Pelz v. Sprouts Farmers Market

Background

Marilyn Pelz and her husband, Kent Pelz, sued over personal injuries Marilyn allegedly suffered on January 30, 2024, while shopping at a Sprouts Farmers Market in San Jose, California. The complaint alleges that a store employee placed an obstacle near Marilyn, causing her to trip and fall. Marilyn alleges serious injuries requiring surgery and extensive rehabilitation. Kent asserts a loss-of-consortium claim, alleging that he can no longer rely on Marilyn for assistance around the home.

The Pelzs filed state-law claims for general negligence and premises liability in Santa Clara County Superior Court. The complaint seeks compensatory damages for several categories of loss but does not state a specific total amount. SF Markets, LLC removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. SF Markets said it had been sued under the name “Sprouts Farmers Market.”

Diversity of citizenship

The plaintiffs did not dispute that they are California citizens or challenge SF Markets’ assertion that complete diversity exists between the plaintiffs and SF Markets. They argued, however, that at least one Doe defendant—the employee who allegedly placed the obstacle—was an actual person likely to be a California citizen. They contended that this employee’s citizenship would destroy diversity jurisdiction.

The court explained that federal law requires the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names to be disregarded when deciding whether a removed case is removable. The court therefore concluded that the unnamed employee’s alleged citizenship did not make remand appropriate at this stage. It also declined to decide future disputes about whether the employee could properly be added as a defendant. The court noted that if the plaintiffs later seek to add a defendant whose presence would destroy subject-matter jurisdiction, the court could deny joinder or permit joinder and remand the case.

The court ordered SF Markets to provide the plaintiffs, by June 18, 2024, with the store employee’s name and residential address.

Amount in controversy

For diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, excluding interest and costs. Because the complaint was filed as an unlimited civil action and alleges serious injuries, surgery, extensive rehabilitation, permanent disability, and a loss-of-consortium claim, the court found SF Markets’ allegation that more than $75,000 was at stake at least plausible.

The court nevertheless said the record did not allow it to properly determine whether the jurisdictional amount was satisfied. The plaintiffs were ordered to advise SF Markets by June 18, 2024, whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. If the parties did not agree on that point, SF Markets could seek expedited discovery about the amount in controversy. SF Markets was required to tell the court by June 21 whether it sought that discovery and to provide a specific proposal; the plaintiffs’ response would be due by June 28.

Disposition

The court deferred a decision on the plaintiffs’ motion to remand pending the additional submissions. It did not grant or deny the motion in this interim order.