Murray v. Amazon.com Servs.

1

DARYL MURRAY, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC and LUCIAN J. INTROCASO, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:22-CV-07340-KMW-MJS

United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Camden Vicinage

August 31, 2023

Daryl Murray, Plaintiff, Pro se

Richard G. Rosenblatt, Esq. Carlyle W. Edwards-Balfour, Esq. Jason J. Ranjo, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP Counsel for Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC

Anthony M. Imbesi, Esq. TESTA HECK TESTA & WHITE, P.A.

John A. Talvacchia, Esq. COOPER LEVENSON Counsel for Defendant Lucian J. Introcaso

OPINION

KAREN M. WILLIAMS, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Daryl Murray (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brings this action against his former employer, Amazon.com Services LLC (“Amazon”), and physician Lucian Introcaso (“Dr. Introcaso”) (together, “Defendants”), asserting various claims stemming from an alleged workplace injury. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that after he was injured on the job in December 2019, Amazon unlawfully refused to accommodate his physical limitations; discriminated against him on the basis of a disability; and retaliated against him for subsequently requesting workers' compensation benefits. As for Dr. Introcaso-a third-party workers' compensation physician-Plaintiff alleges that he intentionally drafted a false and erroneous medical report as part of a scheme with Amazon to obstruct his workers' compensation claim.

Following Amazon's removal of this action from New Jersey state court, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which Amazon has opposed. Also pending are Defendants' respective Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 38, 39) and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 47). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is granted, and all remaining Motions are denied as moot.^[1]

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this action on October 24, 2022, by filing a Complaint against Amazon in the Superior Court of New Jersey (Law Division, Burlington County). (ECF No. 1-1). Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended Complaint on November 30, 2022, which added Dr. Introcaso as a defendant. (ECF No. 1-3). All of Plaintiff's claims arise only under New Jersey law.

Thereafter, on December 16, 2022, Amazon unilaterally removed Plaintiff's Amended Complaint to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, invoking diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff is a citizen of New Jersey, and Amazon is a citizen of both Washington and Delaware. However, like Plaintiff, Dr. Introcaso is also a citizen of New Jersey. In its Notice of Removal, Amazon conceded Dr. Introcaso's citizenship and the lack of complete diversity among the parties, but stated that Dr. Introcaso's citizenship “is immaterial to the diversity analysis because he was joined fraudulently.” (Id. at 5). Amazon also stated that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 in light of the specific claims Plaintiff asserts. (Id.)

Following Amazon's removal of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand, in which he argues that Dr. Introcaso has not been fraudulently joined and that the lack of complete diversity, in the absence of any federal question, precludes the Court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove any civil action to federal court if the federal court would have original jurisdiction to hear that matter in the first instance. See Farparan v. Autozoners, LLC, No. 19-21464, 2020 WL 4596927, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 11, 2020). Federal courts are “courts of limited jurisdiction,” and as such may only hear cases where there exists either (1) federal question jurisdiction, or (2) diversity of citizenship. See Zambelli FireworksMfg. Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 418 (3d Cir. 2010); see also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1332. For a case to be removable on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, “the matter in controversy [must] exceed[ ] the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and, and [be] between . . . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). However, under the “complete diversity” rule, diversity jurisdiction cannot vest where any plaintiff and any defendant are citizens of the same state. See Zambelli, 592 F.3d at 419.^[2]

“The doctrine of fraudulent joinder represents an exception to the requirement that removal be predicated solely upon complete diversity.” In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 215-16 (3d Cir. 2006). Importantly, the doctrine permits district courts to “disregard, for jurisdictional purposes, the citizenship of certain nondiverse defendants, assume jurisdiction over a case, dismiss the nondiverse defendants, and thereby retain jurisdiction.” Id. at 216 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The removing party bears a “heavy burden of persuasion” of showing fraud, which carries with it a “very high bar”:

Joinder is fraudulent where there is no reasonable basis in fact or colorable ground supporting the claim against the joined defendant, or no real intention in good faith to prosecute the action against the defendants or seek a joint judgment. But, if there is even a possibility that a state court would find that the complaint states a cause of action against any one of the resident defendants, the federal court must find that joinder was proper and remand the case to state court.

Avenatti v. Fox News Network LLC, 41 F.4th 125, 133 (3d Cir. 2022) (quoting Batoff v. State Farm Ins. Co., 977 F.2d 848, 851-52 (3d Cir. 1992)). Absent such a finding, the action must be remanded to the state court where it originated. See 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) (stating that a case removed from state court shall be remanded “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction”).

IV. DISCUSSION

When evaluating fraudulent joinder, the Court must “focus on the plaintiff's complaint at the time the petition for removal was filed” and assume as true all factual allegations” stated therein. Batoff, 977 F.2d at 851-52 (internal quotation marks omitted). In doing so, the Court must also “resolve all contested issues of substantive fact in favor of the plaintiff and must resolve any uncertainties as to the current state of controlling substantive law in favor of the plaintiff.” Boyer v. Snap-on Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir. 1990).

A. Factual Allegations

According to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff was formerly employed by Amazon as a fulfillment center associate. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 14, 27-28.^[3]In December 2019, Plaintiff alleges that a package fell on his foot while he was performing assigned work duties, which injured him and caused him severe pain. See id. ¶ 24. Despite this injury, Plaintiff alleges that Amazon refused to provide any accommodation for his physical injuries, which eventually led to Plaintiff reinjuring his foot shortly thereafter and sustaining new injuries. See id. ¶¶ 31-35. Eventually, Amazon permitted Plaintiff to be examined at its authorized workers' compensation medical provider, WorkNet Occupational Medicine (“WorkNet”). See id. ¶ 37.

On January 8, 2020, Plaintiff was examined by WorkNet physician Mark Nepp (“Dr. Nepp”), who diagnosed Plaintiff with a left-knee sprain.^[4] According to an Amazon Healthcare Provider Request for Information Form (“RFI”) attached to the Amended Complaint, Dr. Nepp indicated that although Plaintiff was able to return to work, he could only do so with certain restrictions (e.g., standing, climbing stairs). (ECF No. 1-3 at 40-41). Importantly, the RFI also reflects Dr. Nepp's conclusion that Plaintiff's injury was ‘[w]ork-related”-a finding that would presumably bear on Plaintiff's ability to obtain workers' compensation benefits. (Id. at 40).

On January 13, 2023, Plaintiff returned to WorkNet for a scheduled follow-up appointment to receive an X-ray. See Am. Compl. ¶ 42. This time, however, Plaintiff was not seen by Dr. Nepp, but rather by Dr. Introcaso. See id. While waiting in an examination room, Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Introcaso was on the telephone with Amazon's workers' compensation claims administrator, Sedgwick CMS-Philadelphia (“Sedgwick”), to obtain authorization to perform the X-ray. See Id. Approximately 45 minutes later, Dr. Introcaso allegedly entered the examination room and informed Plaintiff that the X-ray was not authorized because it was “determined that [his] injuries were not work-related.” Id. But this determination, Plaintiff points out, was reached before Dr. Introcaso had an opportunity to conduct his own examination, and in any case contradicted Dr. Nepp's opinion rendered just days prior. See id.

Dr Introcaso also concluded later in his charting notes that he could not, “by a preponderance of [the] evidence” obtained during his examination, “attribute [Plaintiff's] current problem to a condition which arose from his current job.” (ECF No. 1-3 at 56).^[5]Plaintiff maintains that this conclusion was not only false, but that Dr. Introcaso had in fact never physically examined him during his visit. See Am. Compl. ¶ 42. In support of this assertion, Plaintiff purports to highlight numerous other inaccuracies and inconsistencies contained in Dr. Introcaso's charting notes. For example, the charting notes identify Plaintiff's “chief complaint” as “pain in [his] entire body” after “[w]orking [at Amazon] the past 5 weeks.” (ECF No. 1-3 at 55). However, according to a WorkNet intake form attached to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff only made three, discreet complaints, namely (1) an injury to his left knee/leg; (2) a bruise on his left, inner thigh; and (3) discomfort in his “right...