United States District Court, C.D. California
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
BEVERLY REID O'CONNELL, District Judge.
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND 
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Timothy David Schreiner's Motion to Remand. (Dkt. No. 27.) After considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the instant motion, the Court deems this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument of counsel. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Timothy David Schreiner ("Plaintiff") is a fifty-two year-old Caucasian male residing in California. (First Am. Compl. ("FAC") ¶¶ 1, 13.) Plaintiff worked for Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation ("Lockheed") for twenty-five years. (FAC ¶ 13.) Lockheed is a Maryland citizen. (Removal ¶ 12.)
On March 21, 2013, Lockheed terminated Plaintiff for violating company policy. (FAC ¶ 42.) Following his termination, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit against Lockheed and two individuals who worked for the corporation. Plaintiff alleges that his termination was pretextual and that all defendants violated his rights under California law.
The first individual defendant is Jeffery Kindred ("Kindred"). Kindred worked as one of Lockheed's human resources managers and served as Plaintiff's supervisor. ( Id. ¶¶ 6, 17.) Kindred is a Colorado citizen. (Removal ¶ 9.) The second individual defendant is Kenen Nelson ("Nelson"). Nelson worked as Lockheed's general manager. (FAC ¶ 5.) Plaintiff alleges Nelson also served as his supervisor. ( Id. ) Like Plaintiff, Nelson is a California citizen. ( Id. )
Plaintiff initiated this action in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on March 12, 2014. ( See Removal Ex. A.) The Complaint alleged twenty-one state law claims. On April 14, 2014, Lockheed removed the matter to this Court, alleging diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Dkt. No. 1.) Lockheed's removal papers argued that Plaintiff named Nelson as a "sham" defendant and that his citizenship must be disregarded for purposes of evaluating diversity jurisdiction. (Removal ¶¶ 16-35.) Lockheed also moved to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 9.) Plaintiff moved to remand the case back to state court. (Dkt. No. 12.)
After a hearing on the Rule 12(b)(6) and remand motions, the Court granted Lockheed's motion to dismiss in its entirety with leave to amend as to twenty of Plaintiff's claims. (Dkt. No. 19 at 22.) The Court denied Plaintiff's motion to remand, finding that Nelson, the only non-diverse defendant in this matter, was fraudulently joined and that Lockheed had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000, exclusive of costs and interest. ( Id. at 6-11.)
Plaintiff filed the FAC on June 24, 2014. (Dkt. No. 20.) Plaintiff served Lockheed through its counsel of record. ( Id. at 30.) Lockheed contends Plaintiff never served Defendants Kindred or Nelson. ( See Opp'n to Mot. to Remand ("Opp'n") at 2, 7.) Lockheed requests that the Court dismiss these unserved defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). ( Id. at 2, 19.)
On October 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand. (Dkt. No. 27.) Plaintiff asserts the FAC's new allegations are sufficient to show that Nelson is not a "sham" defendant and that, accordingly, complete diversity is lacking. Lockheed ...