Jane Roe KL 66 v. Doe 1

Background

Jane Roe KL 66 moved to remand the action to state court. Doe Defendants 1 and 2 had removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The motion was fully briefed, and the court decided it without a hearing under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

Court’s Reasoning

The court identified two reasons for remanding the action.

First, complete diversity was lacking. Plaintiff was a California resident. Two Doe defendants were Utah corporations with their principal places of business in Utah. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that Doe 3 was a religious entity and subsidiary of Doe 1, operating under California law with its principal place of business in Antioch. The complaint also alleged that Doe 3 was registered to do business in California and operated, maintained, and managed Doe 1’s congregations and wards in Contra Costa County under Doe 1’s direction and control. The court concluded that Doe 3 was a forum defendant and therefore defeated diversity jurisdiction. The court rejected Doe Defendants 1 and 2’s argument that Doe 3 was merely a subpart of Doe 1 and not a separate legal entity that could be sued.

Second, the court held that remand was appropriate even if Doe 3 were not a separate entity. Doe Defendants 1 and 2 argued that the citizenship of Does 4 through 100 was irrelevant because they were fictitious defendants. The court stated that this reasoning applied to all Doe defendants. It held that the removal statute required the court to disregard the citizenship of the Doe defendants regardless of whether Doe 3 was actually fictitious or whether California law required the use of Doe designations. The court therefore concluded that diversity was lacking.

Disposition

The court granted Plaintiff’s motion to remand. It instructed the Clerk to remand the action to Contra Costa County Superior Court and close the federal file. The order addressed the basis for federal jurisdiction and did not decide the underlying claims.