United States District Court, C.D. California
Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings:
(IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (DE
16)
I.
INTRODUCTION
On July
25, 2018, Ramon Olvera (“Plaintiff”) filed a
Complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court against Quest
Diagnostics, (“Defendant”) Pablo Bartelli
(“Bartelli”), and Nicole Simmet
(“Simmet”). On May 24, 2019 Plaintiff filed a
First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging the
following claims: (1) age discrimination (Cal. Gov. Code
§ 12941); (2) harassment (Cal. Gov't Code §
12940 et seq.); (3) disability discrimination (Cal.
Gov't Code § 12940 (a) and (m)); (4) failure to
provide reasonable accommodation (Cal. Gov. Code §
12940(m); (5) failure to engage in the interactive process to
accommodate disability (Gov. Code § 12940(n)); (6)
failure to prevent/remedy discrimination and retaliation
(Gov. Code § 12940(k)); (7) breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing; (8) breach of implied-in-fact
contract not to terminate without good cause; (9) wrongful
termination in violation of public policy; and (10)
defamation.
On July
17, 2019, Defendants filed a notice of removal from state
court, and on August 2, 2019 this Court remanded the case
because Bartelli and Simmet destroyed complete diversity. On
October 3, 2019, this Court granted Defendants' Motion
for Reconsideration on the basis that Plaintiff's claims
against Bartelli and Simmett had been dismissed by the state
court.
Presently,
before the court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff's Motion.
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff's
FAC alleges the following:
Defendant
provides diagnostic testing and medical services to patients
and doctors. Plaintiff is a forty-eight-year-old man who
worked for Defendant as a blood sample delivery driver for
sixteen years.
Bartelli
and Simmet were Plaintiff's supervisors. In the months
leading up to Plaintiff's termination in 2017, both began
harassing him. Bartelli, for instance, told Plaintiff that he
was going to “clean up” the workplace in order to
save the company funds, alluding to the termination of older
employees, including Plaintiff. During that same period
several other older employees were terminated.
Plaintiff's supervisors falsely accused Plaintiff of
misconduct and knowingly recorded written warnings based on
false information and speculation. For example, without
investigating or consulting witnesses, Simmet accused
Plaintiff of misplacing a biopsy specimen. The specimen was
later found, which exculpated Plaintiff, but Simmet continued
to blamed him nonetheless. Bartelli and Simmet recorded these
fictious claims in order to show cause for Plaintiff's
eventual termination.
Despite
ongoing harassment, Plaintiff continued to competently
perform in his position, as he had previously. From 2004 to
2016, Plaintiff's reviews uniformly indicated that he
“achieved expectation.” It was not until 2017,
when Simmet became his supervisor, that Plaintiff received a
“needed development, ” on his review.
On
August 18, 2017, Plaintiff suffered injuries when his car was
rear ended by another vehicle while on the job. As a result,
Plaintiff filed a workers' compensation claim and was
placed on light duty filing route sheets in Defendants'
Van Nuys office. However, on August 25, 2017, three days into
Plaintiff's new assignment, Plaintiff was terminated
without any specific justification.
III.
JUDICIAL STANDARD
A
defendant may remove a case to federal court when the federal
court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, there are
two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction. Section
1331 provides federal courts with jurisdiction over actions
“arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
the United States.” Section 1332 provides federal
courts with ...