United States District Court, C.D. California
Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District
(In Chambers): ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND 
the Court is Plaintiff Matthew Anderson's Motion to
Remand (the “Motion”), filed on September 22,
2019. (Docket No. 9). Defendants Assemblers, Inc.
(“Assemblers”) and Brian Finn filed an Opposition
on September 30, 2019. (Docket No. 11). Plaintiff filed his
Reply on October 4, 2019. (Docket No. 12).
Court reviewed and considered the papers submitted on the
Motion and held a hearing on October 21, 2019.
reasons discussed below, the Motion is
GRANTED. Defendants have not established
that Finn was fraudulently joined, “fraudulently”
being used here with its technical jurisdictional meaning.
Because Plaintiff is a California resident and Defendant Finn
is a California resident, this Court lacks diversity
jurisdiction and the action must be remanded.
the Court concludes that complete diversity does not exist,
the Court does not address Plaintiff's argument that
Defendants' Notice of Removal is untimely.
August 5, 2019, Plaintiff commenced this action in the
Riverside County Superior Court. (See Notice of
Removal (“NoR”) (Docket No. 1), Ex. A (Docket No.
1-3)). On September 9, 2019, Defendants removed the action to
this Court. (See NoR). On September 30, 2019,
Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint
(“FAC”). (Docket No. 10).
is an individual who resides in California. (FAC ¶ 1).
Defendant Assemblers is incorporated in Tennessee with its
principal place of business and headquarters located in
Tennessee. (NoR ¶ 7; Declaration of Tina Belau
(“Belau Decl.”) ¶ 4 (Docket No. 1-1); FAC
¶ 2). Defendant Finn is a citizen of California. (Belau
Decl. ¶ 7; FAC ¶ 3).
alleges as follows:
Plaintiff applied for a position at Assemblers in Temecula,
California. (FAC ¶ 8). Plaintiff was qualified for the
position for which he applied. (Id. ¶ 10). On
or about June 12, 2019, Plaintiff had a telephone interview
for the position with Defendant Finn that lasted
approximately 35 minutes. (Id. ¶ 11). Plaintiff
asserts that “Defendants subjected [him] to harassment
based on his age and marital/family status by among other
things, asking him how old he was and whether he was married
or had a family.” (Id.).
to learning Plaintiff's age and marital status, Finn
stated that Plaintiff was his choice for the position and
that he was looking for someone like Plaintiff to help him
run the West Coast region because he had been doing it alone
since his last area manager that covered the area was let go.
(Id. ¶ 13). Further, prior to learning
Plaintiff's age and marital status, Finn stated that
Plaintiff was his choice to help him run the West Coast
because he was really impressed by Plaintiff's work
history, knowledge, ability, and the way he came across as a
professional on the phone and that Plaintiff knew what he was
talking about. (Id. ¶ 14).
then stated that he was dying to ask Plaintiff something,
which was “How old are you?” (Id. ¶
16). Plaintiff responded that he was 50. (Id.).
According to Plaintiff, Finn then stated that the reason he
wanted to know Plaintiff's age was because he was looking
for someone like him since he was only 23 years old and
dedicated. (Id. ¶ 18). Finn then asked
Plaintiff if he was married or had a family. (Id.
¶ 20). Plaintiff responded that he was divorced but had
full time custody of his daughter. (Id.). Finn
stated that he was not married and did not have children and
that his home life and situation allowed him to give his
undivided attention to the company and allowed him to excel.
(Id. ¶ 22). Finn asked whether taking care of
his daughter would prevent Plaintiff from being able to
perform the job. (Id. ¶ 24). Plaintiff further
stated that his last manager was always home doing stuff, so
they had to let him go. (Id.).
then stated that he and a man named Scott would call him the
next day for the second interview at 12:30pm. (Id.
¶ 26). To date, Plaintiff has not heard back ...