cv-01786-SC Document 20 Filed 09/28/05 Page 5 of 7
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 6

Federal Courts also have authority under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 11 and inherent equitable power to assess attorney's

fees as sanctions against a party whose litigation conduct is

found to be "vexatious" or in "bad faith." See Roadway Express,

Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 766-767 (1980). Award of attorney

fees here is discretionary. Valdes, 119 F.3d at 292. Such an

award is inappropriate "where the defendant's attempt to remove

the action was fairly supportable and where there has been no

showing of bad faith." Schmitt v. Insurance Company of North

America, 845 F.2d 1546, 1552 (9th Cir. 1988). 

The Court awards $2,025.00 to Plaintiff. Defendants' counsel 

should have been aware of and mentioned highly relevant legal

authority contrary to their position, if only to distinguish it

from the instant case. Furthermore, Defendants cite Janken v. GM

Hughes Eletronics, 46 Cal.App.4th 55 (1996) for the proposition

that supervisors cannot be sued for retaliation under FEHA. 

Janken addressed discrimination and harassment, not retaliation

and is therefore inapposite to Defendants' position. Id. at 79-

80. 

 

V. CONCLUSION

 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to remand is

hereby GRANTED, and this matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court

for the County of Alameda. Plaintiff's motion for costs and

attorney's fees is GRANTED.

//

Case 3:05-cv-01786-SC Document 20 Filed 09/28/05 Page 6 of 7
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 7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2005

_____________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

Case 3:05-cv-01786-SC Document 20 Filed 09/28/05 Page 7 of 7