Fobb v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-07778
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Fobb v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Judge Gilliam denied remand, holding defendants could remove before service under diversity jurisdiction.
Kendrick Fobb and defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC; the case remained in federal court.
What happened
In Fobb v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Kendrick Fobb sued Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC, alleging that a driver sexually assaulted and battered him during an Uber ride. He brought the case in California state court and claimed the defendants were negligent in protecting passengers and in hiring, supervising, and retaining drivers.
The defendants moved the case to federal court before they had been served. Fobb asked the federal court to send it back, arguing that the law generally prevents a defendant based in the state where the case was filed from removing a diversity case. The defendants argued that this restriction did not apply because they had not yet been served.
The court denied the motion to remand. It held that the statute’s wording allows a forum-state defendant to remove a diversity case before service, and it found that the other requirements for diversity jurisdiction were met. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. issued the order.
The detailed version
- Fobb v. Uber Technologies, Inc. · No. 4:21-cv-07778
- Haywood Gilliam
- Mar. 3, 2022
Background
Kendrick Fobb filed the action in San Francisco Superior Court against Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC. He alleged that he was sexually assaulted and battered by a driver during an Uber ride and suffered physical and psychological injuries. His claims alleged negligence in protecting passenger safety and in hiring, supervising, and retaining drivers. He sought economic, noneconomic, and punitive damages, among other relief.
The defendants removed the action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) before they were served. The defendants stated that federal jurisdiction existed because the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 and the parties were citizens of different states. The opinion states that Fobb was a Louisiana resident and that the defendants were incorporated in Delaware with principal places of business in California.
Motion to Remand
Fobb moved to remand, meaning he asked the federal court to return the case to state court. He relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), known as the forum-defendant rule. That rule generally bars removal based only on diversity jurisdiction when a properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the state where the action was filed.
The defendants argued that the rule did not bar removal because they had not been served when they removed the case. The court noted that the Northern District of California has nearly uniformly interpreted the statute to permit removal before service, including when a defendant is based in the state where the case was filed.
Court’s Analysis
The court adopted the plain-language interpretation of § 1441(b)(2). Because the defendants had not been served at the time of removal, the court held that the forum-defendant rule did not apply. The court also found that the diversity-jurisdiction requirements were otherwise met. It stated that Fobb did not credibly argue that the amount in controversy was below $75,000 or otherwise dispute the diversity requirements.
Disposition
The court DENIED Fobb’s motion to remand. The opinion did not decide the underlying negligence or injury claims; it resolved only whether the case could remain in federal court after removal. The order was signed by United States District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.