Troncoso v. McLane/Suneast, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 EDWIN TRONCOSO, No. 1:24-cv-00568-KES-SAB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12 v. Docs. 14, 19, 21 13 MCLANE/SUNEAST, INC., et al

14 Defendants. 15 16 On May 13, 2024, Defendant McLane/Suneast, Inc. (“McLane”) filed a notice of removal 17 asserting that diversity jurisdiction exists because Plaintiff Edwin Troncoso, Defendant McLane, 18 and Defendant Vicky Doe have complete diversity of citizenship; Defendant Jose Alvarado is a 19 fraudulently joined defendant and his citizenship should therefore be disregarded for removal 20 purposes; and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Doc. 1 at ¶ 11. On June 12, 2024, 21 Plaintiff filed a motion to remand this action to Merced County Superior Court pursuant to 28 22 U.S.C. § 1447. Doc. 14. The motion was referred to the assigned United States magistrate judge 23 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Doc. 15. 24 On August 27, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 25 recommending that Plaintiff’s motion to remand be granted. Doc. 19. The magistrate judge 26 found the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Id. at 3–11. However, the magistrate judge 27 also found that McLane had failed to establish that Defendant Alvarado was fraudulently joined. 28 The magistrate judge found a non-fanciful possibility that Plaintiff could state an intentional 1 infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) claim after amendment against Defendant Alvarado, 2 relying in part on plaintiff’s proffer at the hearing of additional allegations that could state an 3 IIED claim upon amendment to the complaint. Id. at 11–18. Accordingly, the magistrate judge 4 found that Alvarado’s citizenship must be considered, and because Plaintiff and Alvarado are 5 both citizens of California, found the Court lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Id. at 18. 6 The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that 7 any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. On September 8 10, 2024, Defendant McLane timely filed objections. Doc. 21. 9 Defendant objects to the finding that Plaintiff’s additional proffered allegations could 10 potentially state an IIED claim against Defendant Alvarado. Doc. 21 at 6–11. Defendant argues 11 that the alleged conduct could not be the basis for an IIED claim because it was not sufficiently 12 outrageous and did not exceed the range of typical managerial actions. Doc. 21 at 6–11. 13 However, Plaintiff proffered additional allegations of retaliatory conduct by Alvarado beyond 14 standard management activity, including that Alvarado deceptively misled Plaintiff and violated 15 Plaintiff’s right to bid on other jobs in retaliation for Plaintiff’s reports of sexual harassment. As 16 found in the findings and recommendations, given such additional proffered allegations there is a 17 non-fanciful possibility that Plaintiff may state an IIED claim against Alvarado in an amended 18 complaint. See, e.g., Dagley v. Target Corp., Inc., No. CV 09-1330-VBF (AGRx), 2009 WL 19 910558 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 31, at *3 (reasoning that “if a plaintiff alleges conduct other than that 20 inherent in terminating an employee, such as violating a fundamental interest of the employee...in 21 a deceptive manner that results in the plaintiff being denied rights granted to other employees, 22 then a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is possible against a supervisor”); 23 Barsell v. Urb. Outfitters, Inc., No. CV0902604MMMRZX, 2009 WL 1916495 (C.D. Cal. July 1, 24 2009), at *6–7. 25 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de novo review of 26 this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the findings and 27 recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 28 /// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued August 27, 2024, Doc. 19, are 3 ADOPTED IN FULL; 4 2. Plaintiff's motion to remand this case to Merced County Superior Court, Doc. 14, 5 is GRANTED; 6 3. This action is REMANDED to Merced County Superior Court; and 7 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and to serve a copy of this Order 8 on the clerk of the Merced County Superior Court. 9 10 11 | TPIS SO ORDERED. _ 12 Dated: _ December 29, 2024 4h 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28