Davis’s wages in violation of California Labor Code § 216. Defendant Prentiss Properties removed the action to this Court on diversity grounds, asserting that Coval was a sham defendant whose joinder was fraudulent and should be disregarded. Davis has now moved to remand. The Court will first discuss the appropriate standard for consideration of a claim of fraudulent joinder. The Court will then apply this standard to Davis’s claim against Coval. II. Discussion A. Legal Standard for Motion to Remand A removing party always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper, see Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992), and courts resolve doubts as to removability in favor of remand, see id.; see also, Dodson v. Spiliada Maritime Corp., 951 F.2d 40, 42-43 (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). A defendant may remove a case with a
holding that a party will be deemed fraudulently joined if after all disputed questions of fact and all ambiguities in the controlling state law are resolved in the plaintiffs favor the plaintiff could not possibly recover against the party whose joinder is questioned holding that disputed questions of fact and all ambiguities in state law must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party holding that the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and all doubts are resolved against the moving party holding that courts must when reviewing motions for summary judgment evaluate disputed facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all justifiable inferences in its favor holding that an appellate court viewing the evidence and all inferences of fact in light most favorable to nonmoving party can affirm a directed verdict only where no proper view of the evidence could sustain a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party