Amrich v. Trinity Real Estate Investments, LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
WENI AMRICH,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TRINITY REAL ESTATE
INVESTMENTS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 26-cv-00409-DKW-WRP
ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
REMAND
Plaintiff Weni Amrich initiated this action in the First Circuit Court of the
State of Hawai‘i against Trinity Real Estate Investments, LLC (“Trinity”), Kevin
Hayashi, Jeffrey Barry, Sean Hehir (collectively “Named Defendants”), and Doe
Defendants 1–25 (with Named Defendants, collectively, “Defendants”), claiming
that Defendants engaged in unlawful discrimination and retaliation against her in the
workplace, ultimately resulting in her termination. 	Dkt. No. 1-2.1 Named
Defendants removed the action to this Court solely on diversity grounds, Dkt. No. 1,
arguing, inter alia, that Hayashi had been “improperly joined” in order to defeat
diversity jurisdiction. Amrich now moves to remand (“Motion”), Dkt. No. 7, on the
1 The Complaint was filed in state court on July 10, 2026 and amended on July 20, 2026. Both the
Complaint and First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) are attached to Named Defendants’ Notice of
Removal, Dkt. No. 1-2.
Case 1:26-cv-00409-DKW-WRP Document 15 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

- 2 -
ground that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction due to a lack of complete
diversity.
Having reviewed the Motion, the pleadings, the parties’ briefs, the relevant
legal authorities, and the record generally, the Court finds that remand is appropriate.
Specifically, contrary to Named Defendants’ arguments, the properly considered
record here does not establish that Hayashi was improperly joined. Thus, because
all parties agree that Hayashi’s citizenship clashes with Amrich’s for purposes of
diversity, subject matter jurisdiction does not exist. 	Accordingly, the Motion is
GRANTED, as explained below.
FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I. 	The FAC
The following facts are taken from the FAC. Dkt. No. 1-2 at 5–14.2
Amrich is a 47-year-old woman of Chinese descent. Id. at ¶¶ 10–11. She was
hired by Trinity as its Corporate Controller in August 2023. 	Id. at ¶ 17. 	Hayashi
was Trinity’s Chief Financial Officer and Amrich’s supervisor. Id. at ¶ 18. Amrich
claims that Hayashi discriminated against women and those of Chinese descent,
including her. Id. at ¶¶ 19–22. She further alleges that Hayashi “constantly” yelled
at and belittled her to the point she was reduced to tears. Id. at ¶¶ 23–30.
2 Because the submitted documents from the state court record are not consecutively paginated, the
Court cites to the page numbers created by CM/ECF in the top right-hand corner of the filing, i.e.,
“Page 5 of 28.”
Case 1:26-cv-00409-DKW-WRP Document 15 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

- 3 -
On September 29, 2025, Amrich submitted a written complaint about
Hayashi’s alleged conduct to Hehir, who served as Trinity’s Managing Partner,
President, and Chief Executive Officer. 	Id. at ¶ 31. 	She also copied Barry, who
served as Trinity’s General Counsel and Chief Administrative Officer. 	Id. at ¶ 32.
Amrich alleges that Trinity failed to investigate her complaint or enact corrective
measures, and that it showed her complaint to Hayashi. 	Id. at ¶¶ 33–35. 	Amrich
was fired the following day. 	Id. at ¶¶ 36–37. Trinity sent Amrich an email stating
that the decision to fire her had been reached five days earlier—four days before she
submitted her complaint. 	Id. at ¶ 38. Amrich claims that Trinity sent the email to
obscure its illegal conduct, and that she had not previously received any disciplinary
actions or indications that her employment was in jeopardy. Id. at ¶¶ 38–41.
Amrich asserts that Hawai‘i law applies and asks for “all equitable and legal
remedies and damages” available under the relevant state statutes, including punitive
damages. See id. at ¶¶ 42–69.
II. 	Procedural History
On July 10, 2026, Amrich initiated this action in Hawai‘i state court, asserting
claims of (1) workplace discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and age under
Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (“H.R.S.”) Section 378-2(a)(1) (against Trinity); (2)
workplace retaliation under H.R.S. Section 378-2(a)(2) (against Trinity); (3) aiding
and abetting and “common law liability for intentional participation in illegal
Case 1:26-cv-00409-DKW-WRP Document 15 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

- 4 -
conduct” under H.R.S. Chapters 368 and 378 (against Hayashi, Barry, and Hehir);
and (4) whistleblower protection under H.R.S. Section 378-61 (against Trinity). Id.
at 18–27, ¶¶ 42–69.
The FAC states that Amrich, Hayashi, Barry, and Hehir were residents of
Hawai‘i, and that Trinity was “organized under the laws of the State of Delaware”
but that it did “business within the State of Hawai‘i.” Id. at 5–14, ¶¶ 1–4. The FAC
further states that Doe Defendants 1–25 are “individuals, corporations, partnerships,
limited partnerships, joint ventures, and/or other entities named hereunder fictitious
names,” but provides no concrete allegations concerning these defendants, their
citizenship, or their conduct. Id. at ¶ 5.
On August 3, 2026, Named Defendants removed the action to this Court on
the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 1. They agree that Amrich and Hayashi
are citizens of the State of Hawai‘i, but contend that Barry is a citizen of California,
Hehir is a citizen of Florida, and none of the owners or members of Trinity are
citizens of Hawai‘i. Id. ¶¶ 4–8. Named Defendants argue that, although Hayashi is
a citizen of Hawai‘i, his citizenship should be disregarded for the purposes of
diversity because he has been improperly joined. Id. ¶ 8.
On August 5, 2026, Amrich moved to remand. Dkt. No. 7. Amrich concedes
that she and Hayashi are the only two named Hawai‘i citizens in this action, but
contends that Hayashi was properly joined and, therefore, complete diversity does
Case 1:26-cv-00409-DKW-WRP Document 15 Filed 10/13/26 Page 4 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

- 5 -
not exist, as required. 	Id. 	Named Defendants oppose the Motion, arguing that
Amrich cannot sustain her claim against Hayashi (“Opposition”), Dkt. No. 12, a
position to which Amrich has replied, Dkt. No. 13. After taking this Motion under
submission without oral argument, Dkt. No. 14, this Order now follows.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1441(a) and 1446(b), any civil action brought
in a state court may be removed to federal court by a defendant provided that the
federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the action and the removal is
timely. 	Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1332(a)(1), this Court has original
jurisdiction of all civil actions involving, respectively: (i) federal law, and (ii) an
amount in controversy in excess of $75,000 and complete diversity of citizenship.
Complete diversity means that “the citizenship of each plaintiff is different from that
of each defendant.” 	Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir.
2009).
One exception to the complete diversity requirement is fraudulent joinder. Id.;
Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001). 	Joinder is
deemed fraudulent where “the plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against a
resident defendant, and the failure is obvious according to the settled rules of the
state.” 	Weeping Hollow Ave. Tr. v. Spencer, 831 F.3d 1110, 1113 (9th Cir. 2016)
(quoting Morris, 236 F.3d at 1067).
Case 1:26-cv-00409-DKW-WRP Document 15 Filed 10/13/26 Page 5 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

- 6 -
Although courts typically consider only the facts in a plaintiff’s pleading to
determine 	removability, 	where 	fraudulent 	joinder 	is 	an 	issue, 	the 	removing
defendants are entitled to present “discrete and undisputed facts that would preclude
plaintiff’s recovery against the in-state defendant.” 	Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1044
(quoting Smallwood v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 385 F.3d 568, 573–74 (5th Cir. 2004)).
The court’s role is to consider “whether the plaintiff truly had a cause of action
against the alleged sham defendants,” not whether the “defendants could propound
defenses to an otherwise valid cause of action.” 	Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co., 139
F.3d 1313, 1318 (9th Cir. 1998).
In addition, there is a “general presumption against fraudulent joinder,” which
must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Hamilton Materials, Inc. v. Dow
Chem. Corp., 494 F.3d 1203, 1206 (9th Cir. 2007). 	The removing defendants
therefore bear the heavy burden of facing “both the strong presumption against
removal jurisdiction and the general presumption against fraudulent joinder.”
Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1046 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “[A]ny
doubt about the right of removal requires resolution in favor of remand.” 	Moore-
Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009).
DISCUSSION
Named Defendants removed this action based on diversity jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3) and 1441(a). 	Dkt. No. 1 at 2. 	Amrich argues
Case 1:26-cv-00409-DKW-WRP Document 15 Filed 10/13/26 Page 6 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

- 7 -
that this case should be remanded for lack of complete diversity because Hayashi
and Amrich are both citizens of Hawai‘i. 	Dkt. No. 7 at 10. 	Named Defendants
counter that Hayashi was fraudulently joined and therefore cannot be used to defeat
diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 12. For the reasons set forth below, the Court agrees
with Amrich that this action should be remanded due to a lack of complete diversity.
Amrich claims that Hayashi violated H.R.S. Section 378-2 for aiding and
abetting discrimination. Dkt. No. 1-2 at 5–14, ¶¶ 54–58. Named Defendants first
argue that Hayashi could not have aided and abetted himself in discriminating
against Amrich. Dkt. No. 12 at 10–15. Although Named Defendants are right that
Amrich could not sustain a theory that relied upon Hayashi aiding himself, Amrich
does not rely on any such theory. Instead, she alleges that Hayashi aided and abetted
the other Named Defendants in retaliating against Amrich after Trinity showed
Hayashi her complaint. 	See Dkt. No. 1-2 at 5–14, ¶¶ 31–37, 54–58. 	Named
Defendants’ argument therefore fails to show that Hayashi was fraudulently joined.
Named Defendants next argue that Amrich cannot state a claim against
Hayashi by simply claiming that showing Hayashi the complaint amounted to aiding
and abetting. Dkt. No. 12 at 15–16. But, again, the best reading of the Complaint is
that Hayashi aided and abetted in the retaliatory firing after he saw Amrich’s
complaint, not that he simply saw the complaint and did nothing more. 	Amrich’s
theory presents a valid cause of action under the statute. See, e.g., Jarvis v. Corteva
Case 1:26-cv-00409-DKW-WRP Document 15 Filed 10/13/26 Page 7 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

- 8 -
Agriscience, LLC, 2025 WL 1312119, at *1, 4–12 (D. Haw. May 6, 2025) (denying
summary judgment under H.R.S. § 378-2 where employee contended he was fired
in retaliation for opposing discrimination). 	To the extent the state court finds
Amrich’s theory to be unclear, this is the very sort of deficiency that can be cured
by granting leave to amend. See Grancare, LLC v. Thrower, 889 F.3d 543, 550 (9th
Cir. 2018) (explaining that when assessing fraudulent joinder, “the district court
must consider . . . whether a deficiency in the complaint can possibly be cured by
granting the plaintiff leave to amend”).3
Finally, Named Defendants argue that “[t]he record forecloses the possibility”
that Amrich could make out a claim that her firing was retaliatory, and therefore
there was no retaliation for Hayashi to aid or abet. 	Dkt. No. 12 at 16–20. 	This
argument 	relies 	almost 	exclusively 	on 	extensive 	factual 	additions 	Named
Defendants supplied in their Opposition and corresponding declarations. See id. In
those additions, for instance, which appear nowhere in the pleadings, Named
Defendants assert that the decision to terminate Amrich was made before Amrich
submitted her complaint and was confirmed without Hayashi’s input. 	Id. 	As
previously discussed, although a defendant is entitled to present facts outside the
3 It is reasonable to expect Amrich would be allowed to amend her Complaint given Hawai‘i’s
liberal rules on amended pleadings. See Kamaka v. Goodsill, 176 P.3d 91, 111 (Haw. 2008) (citing
Haw. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)’s directive that leave to amend should be “freely given when justice so
requires”).
Case 1:26-cv-00409-DKW-WRP Document 15 Filed 10/13/26 Page 8 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

- 9 -
pleadings to establish fraudulent joinder, those factual additions should be “discrete
and undisputed,” lest they move the inquiry past jurisdiction to the merits. Hunter,
582 F.3d at 1044 (internal citations omitted); see Unterberg v. Exxon Mobil Corp.,
2014 WL 3420779, at *6 (D. Haw. July 10, 2014). The pages of new facts Named
Defendants provide exemplify this concern. See Dkt. No. 12 at 5–8. This is a motion
to remand, not a motion for summary judgment or even a motion to dismiss.
Although Named Defendants will later have the opportunity to make a full factual
showing and present their defenses, that is not the task at hand. 	See Ritchey, 139
F.3d at 1318 (explaining that fraudulent joinder “d[oes] not key on an inquiry as to
whether [] defendants [can] propound defenses to an otherwise valid cause of
action”) (emphasis added). Rather, their burden at this stage is to show that Amrich
“fails to state a cause of action,” which failure is “obvious.” Weeping Hollow, 831
F.3d at 1113 (quoting Morris, 236 F.3d at 1067). On the properly considered record
here, Named Defendants have failed to make this showing.
Consequently, because the heavy burden of establishing fraudulent joinder
falls on Named Defendants, and because Named Defendants have not satisfied that
burden, the Court does not find that Amrich fraudulently named Hayashi in this
action, much less did so for purposes of defeating diversity. Accordingly, Amrich’s
Motion is GRANTED.
Case 1:26-cv-00409-DKW-WRP Document 15 Filed 10/13/26 Page 9 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

- 10 -
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, Amrich’s Motion to Remand, Dkt. No. 7, is
GRANTED. This case is hereby REMANDED to the First Circuit Court of the
State of Hawai‘i, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c).
The Clerk is instructed to mail a certified copy of this Order to the clerk of the
First Circuit Court and then CLOSE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 13, 2026 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.
Weni Amrich vs. Trinity Real Estate Investments, LLC, et al; Civ 26-00409 DKW-
WRP; ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
___________________________
Derrick K. Watson
Chief United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00409-DKW-WRP Document 15 Filed 10/13/26 Page 10 of 10
PageID.<pageID>