Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Olvera v. Quest Diagnostics

United States District Court, C.D. California

December 2, 2019

Ramon Olvera
v.
Quest Diagnostics

          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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.