Wheeler v. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Background

David Wheeler, identified in the opinion as a California citizen, filed the action in Lake County Superior Court on July 3, 2024. He alleged that a leader within the Highlands Ward of the Church of Latter-day Saints sexually abused him from 1977 to 1978.

The complaint named the defendants as fictitious “Doe” defendants under California Civil Code of Procedure section 340.1. It described Doe 1 as a foreign religious corporation incorporated in Utah and registered to conduct business in California. It described Does 2 and 3 as foreign religious corporations incorporated in California and registered to conduct business there. The complaint said the identities and capacities of Does 4 through 10 were unknown.

On November 6, 2024, the defendants appeared under their unmasked identities. The opinion identifies them as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Temple Corporation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Corporation. The next day, they removed the action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), asserting diversity jurisdiction, which is federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship in different states. Wheeler moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Analysis

The parties agreed that California law required Wheeler to use fictitious Doe names. Wheeler argued that the court had to disregard the defendants’ citizenship because they were sued under fictitious names. The defendants argued that they were no longer Does when they removed the case because they had appeared and answered under their own names.

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1), which states that, when determining whether a case is removable based on diversity jurisdiction, courts must disregard the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names. The court also explained that diversity is assessed when the complaint is filed. At the time Wheeler filed the complaint, the defendants were named as Does; they did not appear under their true identities until four months later.

Applying those rules, the court disregarded the defendants’ citizenship. For purposes of assessing removal based on diversity jurisdiction, this left a case in which the sole plaintiff was a citizen of one state and the defendants were effectively citizens of no state. The court therefore concluded that it lacked diversity jurisdiction. It did not reach the parties’ alternative arguments.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Wheeler’s motion to remand, Dkt. No. 19, and REMANDED the action to the Superior Court of California for the County of Lake. The opinion also noted that California law provides procedures for unmasking Doe defendants, but said that any potential policy problem created by the statute was not relevant to the ruling.

Practical effect

The federal court will not continue handling this action under the ruling. The case was returned to the specified California state court; the opinion did not decide the underlying abuse allegations or the parties’ alternative arguments.