John Roe DJ 40 v. DOE 1
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:24-cv-09218
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In John Roe DJ 40 v. DOE 1, Judge Chesney remanded the case because diversity jurisdiction was not established.
The ruling sends John Roe DJ 40’s action against Doe 1 and the other Doe defendants back to California state court. The court did not act on the parties’ stipulation concerning the sixth cause of action and attorneys’ fees or on their proposed protective order.
What happened
In John Roe DJ 40 v. DOE 1, the plaintiff brought six California-law claims concerning alleged sexual assault and other misconduct. The defendants were identified in the complaint using “Doe” names, as required under the cited California law for these claims.
Doe 1 removed the case from California state court to federal court, arguing that the parties were citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 was at stake. The plaintiff asked the federal court to send the case back to state court.
Judge Chesney granted the motion to remand and sent the case to the Superior Court of California for Del Norte County. The court held that Doe 1 had not established diversity jurisdiction because federal law requires the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names to be disregarded.
The detailed version
- John Roe DJ 40 v. DOE 1 · No. 3:24-cv-09218
- Maxine Chesney
- Mar. 3, 2025
Background
The plaintiff alleged that he suffered unlawful sexual assault, molestation, abuse, and other misconduct by an individual identified as “Perpetrator Smith.” He alleged that Smith was an employee, agent, servant, or volunteer of Doe 1, Doe 2, and Doe 3, which he described as religious entities. The complaint asserted six causes of action under California law.
The complaint used Doe designations for the defendants. The court explained that, under the California statutes cited in the opinion, a plaintiff bringing claims based on childhood sexual assault who is at least 40 years old when the action is filed must use Doe designations until making a required showing in the judge’s chambers that supports the charging allegations. The complaint included street addresses for the three Doe defendants.
Removal and jurisdiction arguments
Doe 1 removed the case from state court based on diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires more than $75,000 to be in dispute and requires each defendant’s citizenship to differ from the plaintiff’s citizenship. Doe 1 argued that the amount in dispute exceeded $75,000, that the plaintiff was a California citizen, that Doe 1 and Doe 2 were Utah citizens, and that Doe 3 had been improperly included to defeat federal jurisdiction.
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 court adopted the reasoning of decisions concluding that this rule requires remand when all defendants are designated by Doe names. The court rejected Doe 1’s argument that the rule did not apply because the actual identities of Doe 1 and Doe 2 were known. The court stated that the statute concerns defendants sued under fictitious names, which described all defendants in this complaint.
Ruling
The court held that Doe 1 had not established diversity jurisdiction at that time. It therefore granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand and remanded the action to the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Del Norte. The court also vacated the scheduled hearing.
The court took no action on the parties’ stipulation to dismiss the plaintiff’s sixth cause of action and strike attorneys’ fees with prejudice, or on their proposed stipulated protective order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.