McVay

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 TIM MCVAY,

12 Plaintiff, No. 2:25-cv-00168-TLN-CSK

13

14 v. ORDER

TARGET; TARGET CORPORATION;

15

and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,

16

Defendants.

17

18 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Tim McVay’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand.

19 (ECF No. 10.) Defendant Target Corporation (“Defendant”) filed an opposition. (ECF No. 14.)

20 Plaintiff did not file a reply. Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to File an

21 Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 11.) Defendant filed an opposition. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff did

22 not file a reply. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and Application

23 for Leave to File an Amended Complaint are DENIED.

24 ///

25 ///

26 ///

27

28

1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

2 This is a premises liability case in which Plaintiff alleges he sustained injuries from a slip

3 and fall incident (“the Subject Incident”) at Defendant’s store located in Elk Grove, California on

4 January 19, 2022. (ECF No. 1 at 7.) On January 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint in

5 Sacramento Superior Court alleging: (1) general negligence and (2) premises liability. (Id. at 6.)

6 Plaintiff alleges he suffered: (1) loss of wages; (2) hospital and medical expenses; (3) general

7 damages; (4) loss of earning capacity; and (5) other damages according to proof. (Id.) On

8 January 13, 2025, Defendant removed the action to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction.

9 (ECF No. 1.) On February 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand and Application

10 for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 10, 11.)

11 II. STANDARD OF LAW

12 A civil action brought in state court, over which the district court has original jurisdiction,

13 may be removed by the defendant to federal court in the judicial district and division in which the

14 state court action is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The district court has original jurisdiction

15 over civil actions between citizens of different states in which the alleged damages exceed

16 $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of

17 proving diversity. Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Resnik v. La Paz Guest

18 Ranch, 289 F.2d 814, 819 (9th Cir. 1961)). Diversity is determined as of the time the complaint

19 is filed and removal effected. Strotek Corp. v. Air Transp. Ass’n of Am., 300 F.3d 1129, 1131

20 (9th Cir. 2002). Removal statutes are to be strictly construed against removal. Gaus v. Miles,

21 Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (overruled on other grounds in Dart Cherokee Basin

22 Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 87–89 (2014)).

23 The amount in controversy is determined by reference to the complaint itself and includes

24 the amount of damages in dispute, as well as attorney’s fees, if authorized by statute or contract.

25 Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2005). Where the complaint does not

26 pray for damages in a specific amount, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the

27 evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

28 Co., 116 F.3d 373, 376 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d

1 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996)). If the amount is not facially apparent from the complaint, the Court

2 may “require parties to submit summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in

3 controversy at the time of removal.” Id. (citing Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326,

4 1335–36 (5th Cir. 1995)).

5 Removal based on diversity requires that the citizenship of each plaintiff be diverse from

6 the citizenship of each defendant (i.e., complete diversity). Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61,

7 68 (1996). A corporation is a citizen of any state in which it is incorporated and any state in

8 which it maintains its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). An individual

9 defendant’s citizenship is determined by the state in which they are domiciled. Weight v. Active

10 Network, Inc., 29 F. Supp. 3d 1289, 1292 (S.D. Cal. 2014). The citizenship of defendants sued

11 under fictitious names shall be disregarded when determining removal based on federal diversity

12 jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1).

13 III. ANALYSIS

14 Plaintiff argues this action should be remanded because complete diversity does not exist

15 as Defendant’s employees “potentially responsible” for causing the Subject Incident — Doe

16 Defendants — are California residents. (ECF No. 10 at 5.) Plaintiff further argues Defendant

17 failed to provide any admissible evidence in support of its contention that the amount in

18 controversy exceeds $75,000. (Id.) The Court considers each argument in turn.

19 A. Diversity of Citizenship

20 Plaintiff contends he is a citizen of California as are Doe Defendants. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff

21 argues courts should consider Doe Defendants’ citizenship especially “when a named defendant

22 knew or should have known the fictitious defendant’s identity because that defendant employed

23 the fictitiously named defendant.” (Id. at 8 (citing Sandoval v. Republic Servs., Inc., No. 2:18–

24 CV–01224–ODW(KSX), 2018 WL 1989528, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2018)).)

25 In opposition, Defendant argues, for the purposes of removal jurisdiction, “the citizenship

26 of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded.” (ECF No. 14 at 4 (citing 28

27 U.S.C. § 1441 (b)).) Further, Defendant argues even when courts have considered the citizenship

28 of a Doe defendant on a motion to remand, the Doe defendant was specifically identified. (Id. at

1 5.) Defendant contends Plaintiff has not taken any action to even attempt to identify the alleged

2 Doe Defendants, let alone provide any physical description or other information to identify the

3 Doe Defendants. (Id. at 6.)

4 “In determining whether a civil action is removable on the basis of the jurisdiction under

5 section 1332(a) of this title, the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be

6 disregarded.” 28 U.S.C § 1441(b)(1). The Court, however, recognizes some district courts have

7 considered the citizenship of fictitious defendants in instances where a complaint identifies a Doe

8 defendant with sufficient detail to give a definitive clue as to their identity. See Collins v.

9 Garfield Beach CVS, LLC, Case No. CV 17–3375 FMO (GJSx), 2017 WL 2734708, at *2 (C.D.

10 Cal. 2017) (quoting Brown v. TranSouth Fin. Corp., 897 F. Supp. 1398, 1401 (M.D. Ala. 1995)).

11 Here, even if the Court were persuaded to follow the approach that considers the

12 citizenship of fictitious defendants where Plaintiff has plausibly alleged facts to identity them,

13 Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the identity of the Doe Defendants are insufficient. See

14 Mazariego v. Walmart, No. 1:24-CV-00612-KES-SAB, 2024 WL 3594596, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July

15 30, 2024) (denying Plaintiff’s motion to remand because Plaintiff’s allegations failed to give any

16 definite clue about the alleged Doe employees’ identities, how they were involved in the

17 underlying slip and fall, or any inclination that they were California citizens). Plaintiff does not

18 allege facts to identity a particular Target employee who was involved in the Subject Incident.

19 Instead, Plaintiff merely alleges the Doe Defendants are “Target employees potentially

20 responsible for causing the Subject Incident.” (ECF No. 10 at 5.) This is not sufficient detail to

21 give a definitive clue as to the identities of the Doe Defendants. Therefore, the Court disregards

22 the citizenship of Doe Defendants for jurisdictional purposes.

23 Accordingly, diversity of citizenship exists because Plaintiff is a citizen of California and

24 Defendant is a citizen of Minnesota. (ECF No. 10 at 7; ECF No. 14 at 3.)

25 B. Amount in Controversy

26 Plaintiff also contends this action should be remanded because Defendant failed to prove

27 by a preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (ECF No. 6 at

28 11.) In opposition, Defendant contends Plaintiff’s own allegations confirm the amount in

1 || controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of $75,000. (ECF No. 14 at 8.) Specifically,

2 | Plaintiff's Statement of Damages filed with the Complaint in state court alleged $5,000,000 in

3 | damages, thus far exceeding the jurisdictional minimum. (/d.)

4 In assessing the amount in controversy, courts may consider allegations in the complaint

5 | and in the notice of removal, as well as summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount

6 | incontroversy. Kroske, 432 F.3d at 980. Evidence establishing the amount is required by 28

7 | U.S.C § 1446(c)(2)(B) only when the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s

8 | allegations in its notice of removal. See Owens, 574 U.S. at 89.

9 Here, Plaintiff's Statement of Damages states Plaintiff suffered $5,000,000 in damages as

10 | aresult of the Subject Incident. (ECF No. 14-1 at 15.) Therefore, based on Plaintiffs allegations

11 in his Complaint, the Court finds the amount in controversy far exceeds $75,000.

12 In sum, the Court finds diversity of citizenship between the parties exists and the amount

13 | in controversy exceeds $75,000. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED.

14 C. Plaintiff's Application for Leave

15 Plaintiff requests leave to file a First Amended Complaint “at a later time” to substitute

16 | the full and correct names of Doe Defendants. (ECF No. 11 at 3.) While Plaintiff cites to Federal

17 | Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 15, the Application for Leave is devoid of any discussion of

18 | Rule 15 or why it would be appropriate to grant Plaintiff's prospective request at this juncture.

19 | (See generally id.) At this time, Plaintiff has not identified an individual person which it seeks to

20 | add to the Complaint. Without more, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Application for Leave.

21 IV. CONCLUSION

22 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (ECF No. 10)

23 | and Application for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11).

24 IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 | Date: September 25, 2025

26 7,

27

28 TROY L. NUNLEY

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE