# Fisher > District Court, N.D. California · August 3, 2026 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11425819 ## Case - **Full name:** Danielle Fisher v. DigitalOcean, LLC - **Court:** District Court, N.D. California - **Decided:** August 3, 2026 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11425819 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DANIELLE FISHER, Case No. 25-cv-02515-SK 8 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING CASE BASED 9 v. ON LACK OF JURISDICTION 10 DIGITALOCEAN, LLC, 11 Defendant. 12 As the Court previously noted, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See, e.g., 13 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). An action originally filed 14 in state court may be removed to federal court only if the district court could have exercised 15 jurisdiction over such action if initially filed there. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Caterpillar, Inc. v. 16 Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Moreover, the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction for 17 purposes of removal is on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is construed strictly 18 against removal jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004); see 19 also Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected 20 if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. In 21 order to determine whether the removing party has met its burden, a court may consider the 22 contents of the removal petition and “summary-judgment-type evidence.” Valdez, 372 F.3d at 23 1117. It is well established that a court must evaluate whether it has jurisdiction based on the 24 circumstances that exist at the time the notice of removal is filed. See, e.g., Sparta Surgical Corp. 25 v. National Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1211 (9th Cir. 1998). Thus, the 26 critical date for inquiry is the date of removal, i.e., did diversity jurisdiction exist at the time 27 Defendant removed this case. 1 Defendant is not a resident of California, removed this case on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. 2 (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action 3 because she is and has been actually domiciled in a foreign country since the middle of 2021 and 4 not in California. Thus, she argues that she was not domiciled in California when Defendant 5 removed this action to this Court on March 13, 2025. 6 The presence of a United States citizen domiciled in a foreign country defeats diversity 7 jurisdiction. Brady v. Brown, 51 F.3d 810, 815 (9th Cir. 1995) (presence of United States citizen 8 domiciled in Mexico). As the Ninth Circuit explained in Brady, “[i]n order to be a citizen of a 9 State within the meaning of the diversity statute, a natural person must both be a citizen of the 10 United States and be domiciled within the State.” Id. (quoting Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo- 11 Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 828 (1989) (emphasis in original). The Ninth Circuit held that, because the 12 defendant was a United States citizen who was domiciled in Mexico, he was “neither a citizen of a 13 state nor an alien under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3)” and, thus, his presence in the lawsuit destroyed 14 complete diversity. Id. (quotation marks omitted). 15 Plaintiff has submitted declarations stating under penalty of perjury that, at the time this 16 case was removed, she was domiciled abroad and had not lived in California since the middle of 17 2021. (Dkt. Nos. Dkt. No. 192-8, 230-2.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff submitted prior 18 inconsistent statements under penalty of perjury stating that she resided in California and that 19 those statements undermined her prima facie showing that she changed her domicile from 20 California. (Dkt. No. 225, citing Dkt. No. 1 (verified Complaint) at ¶ 1 (Plaintiff was a resident of 21 California “at all times relevant”), ¶ 6 (“Plaintiff worked out of her home in the city of Berkeley”), 22 p. 25 (verified EEOC charge stating she resides in California); Dkt. No. 34 at p. 16 (verified 23 EEOC charge providing California address); Dkt. No. 54 (First Amended Complaint) at ¶ 1 24 (Plaintiff was a resident of California “at all times relevant”), ¶ 6 (“Plaintiff worked out of her 25 home in the city of Berkeley”), p. 75 (verified EEOC charge stating she resides in California).) 26 Plaintiff’s complaints in this case were prepared and filed by her attorney. Plaintiff 27 explains that she thought she was verifying that she lived in California “at all times relevant” and ] Dkt. No. 230-2 (Declaration of Danielle Fisher) at § 33.) With respect to the EEOC charges 2 || providing a California address, she provided that as contact information and did not intend it as a 3 || verification of her physical residence or legal domicile. (Dkt. No. 230; Dkt. No. 230-2 at J 30, 4 |} 31,32.) Plaintiff did not live at that California address in March 2025. (Dkt. No. 230-2 at ¥ 30.) 5 Defendant has not submitted any evidence to the contrary or to otherwise demonstrated 6 || that Plaintiff actually was residing in California at the time of removal in March 2025. Because 7 Defendant removed this action, the burden is Defendant’s to demonstrate that Plaintiff was a 8 California resident in March 2025. The Court finds that Defendant has not met this burden. 9 Therefore, the Court HEREBY REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of California 10 || inthe County of Alameda. The Clerk is instructed to remand this case to the Alameda Superior 11 Court and to close the file. a 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: August 3, 2026 . ‘ SALLIE KIM 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11425819. Public record. Not legal advice.