John Roe MN 70 v. Doe 1

Background

John Roe MN 70 filed the action in California state court on August 26, 2024. He alleged that an individual identified as “Perpetrator Godfrey” committed unlawful sexual assault, molestation, abuse, and other extreme misconduct. The complaint alleged that Godfrey was an employee, agent, servant, or volunteer of Doe 1, Doe 2, and Doe 3, each described as a religious entity. The complaint asserted six causes of action under California law.

The complaint identified the defendants using Doe designations and included street addresses for their principal places of business. The court explained that California law requires plaintiffs bringing certain claims based on childhood sexual assault, when the plaintiff is at least 40 years old when the action begins, to use Doe designations until the plaintiff makes a required showing in private court proceedings. The complaint stated that Roe was a California resident and over 40 years old.

Removal and jurisdiction

Doe 1 and Doe 2 removed the case to federal court on November 4, 2024, relying on diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires more than $75,000 to be in dispute and the plaintiff and each defendant to be citizens of different states. The removing defendants argued that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, that Roe was a California citizen, that Doe 1 and Doe 2 were Utah citizens, and that Doe 3’s California citizenship should be disregarded because Doe 3 had been fraudulently joined.

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1), which provides that, in diversity-based removals, the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names must be disregarded. The defendants argued that their actual identities were known and that they therefore were not fictitious defendants. The court rejected that distinction. It held that the statute requires courts to disregard the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names, and all defendants were designated that way in the complaint.

Ruling

The court concluded that the defendants had not established diversity jurisdiction “at least at this time.” It granted the motion to remand and remanded the action to the Superior Court of the State of California for Alameda County. The court did not decide the merits of Roe’s California-law claims. It also vacated the hearing scheduled for March 14, 2025, after finding that the matter could be decided from the parties’ written submissions.