CHOMKA v. Walgreen Co.
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:23-cv-06512
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Chomka v. Walgreen Co., Judge Seeborg denied remand because only a diverse defendant was named and Doe defendants are disregarded.
Carla Chomka and Walgreen Co.; the court denied Chomka’s request to return the action to state court.
What happened
In CHOMKA v. Walgreen Co., Carla Chomka sued Walgreen Co. in state court, alleging that she suffered injuries from a dangerous condition while shopping at a Walgreens store.
Walgreen removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Chomka asked the court to send it back to state court, arguing that some unnamed employees, agents, contractors, or other potential defendants might live in California. She did not dispute that she and Walgreen are completely diverse or that the amount-in-controversy requirement was met.
The court denied the motion to remand. It explained that removal is judged from the state-court pleadings, which named Walgreen and ten unnamed Doe defendants; those fictitious defendants are disregarded when deciding whether diversity removal is proper. Judge Richard Seeborg issued the order.
The detailed version
- CHOMKA v. Walgreen Co. · No. 3:23-cv-06512
- Richard Seeborg
- Feb. 26, 2024
Background
Carla Chomka filed a state-court action against Walgreen Co. She alleged that she suffered personal injuries because of a dangerous condition encountered while shopping at a Walgreens retail store. The complaint also identified ten “Doe” defendants, describing them only as Walgreen agents or employees acting within the scope of their agency or employment.
Walgreen removed the case to the federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. Chomka moved to remand, meaning she asked the federal court to return the case to state court. She argued that it was reasonable to assume that some employees who worked at the store, as well as possible agents, contractors, or other potential defendants, might live in California. Chomka did not dispute that she and Walgreen were completely diverse or that the amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied. She did not file a reply brief after receiving an opportunity to do so.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that whether removal was proper is determined solely from the pleadings filed in state court. The complaint named Walgreen Co., as to which diversity was undisputed, and ten fictitious Doe defendants. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1), fictitious defendants are disregarded when deciding whether removal based on diversity is proper. The possibility that Chomka might later pursue claims against people who could be California citizens did not provide a basis for remand.
Ruling
The court denied Chomka’s motion to remand. Chief United States District Judge Richard Seeborg issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.