{"id":425,"date":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=425"},"modified":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","slug":"pirro-us-bank-cd-cal-remands-feha-whistleblower-fraudulent-joinder-bogaski","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=425","title":{"rendered":"Pirro v. U.S. Bank \u2014 C.D. Cal. Remands FEHA Whistleblower Suit, Holding Self-Serving Denial Cannot Defeat Aiding-and-Abetting Claim Against In-State Defendant"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Pirro v. U.S. Bank National Association<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Central District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-08<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
2:25-cv-10167<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Removal jurisdiction; fraudulent joinder; FEHA aiding and abetting; supervisor liability; whistleblower retaliation<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Anthony C. Pirro sued U.S. Bank National Association, supervisors Peter Schram and Mark Stockton, and individual defendant Joseph Bogaski in California state court alleging employment discrimination, retaliation, and harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), arising out of his whistleblowing activity. Defendants removed on diversity grounds. The complaint alleged that “Schram continued to subject Pirro to harassment via Bogaski because of Pirro’s whistleblowing” and that “all defendants compelled, coerced, aided, and\/or abetted the discrimination, retaliation, and harassment.” Pirro moved to remand, arguing that Bogaski (a California citizen) defeated diversity. Defendants countered that Bogaski was fraudulently joined.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Judge Dale S. Fischer granted the remand motion. Under Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc., a FEHA aiding-and-abetting claim against an individual requires showing the defendant (1) knew of FEHA-violative conduct and (2) gave “substantial assistance or encouragement” to that conduct. Defendants’ opposition rested largely on a self-serving declaration from Bogaski denying the alleged conduct. But under Grancare LLC v. Thrower, “a denial, even a sworn denial, of allegations does not prove their falsity.” A self-serving denial does not constitute “extraordinarily strong evidence” that Pirro could not possibly prevail.<\/p>\n

The court acknowledged the current complaint may be insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6) to state a claim against Bogaski, but the fraudulent-joinder standard is more demanding: defendants must show that any deficiency cannot be cured by amendment. Because Pirro could plausibly amend to plead aiding-and-abetting facts, joinder was proper. With Bogaski properly joined as a non-diverse defendant, complete diversity was lacking. The court did not need to address amount in controversy.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n