Preview
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2024 10:37 AM INDEX NO. 804089/2023E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2024
Unitcd States District Court
Southcrn l)istricl of Nclr !ork 500
Pear I Strcet, Room 200
New York, Ncw York 10007
(212)805-0116
DATE: 1119124
cAsE cAt,TIoN: Alvardo et al v. sweetgreen, lnc. et al
SDNY DOCKET N0.: 1 :23-cv-08948-LJL
REMANDED TO: Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Bronx
RELATED CASE NO.:
lhcabovc rcli:renced rnaltcr hils br-cn rcnrandcd lo\our('ourl. Should 1ou havc an1 questions or
concern regarding the abovc rcntand. pleasc rive us a call bclbrc retuming thc docurnents to thc
Southern l)istrict Courl ol'Nsv York. We nral bc able to resolvc thc issue via telcphone.
'l'he docurnents noted hclo\\ arc enckrscd
E Certitled SI)NY docket shcct
E Ccrtilled Oldcr ol'Remand issucd bv SDNY
tr Other:
1 of 52
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2024 10:37 AM INDEX NO. 804089/2023E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2024
Case 1:23-cv-08948-LJ L Document 28 Filed 011L7124 Page 1 of 29
{]SDC SDNY
DOCL:\IEN'I'
UNIl trD STAl'llS I)lS'fRICT CoLrRl' Il LECTRO.T- IC..\ LLY FI LE t)
SOUI'IltrRN DIS I'Rl("f OF Nlrw YoRK DOC #:
X D,\TE FII-I.D: ll lr712024
KIANA ALVARADO. t.lANn ARIAS. SllAKll,RRA
GRIIII;IN, OSCAR RIVHRA. MINAYA RIVERA.
JENNII]I]R HENRY. BIt-AL MCCI-I.]RE. SHANI'A
SI'EVIINS. JADF. U'll.l.lAMS. and t.ASllAY Irtll.l.l:R. 23-cv-8948 (LJI-)
I'laintill.s. oPINtON ANI) ORDER
SWI'lIII'GREEN. INC.. I)ONAl.l) IZQtJ lliRDt). and
I]DWIN VENTI.]RA.
De'ltndant.
x
LEWIS J. LIMAN, []nitcd States District Judge:
Detbndants S$cctgreen. Inc. ("S$ee(grccn"), l)onald Izquicrdo, and Eduuin Vcntura
(collectivcll-. "Dcl'cndants") movc to conrpel arhitralion. pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act
("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. $ I, ct s?ry.. and to dismiss thc ame ndcd complaint, Dkt. No. l-l ("Amendcd
Conrplaint"). pursuant to [.ederal Rulc ofCivil l,roccdure l2(b)(6). I)kt. No. 5. I,laintifls Kiana
Alvarado, Liana Arias. Shakierra (lrillin. Oscar Rivera, Minal'a Rivcra, Jcnnifer Ilcnry. Bilal
Mc('lurc. Shanta Stcvcns. Jade Williams. and Lashav t"uller (collcctive ly. "Plaintillis") move to
remand this action to thc Suprenrc Coun of thc Statc ol'Ne\\'York. []ronx County'.1 Dkt. No. l.l
t-,
A,m.
( \[7(r t /\,
)
I As explained ir/)rl. McClure and Stcvens subscqucntly lilcd a stipulation to arbilratc aud
dismiss their claims. I)kt. No. I 5. I lowcver, as both parties recognize. McClure and Stevens
rcnrain rclevant to the Court's renrovabilitl analvsis. Se Audi ol Snitliottn, Int. r,. l'olkslirugcn
oJ.{n., 1nc..2009 U'l- i85541. at *3 (tr.D.N.Y. Feb. 11.2009) (Bianco. J.) ("ID]ivcrsity
jurisdiction is deternrined at the tinrc ol'removal." (citing Gruyt l)utufiux v. .,1tlu.s Gktb. Grp.,
L.P.,54t U.S. 567. 570-71 (200.+)).
2 of 52
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2024 10:37 AM INDEX NO. 804089/2023E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2024
Case L:23-cv-08948-LJ L Document 28 Filed 01177124 Page 2 of 29
BACK(;R()UND
l'he Court acccpts the rvcll-pleaded allcgations ofthc Anrcnded Conrplaint as truc lbr
purposes of thesc nrotions. ^\'cc, c.g.. Rosu t,. lrluntlurit h L. (iryt., LLP. 2023 WI. 4561 830. at * |
(S.D.N.Y. Juli' 17. 2023 ).
Swcetgreen orvns and opcratcs a national chain of approxirnalcly Ill0 rcstaurants that
oller handmade rcad),-to-eat salads. Dkt. No. l-l c l-1. Among othcr locations. it has storcs in
Nerv York Citl,at 55tl'street and l,ark Avenuc ("55'r'Strcct"). -12 (;ansevoort Strcct
("Mcatpacking"), 3llrr'strcct and tlroadwal,("38rr'streef'). and Wall Strcct ("Wall Strecr"). /r1
Izquicrdo has bccn thc general manager (or "llead Coach") at thc 55'h Slrcet location from
approximately 201 7 to present. /r/. fl 16. Ventura was gcneral ntanager (or Hcad Coach) o I'thc
Wall Street location liom appro\inlatch' 201 9 through approximatcll' Deccmbe r 2021. |d.120.
I'laintilli arc ten current and/or lornrer cnrplolees ol'S\\ectgreen. /r/ !]fl 23.45, 55. 6tt.
70, 87. 89, 117.147,149,173.200. 240.2,12. Alvarado was cnrplol,cd at rhc 55'r'strect locarion
fronr August 23. 20 l9 to Fcbruar] 202 I and at thc Meatpackirrg localion from lrcbruary 2021 trod. Liub. Lirig.. 168 F. Supp.2d I16. l.17--18 (S.D.N.Y.2001).
The ('ourt concludcs that it has no authority to retain jurisdiction ovcr this case on the
g,rounds ol'liaudulent nrisjoindcr and that. even ifa court did havc the authority to relain
.jurisdiction ovcr a casc involving non-divcrse partics on grounds of lraudulcnt nrisjoindcr, thc
('ourt rvorrld not exercisc that authorit) hcre. The l'up.\(ott C orrl dctcrnrincd that courts had the
l6
17 of 52
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2024 10:37 AM INDEX NO. 804089/2023E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2024
Case 1:23-cv-08948-LJ L Document 28 Filed OllL7l24 Page 17 of 29
authority. and pcrhaps thc responsibility, to retain.iurisdict ion ovcr cascs that did nol salisry (hc
completc diversitl'requirenlent on grounds ol"fiaudulcnt misioinder" b1'analogizing to the
doctrine of lraudulent joinder. 77 F.3d at 1360. Ilut thc equivalcnce is lalse, lor morc r!'asons
than onc.
'l'he doctrine of liaudu lcnt
.joindcr permits the Court to "overlook the prcscnce ol'a non-
diverse delcndant if tiom the pleadings thcre is no possibility that thc clainrs against that
dcl'endant could be asscrtcd in statc court." Bounds v. I'ina llalt lfuntul I[ealth ('rrrc Rr'.r.. 593
Ir.id 209. 2 l5 (2d Cir. 20 l0) (qLroting llriurpurch Lrd., l..l' r'. I'lncni I'icturt:. Inc.. 373 F .3d
296,302 (2d Cir.2004)). The doctrinc 'prevent[s] plaintilTs liom joining non-diversc parties in
an cl'tb( to delcat fcdcral .iurisdiction." Briuryntch. i73 F.3d at 102. It dcrives liom ccntury-old
case larv liom thc Suprcnrc Court holding that a dcttndant's "righl ofrcnroval cannot bc
dclcated by a liaudulent.joinder ol'a resident dclcndant ltaving no real conncction with the
controvcls)' . . . [*hose.joinder isl onll a fraudulcnt dcr ice 1o prcvcnt a rcmoval." ('hc.sultaukc
tk O. R. ('o. t'. ('ockrcll.232 LJ.S. 1.16. 152 (l9l.l). As the doctrine is cLrrrentll'undcrstood. it
applies only "Iill'there is no possibility a plaintill'can state a cause ot'action against a non-
diverse dclcndanl." ^Sirlo r'. Brtlntu.vtar l;iraornt.s lt l, l.LC. 139 F. Supp. 3d 5(r0, 562-63 (l).
Conn. 2015). In lhat circunrslanccs, "it is ob.icctivell'rcasonablc to inltr that thc plaintill'has
cngaged in a lbrnr of litigation abusc." ll "Anl possibility ol'rccovcry. even il'slint. nrilitatcs
against a linding ol' fraudu lent joinden only rvhcre lhcrc is no possibility ofre'covcry is such a
linding uarrantcd;' Elrenreiclt v. Blot'k.994 Ir.Supp.2d28.1.289(l-l.l).N.Y.20l4)(quoting
.\'t'nru:ca r'. Pranicr, 1nt.,232 F. Supp. 2d 172. 178 (S.l).N.Y. 2002)); scc also ('ustillo v. B,l':;
lYholovlc CIuh,615 F. Supp. 3d tl5, 9.1-95 (lr.t).N.Y. 2022) ("'t he district coLrrt's rolc in
assessing fraudu lent.joindcr is not to asscss thc.rlrorgllr ol'plaintills claims, hut rathcr to asscss
t7
18 of 52
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2024 10:37 AM INDEX NO. 804089/2023E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2024
Case l,:23-cv-08948-LJ L Document 28 Filed 0LlL7l24 Page 18 of 29
\!hcther plaintifl'c'o,//(/ assert such a claim aS,ainst the non-diversc delcndants in statc coun."
(enrphasis in original)). The consequcncc o I' liaudu lcnt.joindcr is disnrissal ol'thc causc ol'action
against thc non-diverse defcndant. such that thc courl "rest[s].iurisdiction only upon lhe
citizcnship ol'real partics to thc controversy."{ I'c,r,r r\'., lnc. t. I.ihutti,2003 WL 21542554. at +5
(t'l.l).N.Y. Jan. 2,1.2003) (qLroting Nuwtrnt Sut'. A;s n v. I-cc. -146 U.S.,+58,461 (1980)).
Accordingly, the casc has thc sanre conrplexion it rvould havc had if it had renlaincd in statc
court, whcrc the clainr against the non-diversc def'endant u'ould also havc been subject to
disnrissal. 'l'he fraudulent but otheru isc disqualilf ing f actor is simpll d isrt'gardcd-hav ing bccn
inscrled only lor thc purposc ol'dclcat ing lbdcral .jurisd iction and nol lirr the purpose ol'
obtaining any relicl. it never uas enlitled to.iudicial rccognition in the lirst plircc. Thcrc is
thcrclbre no need to break a liaudulent.ioined case apart and no nced to rcmand an]1hing to state
court.
So-called "liaudulcnt nrisjoindcr" raises entircly dilfercnt issues and prcscnts entircly
dillcrcnt problems. S,:e ln ra l>ropatitt (Finu:;rr:rkfu) I'nxl. Liuh. Litit:..2013 Wl. 3729570. at *l
(lr.l).N.Y. May 17. 2013). Whcn a court is laccd rvith a clainr of "lraudulent mis.joindcr." it is
not asked u'hether thc clainrs that srruld dcleat tederaljurisdiction are lictive or are propcrly
pled. The presumption of the doctrinc is that thc clainrs are propcrll'plcd; thcy seek relicfliom
propcrly nanred dcf'cndants based on a propcrly allegcd clainr. Sac id.: In re l'rantpro ['rod.
l That approach parallcls thc practicc ofdisnrissing cascs lhat appear to prcsent a lederal
qucstion lbr lack ol'suhjcct nratter.iurisdiction "whe-re the allcgcd clainr undcr thc Constitution or
li'dcral statutcs cle'arl1' Iis] immalr,'rial and rnade solcll' lirr the purposc ot'obtaining jurisdiction
or w'hcrc such a clainr is rvhollf insubstantial and frivolous." llall v. Ihxtcl.327 Ll.S. 678. 682-
8l (1946). l,ike liaudulent.joinder, that doctrine requircs morc than nrcrely "lailing to state a
claim lbr rclielon the merits." Gcl/r,go v. .\'orthlund Grp. lttc'.. 811 F.3d 123. 126 (2d C.ir. 201(r)
(quoting S'lr4riro y. Mt,Vunu.s.577 LJ.S. 39, .15 (201 5)). Rathcr, the lcdcral claint nrust be
"csscnlially lictitious" fbr a cotrrt to disregard it. /r/ (quoting .\'h upint. 577 U.S. at 45).
I8
19 of 52
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2024 10:37 AM INDEX NO. 804089/2023E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2024
Case L:23-cv-08948-LJ L Document 28 Filed OL|L7l24 Page 19 of 29
Liuh. Litig..59l Ir.3d at (r20. Instcad. the argument is that the clainr that deleats lcderal
jurisdiction should not have been.joined u,ith thc clainr that-wcrc it plcd alone-rvould have
permitted fr"'dcraliurisdiction. ,\'cc.\'rrscrr. 2023 Wt, 5979210. at *8. 8ut nhethcr trvo clainrs are
propcrly'joined is. in thc lirst instance and rvhcn thc case originales. a qucstion ol'state law. and
not ltdcral larv. ^\rc Fad. lns. (;o. t'. Ttttt lnr'l Ltd..422 F. Supp.2d 357. 381 (S.D.N.Y.2006)
("[1 ]he question is onc ol'.joindcr in thc statc action belirre it s as renrovcd."); ln rc Fo.umut.r
Protl. Liub. Litis.,2001\ wl- 29.105(r0, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 29. 2008). And it is a quesrion rhar
oflsn is not easill- ansrvcrcd on thc plcadings and at thc tinre tlrc case is rcmoved. []oth partics
hcrc agree that rvhen thc case originated Nerv York lau,governcd the propriety ol'joinder. I)kt.
No. l4 at I ll Dkt. No. 25 al 10. Nerr York larr'permits "[p]crsons who assert an1'right to rclief
.jointly, sevcralll'. or in the alternativc arising out of thc sanre transaction, occurrcnce, or scrics of'
transactions or occurrences, Ito].ioin in onc action as plaintiliis il'any conrnron qucstion of larv or
lact nould arisc." N.Y. ('.P.L.R. \ 1002(a): .tcc ul:;o icl. \ 1002(b) (providing a similar standard
forjoindcr ol'dcl'cndants). That rulc I'urthcr clarilles that "[ilt shall not bc necessary that cach
plaintill'be intcrcsted in obtaining. or cach dclendant bc intercsted in dcli'nding against, all thc
relie l'dcnrandcd or as to cvery claim includcd in an action." /rl $ 1002(c). Thc Nuv York ('oLrrt
olAppeals has hcld that thc "purpose" ofthc state's pernrissivc.ioinder rcgime is "to lesscn thc
delal'and expcnsc of litigation b1'pcrmitting the clainrs ofdiffe'rcnt plaintill'.s to bc de'cided in
one action instead ofnranl'. when. although legally separate and distinct. lhev ncvcrthelcss so
involvc comnron cluestions. and spring out ol'identical or relatcd transactions. that thcir common
triaf nral'be had rvith Iairness to thc diff'ercnt parties." ,'1*(h'r Kinni(utt. 14,1 N.E.682,6tl3-84
(N.Y. 192,1). Whether thc f cderal courts ruould strikc tlre sams balance thal New York strikcs
bctuccn etlicicncv and I'airness is. or should bc. irrelcvant. Nor York itsclfhas thc right to
l9
20 of 52
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2024 10:37 AM INDEX NO. 804089/2023E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2024
Case 1:23-cv-08948-LJ L Document 28 Filed 0llI7l24 Page 20 of 29
dctcrntine litr itscll'rvhether it rvill pcrnrit nlorc than onc plaintill'rvho assens thc same or sinrilar
clainrs to join togcther to suc a conrnron delt'ndant in a singlc larvsuit.
As lhis very case illustratcs. thc qucstion whcther two or morc claims are properly joincd
for trial is not al\\avs rcadily'deternrinable liom thc pleadings or at lhc case's outset. On its Iacc,
the Anrendcd Complaint brings clainrs (hat arisc out ol the samc series oftransactions or
occurrences. suggcsting "a nrsdus opcrunrll o l'discrim inating against I'laintilt\." Gokdogort v.
Slop Shor I'i::ct Et ars. Ltd..202l WI- 14.11.{17. at *ll (E.D.N.Y. Scpt.27,202l). Undcr statc
larr. "multiplc transactiolls b1 multiplc plaintill.s 'do not losc thcir character as a scrics ol'
transactions becausc lhey occurrcd at difl'ercnt placcs and tirncs exlending through rnany
months."' llenry:;tcudGtn. llo.;p. t'. l.ibcrt.r.llut. In:;. ('o..521 N.Y.S.2d.169.,170 (2d Dcp't
1987) (quoting ltcA,. 141 N.tl. at (rll.l): scc olso -4ttnut:iuto r'. ('ilr, o/.Vcx York.647 N.Y.S.2d
850, 852 (2d Dcp't 1996). 'l'he Antcndcd Conrplaint dcscrihcs a colnr'non pattern ol'
discrimination and harassnrcnt that "consistcd ol. anrong othcr things: daill'usc ol'the N-\'ord
and other dcrogatory corrnrcnts . . . to dcscribc l)laintilli and thcir Black corvorkersl Iand] worse
trcatment than Hispanic workcrs in arcas ranging from hiring and pronrotion opportunitics to
hours n'orked and conrpensation." I)kt. No. 1-1 t1272. []ascd on Plaintill's' plcading, thcir
clainrs also appear to raisc contnron qur'stions ot lau and lact. including *'hether S*'ectgreen-
thc conrmon defbndant acruss all ol'thc Plaintill\'claims-\\'as arvarc ol'the allcged
discrinrination against its []lack enrplol'ees. and rvhcther Swcctgreen took an1 actions cither
condcmning or condoning that discrirn inat io n. Scc ('u:lillo t. /.rlaintiffs") against Delcntlarlts S\\eetgrccn and lz
Preview
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2024 10:37 AM INDEX NO. 804089/2023E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2024 Unitcd States District Court Southcrn l)istricl of Nclr !ork 500 Pear I Strcet, Room 200 New York, Ncw York 10007 (212)805-0116 DATE: 1119124 cAsE cAt,TIoN: Alvardo et al v. sweetgreen, lnc. et al SDNY DOCKET N0.: 1 :23-cv-08948-LJL REMANDED TO: Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Bronx RELATED CASE NO.: lhcabovc rcli:renced rnaltcr hils br-cn rcnrandcd lo\our('ourl. Should 1ou havc an1 questions or concern regarding the abovc rcntand. pleasc rive us a call bclbrc retuming thc docurnents to thc Southern l)istrict Courl ol'Nsv York. We nral bc able to resolvc thc issue via telcphone. 'l'he docurnents noted hclo\\ arc enckrscd E Certitled SI)NY docket shcct E Ccrtilled Oldcr ol'Remand issucd bv SDNY tr Other: 1 of 52 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2024 10:37 AM INDEX NO. 804089/2023E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2024 Case 1:23-cv-08948-LJ L Document 28 Filed 011L7124 Page 1 of 29 {]SDC SDNY DOCL:\IEN'I' UNIl trD STAl'llS I)lS'fRICT CoLrRl' Il LECTRO.T- IC..\ LLY FI LE t) SOUI'IltrRN DIS I'Rl("f OF Nlrw YoRK DOC #: X D,\TE FII-I.D: ll lr712024 KIANA ALVARADO. t.lANn ARIAS. SllAKll,RRA GRIIII;IN, OSCAR RIVHRA. MINAYA RIVERA. JENNII]I]R HENRY. BIt-AL MCCI-I.]RE. SHANI'A SI'EVIINS. JADF. U'll.l.lAMS. and t.ASllAY Irtll.l.l:R. 23-cv-8948 (LJI-) I'laintill.s. oPINtON ANI) ORDER SWI'lIII'GREEN. INC.. I)ONAl.l) IZQtJ lliRDt). and I]DWIN VENTI.]RA. De'ltndant. x LEWIS J. LIMAN, []nitcd States District Judge: Detbndants S$cctgreen. Inc. ("S$ee(grccn"), l)onald Izquicrdo, and Eduuin Vcntura (collectivcll-. "Dcl'cndants") movc to conrpel arhitralion. pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. $ I, ct s?ry.. and to dismiss thc ame ndcd complaint, Dkt. No. l-l ("Amendcd Conrplaint"). pursuant to [.ederal Rulc ofCivil l,roccdure l2(b)(6). I)kt. No. 5. I,laintifls Kiana Alvarado, Liana Arias. Shakierra (lrillin. Oscar Rivera, Minal'a Rivcra, Jcnnifer Ilcnry. Bilal Mc('lurc. Shanta Stcvcns. Jade Williams. and Lashav t"uller (collcctive ly. "Plaintillis") move to remand this action to thc Suprenrc Coun of thc Statc ol'Ne\\'York. []ronx County'.1 Dkt. No. l.l t-, A,m. ( \[7(r t /\, ) I As explained ir/)rl. McClure and Stcvens subscqucntly lilcd a stipulation to arbilratc aud dismiss their claims. I)kt. No. I 5. I lowcver, as both parties recognize. McClure and Stevens rcnrain rclevant to the Court's renrovabilitl analvsis. Se Audi ol Snitliottn, Int. r,. l'olkslirugcn oJ.{n., 1nc..2009 U'l- i85541. at *3 (tr.D.N.Y. Feb. 11.2009) (Bianco. J.) ("ID]ivcrsity jurisdiction is deternrined at the tinrc ol'removal." (citing Gruyt l)utufiux v. .,1tlu.s Gktb. Grp., L.P.,54t U.S. 567. 570-71 (200.+)). 2 of 52 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2024 10:37 AM INDEX NO. 804089/2023E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2024 Case L:23-cv-08948-LJ L Document 28 Filed 01177124 Page 2 of 29 BACK(;R()UND l'he Court acccpts the rvcll-pleaded allcgations ofthc Anrcnded Conrplaint as truc lbr purposes of thesc nrotions. ^\'cc, c.g.. Rosu t,. lrluntlurit h L. (iryt., LLP. 2023 WI. 4561 830. at * | (S.D.N.Y. Juli' 17. 2023 ). Swcetgreen orvns and opcratcs a national chain of approxirnalcly Ill0 rcstaurants that oller handmade rcad),-to-eat salads. Dkt. No. l-l c l-1. Among othcr locations. it has storcs in Nerv York Citl,at 55tl'street and l,ark Avenuc ("55'r'Strcct"). -12 (;ansevoort Strcct ("Mcatpacking"), 3llrr'strcct and tlroadwal,("38rr'streef'). and Wall Strcct ("Wall Strecr"). /r1 Izquicrdo has bccn thc general manager (or "llead Coach") at thc 55'h Slrcet location from approximately 201 7 to present. /r/. fl 16. Ventura was gcneral ntanager (or Hcad Coach) o I'thc Wall Street location liom appro\inlatch' 201 9 through approximatcll' Deccmbe r 2021. |d.120. I'laintilli arc ten current and/or lornrer cnrplolees ol'S\\ectgreen. /r/ !]fl 23.45, 55. 6tt. 70, 87. 89, 117.147,149,173.200. 240.2,12. Alvarado was cnrplol,cd at rhc 55'r'strect locarion fronr August 23. 20 l9 to Fcbruar] 202 I and at thc Meatpackirrg localion from lrcbruary 2021 trod. Liub. Lirig.. 168 F. Supp.2d I16. l.17--18 (S.D.N.Y.2001). The ('ourt concludcs that it has no authority to retain jurisdiction ovcr this case on the g,rounds ol'liaudulent nrisjoindcr and that. even ifa court did havc the authority to relain .jurisdiction ovcr a casc involving non-divcrse partics on grounds of lraudulcnt nrisjoindcr, thc ('ourt rvorrld not exercisc that authorit) hcre. The l'up.\(ott C orrl dctcrnrincd that courts had the l6 17 of 52 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2024 10:37 AM INDEX NO. 804089/2023E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2024 Case 1:23-cv-08948-LJ L Document 28 Filed OllL7l24 Page 17 of 29 authority. and pcrhaps thc responsibility, to retain.iurisdict ion ovcr cascs that did nol salisry (hc completc diversitl'requirenlent on grounds ol"fiaudulcnt misioinder" b1'analogizing to the doctrine of lraudulent joinder. 77 F.3d at 1360. Ilut thc equivalcnce is lalse, lor morc r!'asons than onc. 'l'he doctrine of liaudu lcnt .joindcr permits the Court to "overlook the prcscnce ol'a non- diverse delcndant if tiom the pleadings thcre is no possibility that thc clainrs against that dcl'endant could be asscrtcd in statc court." Bounds v. I'ina llalt lfuntul I[ealth ('rrrc Rr'.r.. 593 Ir.id 209. 2 l5 (2d Cir. 20 l0) (qLroting llriurpurch Lrd., l..l' r'. I'lncni I'icturt:. Inc.. 373 F .3d 296,302 (2d Cir.2004)). The doctrinc 'prevent[s] plaintilTs liom joining non-diversc parties in an cl'tb( to delcat fcdcral .iurisdiction." Briuryntch. i73 F.3d at 102. It dcrives liom ccntury-old case larv liom thc Suprcnrc Court holding that a dcttndant's "righl ofrcnroval cannot bc dclcated by a liaudulent.joinder ol'a resident dclcndant ltaving no real conncction with the controvcls)' . . . [*hose.joinder isl onll a fraudulcnt dcr ice 1o prcvcnt a rcmoval." ('hc.sultaukc tk O. R. ('o. t'. ('ockrcll.232 LJ.S. 1.16. 152 (l9l.l). As the doctrine is cLrrrentll'undcrstood. it applies only "Iill'there is no possibility a plaintill'can state a cause ot'action against a non- diverse dclcndanl." ^Sirlo r'. Brtlntu.vtar l;iraornt.s lt l, l.LC. 139 F. Supp. 3d 5(r0, 562-63 (l). Conn. 2015). In lhat circunrslanccs, "it is ob.icctivell'rcasonablc to inltr that thc plaintill'has cngaged in a lbrnr of litigation abusc." ll "Anl possibility ol'rccovcry. even il'slint. nrilitatcs against a linding ol' fraudu lent joinden only rvhcre lhcrc is no possibility ofre'covcry is such a linding uarrantcd;' Elrenreiclt v. Blot'k.994 Ir.Supp.2d28.1.289(l-l.l).N.Y.20l4)(quoting .\'t'nru:ca r'. Pranicr, 1nt.,232 F. Supp. 2d 172. 178 (S.l).N.Y. 2002)); scc also ('ustillo v. B,l':; lYholovlc CIuh,615 F. Supp. 3d tl5, 9.1-95 (lr.t).N.Y. 2022) ("'t he district coLrrt's rolc in assessing fraudu lent.joindcr is not to asscss thc.rlrorgllr ol'plaintills claims, hut rathcr to asscss t7 18 of 52 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2024 10:37 AM INDEX NO. 804089/2023E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2024 Case l,:23-cv-08948-LJ L Document 28 Filed 0LlL7l24 Page 18 of 29 \!hcther plaintifl'c'o,//(/ assert such a claim aS,ainst the non-diversc delcndants in statc coun." (enrphasis in original)). The consequcncc o I' liaudu lcnt.joindcr is disnrissal ol'thc causc ol'action against thc non-diverse defcndant. such that thc courl "rest[s].iurisdiction only upon lhe citizcnship ol'real partics to thc controversy."{ I'c,r,r r\'., lnc. t. I.ihutti,2003 WL 21542554. at +5 (t'l.l).N.Y. Jan. 2,1.2003) (qLroting Nuwtrnt Sut'. A;s n v. I-cc. -146 U.S.,+58,461 (1980)). Accordingly, the casc has thc sanre conrplexion it rvould havc had if it had renlaincd in statc court, whcrc the clainr against the non-diversc def'endant u'ould also havc been subject to disnrissal. 'l'he fraudulent but otheru isc disqualilf ing f actor is simpll d isrt'gardcd-hav ing bccn inscrled only lor thc purposc ol'dclcat ing lbdcral .jurisd iction and nol lirr the purpose ol' obtaining any relicl. it never uas enlitled to.iudicial rccognition in the lirst plircc. Thcrc is thcrclbre no need to break a liaudulent.ioined case apart and no nced to rcmand an]1hing to state court. So-called "liaudulcnt nrisjoindcr" raises entircly dilfercnt issues and prcscnts entircly dillcrcnt problems. S,:e ln ra l>ropatitt (Finu:;rr:rkfu) I'nxl. Liuh. Litit:..2013 Wl. 3729570. at *l (lr.l).N.Y. May 17. 2013). Whcn a court is laccd rvith a clainr of "lraudulent mis.joindcr." it is not asked u'hether thc clainrs that srruld dcleat tederaljurisdiction are lictive or are propcrly pled. The presumption of the doctrinc is that thc clainrs are propcrll'plcd; thcy seek relicfliom propcrly nanred dcf'cndants based on a propcrly allegcd clainr. Sac id.: In re l'rantpro ['rod. l That approach parallcls thc practicc ofdisnrissing cascs lhat appear to prcsent a lederal qucstion lbr lack ol'suhjcct nratter.iurisdiction "whe-re the allcgcd clainr undcr thc Constitution or li'dcral statutcs cle'arl1' Iis] immalr,'rial and rnade solcll' lirr the purposc ot'obtaining jurisdiction or w'hcrc such a clainr is rvhollf insubstantial and frivolous." llall v. Ihxtcl.327 Ll.S. 678. 682- 8l (1946). l,ike liaudulent.joinder, that doctrine requircs morc than nrcrely "lailing to state a claim lbr rclielon the merits." Gcl/r,go v. .\'orthlund Grp. lttc'.. 811 F.3d 123. 126 (2d C.ir. 201(r) (quoting S'lr4riro y. Mt,Vunu.s.577 LJ.S. 39, .15 (201 5)). Rathcr, the lcdcral claint nrust be "csscnlially lictitious" fbr a cotrrt to disregard it. /r/ (quoting .\'h upint. 577 U.S. at 45). I8 19 of 52 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2024 10:37 AM INDEX NO. 804089/2023E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2024 Case L:23-cv-08948-LJ L Document 28 Filed OL|L7l24 Page 19 of 29 Liuh. Litig..59l Ir.3d at (r20. Instcad. the argument is that the clainr that deleats lcderal jurisdiction should not have been.joined u,ith thc clainr that-wcrc it plcd alone-rvould have permitted fr"'dcraliurisdiction. ,\'cc.\'rrscrr. 2023 Wt, 5979210. at *8. 8ut nhethcr trvo clainrs are propcrly'joined is. in thc lirst instance and rvhcn thc case originales. a qucstion ol'state law. and not ltdcral larv. ^\rc Fad. lns. (;o. t'. Ttttt lnr'l Ltd..422 F. Supp.2d 357. 381 (S.D.N.Y.2006) ("[1 ]he question is onc ol'.joindcr in thc statc action belirre it s as renrovcd."); ln rc Fo.umut.r Protl. Liub. Litis.,2001\ wl- 29.105(r0, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 29. 2008). And it is a quesrion rhar oflsn is not easill- ansrvcrcd on thc plcadings and at thc tinre tlrc case is rcmoved. []oth partics hcrc agree that rvhen thc case originated Nerv York lau,governcd the propriety ol'joinder. I)kt. No. l4 at I ll Dkt. No. 25 al 10. Nerr York larr'permits "[p]crsons who assert an1'right to rclief .jointly, sevcralll'. or in the alternativc arising out of thc sanre transaction, occurrcnce, or scrics of' transactions or occurrences, Ito].ioin in onc action as plaintiliis il'any conrnron qucstion of larv or lact nould arisc." N.Y. ('.P.L.R. \ 1002(a): .tcc ul:;o icl. \ 1002(b) (providing a similar standard forjoindcr ol'dcl'cndants). That rulc I'urthcr clarilles that "[ilt shall not bc necessary that cach plaintill'be intcrcsted in obtaining. or cach dclendant bc intercsted in dcli'nding against, all thc relie l'dcnrandcd or as to cvery claim includcd in an action." /rl $ 1002(c). Thc Nuv York ('oLrrt olAppeals has hcld that thc "purpose" ofthc state's pernrissivc.ioinder rcgime is "to lesscn thc delal'and expcnsc of litigation b1'pcrmitting the clainrs ofdiffe'rcnt plaintill'.s to bc de'cided in one action instead ofnranl'. when. although legally separate and distinct. lhev ncvcrthelcss so involvc comnron cluestions. and spring out ol'identical or relatcd transactions. that thcir common triaf nral'be had rvith Iairness to thc diff'ercnt parties." ,'1*(h'r Kinni(utt. 14,1 N.E.682,6tl3-84 (N.Y. 192,1). Whether thc f cderal courts ruould strikc tlre sams balance thal New York strikcs bctuccn etlicicncv and I'airness is. or should bc. irrelcvant. Nor York itsclfhas thc right to l9 20 of 52 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2024 10:37 AM INDEX NO. 804089/2023E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2024 Case 1:23-cv-08948-LJ L Document 28 Filed 0llI7l24 Page 20 of 29 dctcrntine litr itscll'rvhether it rvill pcrnrit nlorc than onc plaintill'rvho assens thc same or sinrilar clainrs to join togcther to suc a conrnron delt'ndant in a singlc larvsuit. As lhis very case illustratcs. thc qucstion whcther two or morc claims are properly joincd for trial is not al\\avs rcadily'deternrinable liom thc pleadings or at lhc case's outset. On its Iacc, the Anrendcd Complaint brings clainrs (hat arisc out ol the samc series oftransactions or occurrences. suggcsting "a nrsdus opcrunrll o l'discrim inating against I'laintilt\." Gokdogort v. Slop Shor I'i::ct Et ars. Ltd..202l WI- 14.11.{17. at *ll (E.D.N.Y. Scpt.27,202l). Undcr statc larr. "multiplc transactiolls b1 multiplc plaintill.s 'do not losc thcir character as a scrics ol' transactions becausc lhey occurrcd at difl'ercnt placcs and tirncs exlending through rnany months."' llenry:;tcudGtn. llo.;p. t'. l.ibcrt.r.llut. In:;. ('o..521 N.Y.S.2d.169.,170 (2d Dcp't 1987) (quoting ltcA,. 141 N.tl. at (rll.l): scc olso -4ttnut:iuto r'. ('ilr, o/.Vcx York.647 N.Y.S.2d 850, 852 (2d Dcp't 1996). 'l'he Antcndcd Conrplaint dcscrihcs a colnr'non pattern ol' discrimination and harassnrcnt that "consistcd ol. anrong othcr things: daill'usc ol'the N-\'ord and other dcrogatory corrnrcnts . . . to dcscribc l)laintilli and thcir Black corvorkersl Iand] worse trcatment than Hispanic workcrs in arcas ranging from hiring and pronrotion opportunitics to hours n'orked and conrpensation." I)kt. No. 1-1 t1272. []ascd on Plaintill's' plcading, thcir clainrs also appear to raisc contnron qur'stions ot lau and lact. including *'hether S*'ectgreen- thc conrmon defbndant acruss all ol'thc Plaintill\'claims-\\'as arvarc ol'the allcged discrinrination against its []lack enrplol'ees. and rvhcther Swcctgreen took an1 actions cither condcmning or condoning that discrirn inat io n. Scc ('u:lillo t. /.rlaintiffs") against Delcntlarlts S\\eetgrccn and lz