Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01007/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01007-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carole Chadima
Plaintiff
Jay Stratton
Defendant
Randy Tessonie
Defendant
USA Waste of California, Inc.
Defendant
Waste Management of California
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAROLE CHADIMA,

Plaintiff,

v.

USA WASTE OF CALIFORNIA,

INC., a California 

Corporation; WASTE MANAGEMENT 

OF CALIFORNIA; RANDY 

TESSONIE, Individually; JAY 

STRATTON, Individually; and 

DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-1007-JAM-EFB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO REMAND

Plaintiff Carole Chadima (“Ms. Chadima”) filed suit against 

Defendants USA Waste of California (“USA Waste”), Waste 

Management of California (“Waste Management”), Randy Terronez 

(“Mr. Terronez”), and Jay Stratton (“Mr. Stratton”) in California 

state court. ECF No. 1-1. Defendant USA Waste removed the case 

to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. 1. 

Plaintiff moves to remand the case to state court. ECF No. 10.1

 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 

scheduled for October 4, 2016.

Case 2:16-cv-01007-JAM-EFB Document 15 Filed 10/27/16 Page 1 of 8
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

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

For purposes of a motion to remand, the Court takes the 

facts alleged in the complaint as true. No Doubt v. Activision 

Publ'g, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 1139, 1140 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (citing 

Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 1987)).

Ms. Chadima worked as a facility manager and gatehouse

attendant for USA Waste from 2003 to 2014. Compl. ¶ 12. Ms. 

Chadima suffered from asthma and sciatica, which limited her 

ability to walk long distances. Compl. ¶ 11. On March 21, 2014, 

Ms. Chadima was fired for “fail[ing] to follow established cash 

handling policies and procedures.” Velez Decl. Ex. 3, ECF No. 

10-2. 

On March 13, 2015, Ms. Chadima filed a Pre-Complaint Inquiry

with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing 

(“DFEH”). Pl.’s Req. for Judicial Notice (“Pl.’s RJN”) Ex. 2, 

ECF No. 10-5. In the Pre-Complaint Inquiry, Ms. Chadima alleged 

that she experienced discrimination and harassment based on her 

actual or perceived age, disability, medical condition, and 

gender. Id. Ms. Chadima attached twenty pages of notes to her 

Pre-Complaint Inquiry detailing her experiences with her employer 

and colleagues during February and March 2014. Pl.’s RJN Ex. 3. 

On March 18, 2015, DFEH sent Ms. Chadima a letter with an 

attached complaint stating that Ms. Chadima needed to return the 

signed complaint within ten days. Pl.’s RJN Exs. 5, 6. Ms. 

Chadima signed and returned the complaint on March 23, 2015. 

Pl.’s RJN Ex. 7. On April 8, 2015, Plaintiff received a “right

to sue notice” from DFEH. Pl.’s RJN Ex. 8. 

Case 2:16-cv-01007-JAM-EFB Document 15 Filed 10/27/16 Page 2 of 8
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

II. OPINION

A. Legal Standard: Removal and Fraudulent Joinder

Generally, a defendant can remove a state civil action to 

federal court only if the plaintiff could have brought the case 

in federal court originally. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The Ninth 

Circuit “strictly construe[s] the removal statute against removal 

jurisdiction.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 

1992). Thus, a federal district court must reject removal 

jurisdiction “if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in 

the first instance.” Id. “The ‘strong presumption’ against 

removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the 

burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Id.

An out-of-state defendant can remove a case from state court 

based on diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). To 

establish diversity jurisdiction, the removing defendant must 

show that complete diversity exists among the parties and that 

the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

Complete diversity does not exist unless all plaintiffs are 

citizens of different states than all defendants. Morris v. 

Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F. 3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(citing Caterpillar v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996)).

But, an exception to the complete diversity requirement 

exists if the removing party can show that the plaintiff has

“fraudulently joined” a non-diverse defendant to thwart removal 

to federal court. Morris, 236 F.3d at 1067. “Joinder of a nondiverse defendant is deemed fraudulent, and the defendant's 

presence in the lawsuit is ignored for purposes of determining 

diversity, if the plaintiff fails to state a cause of action 

Case 2:16-cv-01007-JAM-EFB Document 15 Filed 10/27/16 Page 3 of 8
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

against a resident defendant, and the failure is obvious 

according to the settled rules of the state.” Id. A defendant 

asserting removal jurisdiction based on fraudulent joinder must 

“demonstrate that there is no possibility that the plaintiff will 

be able to establish a cause of action in State court against the 

alleged sham defendant.” Gomez v. Rehab., 2016 WL 370692, at *2 

(C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2016). Also, there “is a presumption against 

finding fraudulent joinder, and defendants who assert that [the] 

plaintiff has fraudulently joined a party carry a heavy burden of 

persuasion.” Id. 

B. Analysis

On the face of Ms. Chadima’s complaint, complete diversity 

does not exist: Ms. Chadima is a citizen of California, as are 

Defendants Waste Management, Mr. Terronez, and Mr. Stratton. See

Notice of Removal ¶¶ 6, 12, 16, 22. USA Waste is incorporated in 

Delaware with its principal place of business in Texas. Id. ¶ 7.

USA Waste contends that Ms. Chadima fraudulently joined nondiverse Defendants Mr. Terronez, Mr. Stratton, and Waste 

Management solely for the purpose of defeating removal. Id. at 

4-8. USA Waste claims that the citizenship of these three 

California Defendants should be disregarded because Ms. Chadima

has failed to exhaust her claims against these defendants and 

therefore cannot maintain any cause of action against any of 

them. Id. 

i. Defendants Terronez and Stratton

Mr. Terronez and Mr. Stratton are fraudulently joined, 

according to USA Waste, because a plaintiff cannot maintain a 

wrongful termination claim against an individual manager. USA 

Case 2:16-cv-01007-JAM-EFB Document 15 Filed 10/27/16 Page 4 of 8
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

Waste’s Opp’n to Mot. to Remand (“Opp’n”) at 5. Ms. Chadima does 

not dispute that she cannot bring a wrongful termination claim 

against either Mr. Terronez or Mr. Stratton. 

Additionally, USA Waste argues that Ms. Chadima’s remaining 

claims for discrimination and harassment against Mr. Terronez and 

Mr. Stratton fail because Ms. Chadima did not exhaust her 

administrative remedies within the applicable one-year statutory 

period. Opp’n at 5-6. 

Under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), 

a plaintiff must file a timely and sufficient administrative 

complaint with the DFEH within one year after the unlawful 

practice occurred. Cal. Gov’t Code § 12960(d). However, “[t]he 

administrative time limits prescribed by FEHA are treated as 

equivalent to statutes of limitations and are subject to 

equitable doctrines such as waiver, estoppel, and tolling.” 

Rodriguez v. Airborne Express, 265 F. 3d 890, 900 (9th Cir. 

2001). Thus, this Court can consider equitable exceptions to the

DFEH requirement of filing a complaint within one year. Holland 

v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 154 Cal.App.4th 940, 946 (2007). One 

such equitable exception “applies where complainants reasonably 

are misled through no fault of their own as a result of 

inaccurate advice from the DFEH.” Id. Application of this 

equitable exception “requires balancing the equities in the 

particular case.” Rodriguez, 265 F. 3d at 901. While there is 

no precise formula for balancing the equities in determining 

whether this exception applies, the Ninth Circuit has adopted 

some factors to consider. Id. “The equities favor a 

discrimination plaintiff who (1) diligently pursued his claim; 

Case 2:16-cv-01007-JAM-EFB Document 15 Filed 10/27/16 Page 5 of 8
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

(2) was misinformed or misled by the [DFEH]; (3) relied in fact 

on the misinformation or misrepresentations of the [DFEH]; . . . 

and (4) was acting pro se at the time.” Id. at 902. 

While Ms. Chadima concedes that she did not file her DFEH 

complaint until March 23, 2015, she claims that her failure to 

file by March 21, 2015 should be excused because the DFEH 

informed her in writing that she had until March 28, 2015 to 

return the signed complaint. Pl.’s RJN Ex. 6. 

USA Waste does not dispute the fact that the DFEH 

erroneously told Ms. Chadima that she had until March 28, 2015 to 

return her signed complaint. But, USA Waste argues that Ms. 

Chadima’s proffered excuses for failing to timely file her DFEH 

complaint are unavailing because she was represented by counsel

at the time she filed. Opp’n at 7-8. USA Waste contends that to 

the extent Ms. Chadima was confused regarding applicable 

statutory timelines, such confusion should be imputed to her 

counsel. Opp’n at 7. Indeed, the DFEH website indicates that a 

plaintiff must file a complaint for employment discrimination 

within one year of the date the discriminatory act occurred. 

Def.’s Req. for Judicial Notice Ex. 2. 

Plaintiff concedes that she had counsel at the time she 

filed her DFEH complaint; therefore the fourth factor in 

determining whether an equitable exception should be applied tips 

in favor of USA Waste. But, the Court’s analysis does not stop 

there and this Court finds that the other three equitable 

exception factors weigh in favor of excusing Ms. Chadima from the 

one-year DFEH filing deadline. First, Ms. Chadima diligently 

pursued her complaint. She sent a Pre-Complaint Inquiry alleging 

Case 2:16-cv-01007-JAM-EFB Document 15 Filed 10/27/16 Page 6 of 8
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

age, disability, and gender discrimination to the DFEH on March 

13, 2015. Pl.’s RJN Ex. 2. Ms. Chadima also sent a letter to 

the DFEH stating that she had spoken to someone from the DFEH the 

day before and that she had “not heard from [the] investigator as 

of this morning but thought it was imparative (sic) to get this 

paper work in.” Pl.’s RJN Ex. 4. Second, Ms. Chadima was 

misinformed by DFEH in writing that she had until March 28, 2015 

to return her signed complaint. Third, Ms. Chadima relied on the 

DFEH’s incorrect representation in returning her complaint before 

the March 28 deadline but after the March 21 statutory deadline. 

Given that the majority of the equitable exception factors weigh 

in her favor, the Court finds that Ms. Chadima is excepted from

the one-year DFEH statutory deadline. The Court holds that it 

would be inequitable to fault Ms. Chadima for filing her 

administrative complaint a mere two days past the statutory 

deadline. 

USA Waste does not provide any additional arguments as to 

why Ms. Chadima cannot maintain her discrimination and harassment

claims against Mr. Terronez and Mr. Stratton. Given that Ms. 

Chadima may go forward with her claims against at least one nondiverse defendant, this Court lacks jurisdiction and must grant 

this motion to remand. The Court need not resolve the parties’ 

disagreement as to whether USA Waste or Waste Management of 

California actually employed Ms. Chadima given the absence of 

complete diversity between the parties. 

Case 2:16-cv-01007-JAM-EFB Document 15 Filed 10/27/16 Page 7 of 8
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

8

III. SANCTIONS

The Court issued its Order re Filing Requirements (“Order”) 

on May 12, 2016. ECF No. 4-2. The Order limits memoranda in 

support of and in opposition to motions to remand to fifteen 

pages and reply memoranda in support of motions to remand to five 

pages. The Order also states that an attorney who exceeds the 

page limits must pay monetary sanctions of $50.00 per page and 

that the Court will not consider any arguments made past the page 

limit. Ms. Chadima’s memorandum in support of her motion to 

remand exceeds the page limit by two pages and her reply brief 

exceeds the page limit by four pages. As such, the Court has not 

considered any arguments made after the page limits. In 

addition, the Court orders Ms. Chadima’s counsel to pay $300.00 

in sanctions to the Clerk of the Court within five days of the 

date of this Order.

IV. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS 

Plaintiff’s motion to remand. The Court REMANDS this case to the 

Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-01007-JAM-EFB Document 15 Filed 10/27/16 Page 8 of 8