Julio Ortiz v. Winco Holdings, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
BACKGROUND
Defendants removed this case from San Bernardino County Superior Court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff brings nine causes of action against Defendants, six of which are alleged against Mr. DalPorto: 1) Failure To Accommodate, (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(m)), 2) Failure To Engage In A Good Faith Interactive Process, (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(n)): 3) Disability Discrimination (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a)): 4) Hostile Work Environment (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(j)); 5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Page 1 of CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk SMO
Distress; and 6) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. (Perelshteyn Decl. Ex. A (“Compl.”), ECF No. 3.) Although Defendants concede that Plaintiff and Mr. DalPorto are both citizens of California, Defendants argue that “DalPorto must be disregarded for purposes of diversity because he is a ‘sham’ defendant; that is, he cannot be found liable as a matter of law for the causes of action asserted against him.” (NOR ¶ 18.)