Reynolds v. EzriCare LLC

Background

The plaintiffs filed the action in Alameda County Superior Court against Ezricare, LLC, EzriRx, LLC, Global Pharma Healthcare Private Limited, Aru Pharma, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., and an unidentified “Doe” Amazon Delivery Service Partner. The complaint alleged that certain defendants manufactured and sold lubricating eye drops, that Milton Reynolds bought the drops from Amazon, and that contamination caused him to suffer an infection and eventually lose sight in his right eye.

The complaint asserted claims including strict liability, negligent failure to warn, negligent failure to recall, negligence per se, breach of express and implied warranties, fraud, and loss of consortium. It alleged that the unidentified delivery partner was an independent California company responsible for delivering packages to California customers and had delivered the product involved in the case.

The defendants removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, which permits federal jurisdiction when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties have diverse citizenship. The parties did not dispute that the named defendants were diverse from the plaintiffs or that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The dispute concerned whether the alleged California citizenship of the unidentified delivery partner defeated diversity jurisdiction.

Analysis

The court explained that 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1) requires courts to disregard the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names when deciding whether a case may be removed based on diversity jurisdiction. Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, including Soliman v. Philip Morris Inc., the court concluded that a Doe defendant’s citizenship is disregarded at the time of removal and becomes relevant if the plaintiff later seeks permission to substitute a named defendant.

The plaintiffs relied on a doctrine under which specific clues about a Doe defendant’s identity or citizenship could defeat diversity. The court rejected that argument and agreed with the reasoning of Valdez v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., while noting that another district court’s decision was not binding authority. The court stated that federal law provides a later process for seeking to add a defendant whose joinder would destroy subject-matter jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), a court may deny that joinder or allow it and remand the case.

The plaintiffs alternatively asked the court to postpone ruling until Amazon identified the delivery partner. The court declined to postpone the ruling, explaining that the plaintiffs could move to revisit subject-matter jurisdiction if they later amended the complaint after discovering the partner’s identity.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to remand. The order did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ product-liability and related claims. Amazon was ordered to provide the identity of the delivery service partner by August 3, 2023. The court also rescheduled the initial case-management conference from August 31 to September 7, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in San Francisco, Courtroom 8, 19th Floor. Judge Jacquelyn Corley stated that the order disposed of docket entry 20.