Gibbs v. BB OPCO LLC

Background

BB OPCO LLC removed Jessica Gibbs’s action from Sonoma County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on February 25, 2026. BB OPCO relied on diversity jurisdiction. The opinion states that the state-court complaint names Pichinda Duong as a non-diverse defendant.

BB OPCO argued that removal was proper because Duong had not been served when the case was removed and because she was a “sham defendant”—a defendant whose citizenship may be disregarded only when the plaintiff cannot possibly state a claim against that person.

Service of the Complaint

The court explained that federal removal law generally requires all properly served defendants to join or consent to removal. BB OPCO’s removal notice stated that Duong had not been served, but it provided no support for that statement.

The Sonoma County Superior Court docket showed that no proof of service had been filed for any defendant. The court stated that the absence of a proof of service on the docket, by itself, did not establish that Duong had not been served because BB OPCO had been served even though its proof of service was not on the docket. The court also stated that BB OPCO had to conduct reasonable investigation beyond merely checking the state-court docket, and the removal notice did not describe any such effort.

Fraudulent Joinder

The court stated that the removing defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. It further explained that a non-diverse defendant’s citizenship may be disregarded only when it is clear that the plaintiff cannot be liable against that defendant on any possible legal theory. If there is a possibility that a state court would find that the complaint states a claim against the resident defendant, joinder is proper and the federal court must remand the case.

The complaint alleges a claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act for harassment against Duong in Count II. BB OPCO acknowledged that a plaintiff may bring a harassment claim against an individual supervisor, but argued that the complaint did not identify actions by Duong beyond routine supervisory decisions. The court held that this argument did not come close to meeting BB OPCO’s burden.

Order

The court ordered BB OPCO to show cause on or before March 11, 2026, why the action should not be remanded to Sonoma County Superior Court for improper removal and lack of removal jurisdiction. The opinion does not state that the case was remanded at that time, and it does not identify the judge’s name clearly in the provided text.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court addressed whether removal and federal jurisdiction were adequately established, without deciding the underlying harassment claim.