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

Opinion

JS-6

CHRISTIENNE BLACK, an individual, Case No. 2:24-cv-00262-MCS-MAR

Plaintiff, REMAND CASE TO STATE COURT (ECF No. 17) v. PRETIUM PACKAGING, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company; PRETILTM HOLDING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; PRETIUM INTERMEDIATE HOLDING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; PRETIUM PKG HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; RICHARD DAVIS, an individual; and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Defendants.

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