Bisagno v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

Background

Charles Bisagno originally filed the case in Sonoma County Superior Court against Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and unidentified “Doe” defendants, including a Doe store manager. Bisagno alleged that, in February 2022, he suffered serious injuries when unsecured plywood fell from a shelf or display while he was shopping at a Home Depot store in Santa Rosa, California. He asserted negligence and premises-liability claims.

Home Depot removed the case to federal court in July 2024, relying on diversity jurisdiction. The opinion states that Home Depot is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. Bisagno moved to remand, arguing that there was not complete diversity—the requirement that each plaintiff have different citizenship from each defendant—because the unidentified store manager was alleged, on information and belief, to be an adult resident of Sonoma County, California. Bisagno acknowledged that he did not yet know the manager’s identity.

Court’s Analysis

Federal law allows removal from state court only when the federal court would have had jurisdiction over the case originally. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires complete diversity and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The removing defendant bears the burden of proving complete diversity.

The court relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1), which provides that the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names is disregarded when determining whether a case is removable based on diversity jurisdiction. The court also relied on binding Ninth Circuit authority stating that a fictitious defendant’s citizenship becomes relevant only if the plaintiff later seeks permission to substitute a named defendant.

The court noted that Bisagno had not sought permission to substitute a named store manager and appeared to say that he could not do so because he did not know the manager’s identity. The court therefore concluded that diversity jurisdiction existed. It acknowledged that some district courts have considered the citizenship of Doe defendants when the plaintiff provides enough factual detail about their identities, but it disagreed with that approach because it viewed it as inconsistent with the statute and binding Ninth Circuit authority.

Disposition

The court DENIED Bisagno’s motion to remand. It also set a case-management conference for November 19, 2024, and directed the parties to file a joint case-management statement by November 12, 2024.