Automated Summary
Key Facts
Plaintiff Joana Arroyo filed a negligence and premises liability complaint in Riverside County Superior Court on June 2, 2025, against Sam's West, Inc., Walmart Inc., and Doe defendants 1 through 100, alleging she slipped and fell at Riverside Sam's Club on June 8, 2023. Defendants removed the case to federal court on July 28, 2025, asserting diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand on August 25, 2025, arguing diversity is lacking because Doe 1 was the general manager of Riverside Sam's Club and is a California citizen. The Court denied the Motion to Remand, holding that Doe defendants' citizenship shall be disregarded for diversity purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1), and any argument that Doe 1 is a California citizen is premature until the plaintiff seeks leave to substitute a named defendant.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff's inclusion of Doe defendants destroys complete diversity for federal removal purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 1441
- Whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Holdings
The court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Remand in Joana Arroyo v. Sam's West, Inc. et al., finding that complete diversity exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and that the citizenship of Doe defendants shall be disregarded per 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1). The court determined the matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument under Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b).
Legal Principles
Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. For diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, there must be complete diversity among parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The citizenship of fictitious or anonymous (Doe) defendants shall be disregarded when determining removability under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1). A defendant seeking removal bears the burden to establish removal is proper, with any doubt resolved against removability. De minimis procedural defects do not warrant remand.
Precedent Name
- Rojas ex rel. Rojas
- Soliman v. Philip Morris Inc.
- Luther v. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
- Johnson v. Starbucks Corp.
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc.
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.
- Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Cited Statute
- 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1) - Citizenship of Doe defendants disregarded in removal
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) - Summary Judgment and Resolution Procedures
- 28 U.S.C. § 1441 - Federal Courts and Jurisdiction Act
- 28 U.S.C. § 1332 - Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction Act
Judge Name
Honorable Kenly Kiya Kato
Passage Text
- For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
- Accordingly, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
- Rather, the citizenship of any Doe defendant 'shall be disregarded.' 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1). Further, because a Doe defendant's citizenship 'becomes relevant only if and when the plaintiff seeks leave to substitute a named defendant,' Soliman, 311 F.3d at 971 (emphasis added), Plaintiff's additional argument that discovery will inevitably reveal that Doe 1 is California citizen is premature.