Colbert v. Tesla
- Jon Tigar
- 4:25-cv-09311
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Eleanor Colbert v. Tesla, Judge Tigar ordered Tesla to explain why the case should not be remanded for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
Tesla, Inc., which removed the case, and the other parties because the alleged California citizenship of Colbert and three individual defendants may defeat complete diversity.
What happened
In Eleanor Colbert v. Tesla, Inc., et al., Tesla removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires every plaintiff to be a citizen of a different state from every defendant.
Tesla acknowledged that Colbert alleged three individual defendants were California residents and citizens, like her. Tesla argued their citizenship should be ignored because they had not been served, relying on a practice sometimes called “snap removal.”
Judge Jon S. Tigar concluded that Tesla’s argument appeared incorrect and that the court appeared to lack diversity jurisdiction. He ordered Tesla to show cause by December 12, 2025, why the case should not be remanded to state court; the order did not itself remand the case.
The detailed version
- Colbert v. Tesla · No. 4:25-cv-09311
- Jon Tigar
- Nov. 26, 2025
Background
Tesla, Inc. removed the case from state court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Tesla relied on diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires complete diversity: each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state from each defendant.
Tesla conceded that Colbert’s complaint names three individual defendants who are alleged to be residents and citizens of California, like Colbert. Tesla argued that the court could disregard those defendants’ citizenship because they had not been served. The opinion describes this argument as relying on “snap removal,” meaning removal before a forum defendant has been properly joined and served.
Court’s analysis
The court rejected Tesla’s reading of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). That provision says that a case otherwise removable solely on diversity grounds may not be removed when a properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the state where the case was filed. The court explained that this rule concerns the removal statute’s forum-defendant limitation; it does not change the separate requirement of complete diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Whether a defendant has been served does not determine that defendant’s citizenship for the complete-diversity analysis.
Because Tesla’s removal argument appeared to rely only on snap removal and because Tesla asserted no other basis for federal jurisdiction, the court stated that it appeared to lack subject-matter jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), a federal court must remand a case if, before final judgment, it appears that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
Ruling and next step
Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered Tesla to show cause why the case should not be remanded to state court. Tesla’s written response, or a statement consenting to remand, was due December 12, 2025. The order states that the matter would then be taken under submission without oral argument unless the court ordered otherwise. The opinion is an order to show cause, not an order that itself remands the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.