Rankins v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TAMI RANKINS, Case No. 3:23-cv-05785-JSC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 9 v. TO REMAND 10 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 16 Defendant.

13 Tami Rankins sued United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”) in California state court, alleging UPS engaged in systemic discrimination, harassment, and wage theft, in violation of California laws. (Dkt. No. 1-1 ¶ 1.)1 UPS then removed this action to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Dkt. No. 1.)

17 Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remand. (Dkt. No. 16.) Having carefully considered the briefing and determined oral argument is unnecessary, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7- 1(b), the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion. UPS has demonstrated complete diversity between the parties and that the amount in controversy is over $75,000.

21 BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff has worked at UPS for over 32 years. (Dkt. No. 1-1 ¶ 23.) She alleges “[f]or more than 5 years, two of her fellow employees have verbally assaulted and threatened her,” that this “abuse is still ongoing,” and “[m]anagement has failed to intervene.” (Dkt. No. 1-1 ¶ 24-25.)

25 Plaintiff brings five claims against UPS: (1) disparate treatment in violation of public policy; (2) harassment based on gender and age, Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(j)-(k); (3) failure to prevent discrimination, Cal. Gov. Code § 12940 et seq.; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (5) breach of contract.

3 DISCUSSION 4 “For a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction under § 1332(a), the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, and the parties must be citizens of different states.” Rainero v. Archon Corp., 844 F.3d 832, 839 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)). Plaintiff asserts there is not complete diversity between the parties and there is no evidence the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

9 UPS has established complete diversity between the parties. “The federal diversity jurisdiction statute provides that ‘a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.’” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80 (2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)). “‘[P]rincipal place of business’ refers to the place where the corporation's high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities.” Id. Plaintiff is a citizen of California for diversity purposes. (Dkt. No. 1-1 ¶ 10.) UPS is incorporated in Ohio. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 13.) UPS’s “principal place of business” is in Georgia. (Dkt. No. 19 at 4.)2 See also Kisman v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 221CV03164ABEX, 2021 WL 5016903, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2021), motion to certify appeal denied sub nom. Kisman v. United States Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 221CV03164ABEX, 2022 WL 20273625 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2022) (“Defendant UPS is incorporated in Ohio and has its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.”); Argyris v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. CV0902306DDPRZX, 2009 WL 1652911, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2009) (same). So, the parties are completely diverse.

23 Defendant has also established the amount in controversy is over $75,000. Plaintiff does not seek a specific dollar amount in damages in her complaint. “Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in controversy, the removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold.”

1 Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d 770, 774 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). UPS, the removing party, asserts in its notice of removal the amount of controversy is well over $75,000. UPS explains Plaintiff’s emotional distress claim, (Dkt. No. 1-1 § VII ¶ 1), puts at least $75,000 in controversy because “past awards for emotional distress in discrimination and wrongful termination cases have easily exceeded $75,000.” (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 21 (collecting cases awarding over $75,000 in damages for emotional distress in discrimination and wrongful termination.).) Plaintiff also seeks an award of attorneys’ fees, (Dkt. No. 1-1 § VII ¶ 4), and “where an underlying statute authorizes an award of attorneys’ fees, either with mandatory or discretionary language, such fees may be included in the amount in controversy.” Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 1998).

11 The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Cal. Gov. Code § 12900 et seq., authorizes attorneys’ fees for suits alleging employment discrimination and harassment, such as this one. Cal. Gov. Code § 12965(b). So, Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees is properly considered under the amount in controversy. UPS has demonstrated an attorneys’ fee award can exceed $75,000 in employment cases. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 23.) Finally, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages, (Dkt. No. 1-1 § VII ¶ 3), which UPS has established can exceed $75,000 in a wrongful termination case. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 24 (collecting cases awarding over $75,000 in punitive damages in alleged wrongful termination cases).

19 Plaintiff’s complaint allegations, on their face, also demonstrate the amount in controversy is more likely than not $75,000. Plaintiff alleges her fellow employees have “verbally assaulted and threatened her” for “more than 5 years.” (Dkt. No. 1-1 ¶ 25.) As a result, Plaintiff pleads she “has suffered personal financial harm, including loss of earnings, humiliation, embarrassment, and mental and physical anguish and other employment benefits.” (Id. ¶ 58.) Further, Plaintiff asserts UPS “discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of California law by engaging in and permitting acts that created a hostile work environment.” (Id. ¶ 83.) Because of UPS’s action, Plaintiff states she “suffered deterioration of health; loss of job; and the loss of salary, wages, bonuses, and benefits” (Id. ¶ 97.) These allegations, if proven, likely result in compensatory above.

2 Plaintiff argues her complaint “does not exceed $75,000 on its face,” citing Tenderloin Neighborhood Dey. Corp. v. Jones, 23-cv-04329-LJC, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 8, 2023), which was || partially adopted in Tenderloin Neighborhood Dev. Corp. v. Jones, No. 4:23-CV-04329-YGR, || 2023 WL 6631716, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2023). (Dkt. No. 16 at 8.) But in Tenderloin, there || was only one state law claim for unlawful detainer, and the plaintiffs only sought $25,000 in damages according to their own complaint. Tenderloin, 23-cv-04329-LJC, at *2. In contrast, Plaintiff brings five claims and has not stated she is limiting her request for damages to $75,000 or || less.

10 Because Defendant has established diversity jurisdiction, the Court does not reach the issue 11 of federal question jurisdiction.

12 CONCLUSION 13 For the reasons stated, Plaintiff's motion to remand is DENIED. Plaintiffs request for || attorney’s fees and costs is also DENIED, as Plaintiff's motion was denied. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 3 15 1447 (authorizing payment of “just costs and any actual expenses” but only if Plaintiff achieves a 16 “TaJn order remanding the case”).

3 17 This Order disposes of Docket Number: 16.

S 18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 Dated: December 22, 2023 21 ne ACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE 22 United States District Judge