CUENNTITREADL S DTIASTTERSIC DTI SOTFR CICATL ICFOOURRNTIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:20-cv-08442-RGK-MRW Date October 8, 2020 Title MICHAEL ANDERSON v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al

Present: The R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Honorable Joseph Remigio Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CIVIL ACTION TO SUPERIOR COURT Michael Anderson (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”), John P. Manning (“Manning”), and Douglas R. Martins (“Martins”) alleging state common law and statutory claims under the California Labor Code. On September 15, 2020, Wells Fargo removed this action from state court based on diversity jurisdiction. Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See

, et seq. The Ninth Circuit has held unequivocally that the removal statute is construed strictly against removal. Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest.,

, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988). The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that “the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs.,

, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N.A.,

(9th Cir. 2001) (“The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the case is properly in federal court.”). Wells Fargo states that, although Manning and Martins (collectively, “Individual Defendants”) are California citizens, they are fraudulently joined, and should not be considered for purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction. It is true that corporate agents cannot be held individually liable for actions they took in their corporate capacities. Martinez v. Combs,

(2010). However, persons are not absolved of liability under California Labor Code if they are “employers” within the meaning of the Industrial Welfare Commission’s (“IWC”) wage orders. See

The IWC provides that an employer is any person “who directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of any person.”

(2)(F); see Martinez, 49 Cal. 4th. at 63. Here, Plaintiff alleges that each of the Individual CUENNTITREADL S DTIASTTERSIC DTI SOTFR CICATL ICFOOURRNTIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:20-cv-08442-RGK-MRW Date October 8, 2020 Title MICHAEL ANDERSON v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al

policy.” (Compl., ¶¶ 3 and 4.) Based on these allegations, Wells Fargo’s assertion that the Individual Defendants are sham defendants fail. Therefore, the Court finds that the presence in this action of the Individual Defendants, who are undisputedly a California citizens, defeats diversity jurisdiction. In light of the foregoing, the action is hereby remanded to state court for all further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. cc: Los Angeles Superior Court, 20STCV29493 : Initials of Preparer jre