Summary
explaining that an employee who is legally equivalent to the employer cannot be found liable for aiding and abetting because "the employee would be aiding and abetting himself or herself'"
Summary of this case from Botello v. City of SalemOpinion
3:12-CV-01773-ST
02-07-2013
RALPH RAYBURN Rayburn Law Office Attorneys for Plaintiff AMY R. ALPERN CRAIG L. LEIS Littler Mendelson, PC Attorneys for Defendants
ORDER
RALPH RAYBURN
Rayburn Law Office
Attorneys for Plaintiff AMY R. ALPERN
CRAIG L. LEIS
Littler Mendelson, PC
Attorneys for Defendants
BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart issued Findings and Recommendation (#13) by Order on December 18, 2012, in which she recommends the Court grant Plaintiff's Motion (#6) to Remand this matter to state court and award costs and attorneys' fees to Plaintiff. No objections to the Findings and Recommendation were filed.
This matter is before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff originally filed this action in Multnomah County Circuit Court for the State of Oregon alleging employment retaliation and discrimination claims against Defendants.
On October 1, 2012, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal to federal court based on the alleged diversity of citizenship of the parties even though Plaintiff and Defendant Brock are both alleged to be citizens of the State of Oregon. Defendants contend Plaintiff cannot state a claim against Brock and fraudulently joined Brock as a party-defendant in the original state-court action in order to preclude the complete diversity of citizenship necessary to establish federal-court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Plaintiff filed the pending Motion to Remand this case to Multnomah County based on lack of diversity of citizenship because Defendant Brock was properly joined as a party-defendant. Plaintiff also seeks reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in filing this Motion.
The Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts "to demonstrate a possibility that [Defendant] Brock could be found liable for aiding and abetting" Defendant Amedisys in violation of Oregon Revised Statute 659A.030(1), and, therefore, Brock was not fraudulently joined in this action for the purpose of obtaining subject-matter jurisdiction in this Court. In addition, the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff also has alleged a basis for liability against Brock based on retaliation in violation of Oregon Revised Statute § 59A.030(1)(g).
In addition, the Magistrate Judge found Defendants did not have an objectively reasonable basis for removing this case to federal court, and, therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1147(c).
Because no objection to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation was timely filed, this Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). See also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does not find any error in the Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation (#13) in its entirety, GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion (#6) to Remand this Case to state court, AWARDS Plaintiff the reasonable attorneys' fees and costs related to her Motion, and REMANDS this case to the Multnomah County Circuit Court for the State of Oregon.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________
ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge