Chaara v. Intel Corp.
| Decision Date | 31 December 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ. 05-278JBRLP.,Civ. 05-278JBRLP. |
| Citation | 410 F.Supp.2d 1080 |
| Parties | Mabrouk CHAARA, Plaintiff, v. INTEL CORPORATION, David Baglee, Brian Rashap, and Tammy Wash, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
Laura J. Ramos, David G. Crum & Associates, P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, for the Plaintiff.
Barbara G. Stephenson, Quentin Smith, Gilkey & Stephenson, P.A., Albuquerque, New Mexico, for the Defendants.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Notice of Removal and Motion for Remand, filed April 11, 2005 (Doc 4). The Court held an evidentiary hearing on this motion on June 2, 2005. The primary issues are: (i) whether 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) bars the Court from reviewing a prior order, issued by the Honorable Bruce Black, United States District Judge, remanding Chaara's claims from his first lawsuit back to state court; and (ii) whether Plaintiff Mabrouk Chaara is domiciled in Colorado so that the parties are diverse in citizenship. Because the Court concludes that § 1447(d) precludes the Court from reconsidering Judge Black's order, the Court will remand the claims from his first lawsuit to state court. The Court will otherwise deny the motion to remand because it concludes that the Defendants have met their burden of proving that Chaara was a Colorado resident when he filed his second lawsuit.
Chaara began working for Defendant Intel Corporation in May 1996. See Affidavit of Mabrouk Chaara ¶ 1, at 1 (executed July 1, 2004)(hereinafter "Chaara Aff."). From May 1996 until February 17, 2004, Chaara worked at an Intel plant located in Rio Rancho, New Mexico. See id. ¶ 2, at 1. Shortly after he began working at the Rio Rancho facility, he bought a house at at 7405 Riverton Drive NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico. See id. ¶ 13, at 3; Transcript of Hearing at 5:8-12 (taken June 2, 2005).1
On February 17, 2004, Chaara moved to Colorado Springs, Colorado, to work at another Intel location. See Transcript of Hearing at 7:3-13. Before his move, in January 2004, Intel initiated its relocation procedures in anticipation of Chaara's forthcoming move to Colorado Springs. See Declaration of Evan C. Wiggins ¶ 3, at 2 (hereinafter "Wiggins Decl."). On February 3, 2004, Chaara selected "Option 2" as his reimbursement package for moving expenses based on the number of family members moving with him. See id. On February 29, 2004, Chaara signed a Relocation Agreement, indicating that at least three family members would be joining him in Colorado. See id. ¶ 4, at 2.
Chaara alleges that, because of the severity of the discrimination and the hostile work environment he suffered at the Rio Rancho plant, he accepted the Colorado Springs position. See Affidavit of Mabrouk Chaara ¶ 8, at 2 (executed July 1, 2004)(hereinafter "Chaara Aff."). Chaara contends that, but for the Defendants' acts of discrimination and retaliation, he would not have moved to Colorado. See id.
Initially, Chaara moved to Colorado by himself. See Transcript of Hearing at 7:7-13. Intel needed him there immediately, but he could not move his children right away because they were in school. See id. Chaara explained that he left New Mexico to escape discriminatory treatment by Intel employees at the Rio Rancho plant. See id. at 7:17-25. His new position is a regular, full-time position for an indefinite period, although Chaara stated that he was only required by contract with Intel to remain in Colorado for one year. See Affidavit of Patrick J. Duffy ¶ 3, at 1 (executed March 10, 2005)("Duffy Aff."); Chaara Aff. ¶ 12, at 2.
On July 12, 2004, Chaara signed a Uniform Residential Loan Application to buy a new house at 1933 West Montebello Drive, Colorado Springs, CO 80318. See Uniform Residential Loan Application (executed July 12, 2004). Chaara checked the box on the Application that indicated the house would be his primary residence. See id. at 1. Chaara stated on his Application that he has sold his Albuquerque house. See id. at 3. Chaara also stated on his application that he was not a party to a lawsuit, even though he had filed suit against the Defendants on April 16, 2004. See id.
On July 28, 2004, Chaara filled up a moving van with his possessions in anticipation of relocating to Colorado Springs, a day before he testified in front of Judge Black. See Transcript of Hearing at 44:4-7. On July 30, 2004, the day after the hearing, Chaara's partner, Patricia Michaud, and his two youngest children moved to Colorado to live with him. See id. at 10:15-21, 13:9-11. He also completed the purchase of the Colorado Springs house, for use as his primary residence, as of that date. See id. at 10:15-21, 13:9-11, 17:13-17. Chaara moved most, but not all, of his possessions to Colorado, leaving some in New Mexico. See id. at 17:18-21. His children attended school in Colorado in the 2004-05 school year. See id. at 13:6-8. Michaud, the mother of Chaara's children, still lives with him in Colorado. See id. at 13:9-13. His oldest child lives in his house in Albuquerque while she attends the University of New Mexico. See id. at 10:2-4.
On August 10, 2004, Chaara testified before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission that he was planning to leave New Mexico because of the alleged discriminatory conditions he was suffering at the Rio Rancho plant. See id. at 29:12-17. Specifically, Chaara stated: Transcript of Proceedings Before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission at 122:8-13 (taken August 10, 2004).
On February 8, 2005, Chaara sent an email to Jeffrey Murray at Intel, asking for an extension of six months to sell his house. See Email String at 1 (). Chaara told Murray in the email that an extension "will give me the summer to be able to sell it [the Albuquerque house]." Id.
Chaara's primary care physician is in Colorado. See id. at 13:15-20. Chaara has paid property taxes on his house in Colorado Springs since closing on the house. See id. at 13:23-14:7. He has telephone and cable service at his Colorado Springs house. See id. at 14:18-15:3.
Intel is incorporated under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of business in California. See Duffy Aff. ¶ 2, at 1. Defendants David Baglee, Brian Rashap, and Tammy Wash are citizens of New Mexico. See Chaara II Complaint ¶¶ 3-5, at 1-2.
This matter is a tale of two lawsuits. On April 21, 2003, Chaara filed a Charge of Discrimination against the Defendants with the New Mexico Human Rights Division ("NMHRD"), alleging discrimination based on national origin, religion, and gender, and retaliation. See Chaara Aff. ¶ 6, at 1. While finding probable cause on his national origin discrimination and retaliation claims, the NMHRD issued an Order of Non-Determination on Chaara's religion and gender claims. See id. ¶ 7, at 2. On April 16, 2004, Chaara filed a Complaint in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court for New Mexico in Chaara v. Intel Corporation, No. D-1329-CV-04-00376 (D.N.M.)("Chaara I"). The Chaara I Complaint sought relief on Chaara's gender claim, at the same time as he pursued his national origin discrimination and retaliation claims with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. See Chaara I Complaint ¶¶ 33-37, at 4-5. Chaara I also set forth claims for breach of an employment contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and defamation. See id. ¶¶ 38-49, at 25-27. In response, the Defendants removed Chaara I to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico on the basis of diversity of citizenship between the parties. See Chaara I Notice of Removal at 1-4, filed June 2, 2004 (Doc. 1 in Case No. 04cv0615).2 The Defendants asserted that Chaara is a citizen of Colorado, yet Intel is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California, and the other Defendants are citizens of New Mexico. See id. at 2.
Judge Black, who presided over Chaara I during its brief life in federal court, scheduled, sua sponte, an evidentiary hearing to determine the existence of complete diversity. See Order at 1, filed June 17, 2004 (Doc. 3 in Case No. 04cv0615). Following the hearing, held on June 23 and July 29, 2004, Judge Black remanded Chaara I back to New Mexico State District Court, based on his finding that Chaara was domiciled in New Mexico when he filed the Chaara I Complaint. See Order of Remand at 1, filed August 20, 2004 (Doc. 15 in Case No. 04cv0615).
Subsequently, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission determined that Chaara had failed to establish his national origin discrimination and retaliation claims, leading him to file a second complaint in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court for New Mexico, thereby initiating Chaara v. Intel Corporation, No. D-1329-CV-05-00154 (D.N.M.)("Chaara II"), on February 10, 2005. See Chaara II Complaint ¶ 22, at 4. In addition to alleging national origin discrimination and retaliation, Chaara I also set forth claims for breach of an employment contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and defamation. See id. ¶¶ 25-53, at 5-10. The Defendants in Chaara II are the same as those listed in Chaara I. Compare Chaara I Complaint (Caption) at 1, with Chaara II Complaint (Caption) at 1.
The parties in both cases stipulated to a consolidation of both actions in state court. See Stipulated Order of Consolidation at 1, filed March 10, 2005. The New Mexico State District Court found that the two cases "involve common questions of both law and fact" and consolidated the actions, pursuant to rule 1-042(A) of the New Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure, "for any and all purposes." Id. The Stipulated Order of Consolidation explained that both cases would be captioned "Mabrouk Chaara, Plaintif...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stark–romero v. the Nat'l R.R. Passenger Co. (amtrak)
...findings, judgments, and all other matters except the one of joint trial.’ ” (citations omitted)). See also Chaara v. Intel Corp., 410 F.Supp.2d 1080 (D.N.M.2005) (Browning, J.)(recognizing that federal courts have stated that “[c]onsolidation is permitted as a matter of convenience and eco......
-
Fressadi v. Glover
...Ct. at 1118 (engaging in an in-depth historical review of the meaning of consolidation in the federal context); Chaara v. Intel Corp., 410 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1094 (D. N.M. 2005) (noting that because consolidation is done for the administrative convenience of the parties and the courts, an or......
-
Great American Ins. Co. v. Crabtree
...parties in one suit parties in another." Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 289 U.S. 479, 496-97 (1933). Accord Chaara v. Intel Corp., 410 F.Supp.2d 1080, 1090 (D.N.M. 2005)(Browning, J.). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that a district court abused its discreti......
-
Cheney v. Judd, CIV 18-0196 JB/CG
...parties, it fails to erase the fact that, underneath consolidation's façade, lie two individual cases. Chaara v. Intel Corp., 410 F.Supp.2d 1080, 1089, 1094 (D.N.M. 2005) (Browning, J.)(quoting McKenzie v. United States, 678 F.2d 571, 574 (5th Cir. 1982) ). The Court has broad discretion in......