Christienne Black v. Pretium Packaging, L.L.C.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: February 9, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00262
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

4 JS-6 5

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 10 CHRISTIENNE BLACK, an individual, Case No. 2:24-cv-00262-MCS-MAR

11 ORDER ON STIPULATION TO Plaintiff, REMAND CASE TO STATE 12 COURT (ECF No. 17) v. 13 PRETIUM PACKAGING, L.L.C., a 14 Delaware limited liability company; PRETILTM HOLDING, LLC, a 15 Delaware limited liability company; PRETIUM INTERMEDIATE 16 HOLDING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; PRETIUM PKG 17 HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; RICHARD DAVIS, an 18 individual; and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 On February 7, 2024, Plaintiff Christienne Black and defendants Pretium 3 Packaging, L.L.C., Pretium Holding, LLC, and Pretium Pkg Holdings, Inc. filed a 4 Stipulation to Remand Removed Action. The Court, having reviewed that 5 stipulation, orders as follows: 6 1. Federal question jurisdiction does not exist over the Action. The 7 complaint alleged twelve causes of action that all arise under California state law. 8 Plaintiff’s sole reference to the public policy embodied by the FLSA as part of her 9 state-law cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy is 10 insufficient to trigger federal question jurisdiction. See Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 11 1480, 1486-1491 (9th Cir. 1996) (removal improper where plaintiff’s complaint 12 “does not clearly establish that [a federal statute] creates any of the three claims 13 found in her complaint” and where each of plaintiff’s “stated claims is supported by 14 at least one state law theory of recovery not dependent upon” any federal law); see 15 also Fracasse v. People’s United Bank, 747 F.3d 141, 144-145. (2d Cir. 2014) 16 (“Neither the federal government nor the federal system as a whole has a pressing 17 interest in ensuring that a federal forum is available to defendants in state tort suits 18 that include passing references to a federal statute cited only as an articulation of 19 public policy.”). 20 2. Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of California. Plaintiff alleges Davis 21 is also resident and citizen of California and the Pretium Defendants have not 22 countered this allegation. As Plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as at least one of 23 the named defendants, complete diversity does not exist among the parties to the 24 Action, thus depriving this Court of diversity jurisdiction. Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 25 305 U.S. 534, 541 (1939) (“[T]he fact that the resident defendant has not been 26 served with process does not justify removal by the non-resident defendant.”); see 27 also Gralnik v. DXC Tech., Inc., No. CV 21-7436-GW-JCx, 2021 WL 5203333, at 1 || 1441(b)(2) because [a defendant] was not served, a Court ‘cannot ignore a 2 || defendant's citizenship simply because the defendant has not been served.’” (quoting 3 || Chavez v. Schumberger Tech. Corp.., No. 21-CV-04817-MWF-(MARx), 2021 WL 4 || 3403741, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2021))). 5 3. Plaintiff's allegations regarding Davis’s sexual assault and harassment 6 || state at least one cause of action against Davis under California law. See Hunter v. 7 || Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[I]f there is a possibility 8 || that a state court would find that the complaint states a cause of action against any of 9 || the resident defendants, the federal court must find that the joinder was proper and 10 || remand the case to the state court.” (quoting Tillman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, 340 11 || F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam))). Accordingly, this Court lacks 12 || subject matter jurisdiction over the Action as neither federal question jurisdiction 13 || nor diversity jurisdiction exists. 14 4. Case number 2:24-cv-00262-MCS-MAR, entitled Christienne Black v. 15 || Pretium Packaging L.L.C. et al., is hereby remanded to the Superior Court of the 16 || State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19|| DATED: February 9, 2024 20 21 Huh L bears 09 By Mark C. Scarsi 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28