Jennifer Woolfenden v. Target Corporation et al

Filing 16

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge David O. Carter: Granting #6 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court. Case Remanded to Orange County Superior Court, 30-2021-01214342-CU-PO-CJC. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. (twdb) Modified on 11/17/2021 (twdb).

JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 21-01616-DOC-DFM

Date: November 16, 2021

Title: JENNIFER WOOLFENDEN V. TARGET CORP. ET AL
PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE
Karlen Dubon
Courtroom Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFF:
None Present

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANT:
None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REMAND [6]
Before the Court is a Motion to Remand (“Motion” or “Mot.”) (Dkt. 6) brought by
Plaintiff Jennifer Woolfenden (“Plaintiff”). The Court finds this matter appropriate for
resolution without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. R. 7-15. Having
reviewed the moving papers submitted by the parties, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s
Motion and REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of California, County of Orange.
I.

Background
A.

Facts

This case arises from a slip and fall suffered by Plaintiff while shopping in a
Target Corp. (“Target”) store. Mot. at 3. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s negligent
maintenance and management of the premises allowed the creation of a dangerous
condition that led to Plaintiff’s significant injuries. Id. at 3-4.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 21-01616-DOC-DFM

B.

Date: November 16, 2021
Page 2

Procedural History

Plaintiff filed suit in Orange County Superior Court on August 5, 2021 against
Target and store manager on duty Carole Murphy (“Murphy”) (Dkt. 1-2). On September
2, Target was served with the complaint. On September 23, Plaintiff attempted to serve
Murphy at work, but Murphy was not present at that time. On September 30, Defendant
removed the action to this Court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. Notice of Removal (Dkt.
1). Plaintiff successfully served Murphy on October 3 after two other unsuccessful
attempts.
Plaintiff filed this Motion to Remand on October 8, 2021. Defendant Target filed
an Opposition (“Opp’n”) (Dkt. 11) on October 28, 2021, and Plaintiff replied (“Reply”)
(Dkt. 14) on November 4, 2021.
II.

Legal Standard

“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Removal of a case
from state court to federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which provides in
relevant part that “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of
the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed . . . to the district court of
the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is
pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441. This statute “is strictly construed against removal
jurisdiction,” and the party seeking removal “bears the burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction.” Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988)
(emphasis added) (citations omitted).
Federal diversity jurisdiction requires that the parties be citizens of different states
and that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). For diversity
jurisdiction purposes, a corporation is “deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign
state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its
principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). The presence of any single plaintiff
from the same state as any single defendant destroys “complete diversity” and strips the
federal courts of original jurisdiction over the matter. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah
Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 21-01616-DOC-DFM

III.

Date: November 16, 2021
Page 3

Discussion

The forum defendant rule provides that “[a] civil action otherwise removable . . .
may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as
defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(b)(2) (emphasis added). Target argues that this Court has diversity jurisdiction
over this action because Murphy, a California resident, was not served before Target filed
for removal. Notice of Removal ¶ 9.
Courts are split on whether this language applies when a forum defendant was not
served due to the timing of removal, but was subsequently served. For example, some
courts have found that the language of the statute is intended to prevent fraudulent joinder
for the purpose of destroying diversity. See Khashan v. Ghasemi, No. 10-cv-00543MMM, 2010 WL 1444884, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2010) (The “‘properly joined and
served’ language of § 1441(b) does not prevent a finding that the removal was
procedurally defective.”). And as Judge Pfaelzer noted in Mozilo, allowing the ‘snap
removal’ advocated for by Target “would eviscerate the purpose of the forum defendant
rule” by allowing “removability to turn on the timing of service rather than the diversity
of the parties.” Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Mozilo, No. 2:12-cv-03613-MRP, 2012 WL
11047336, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 28, 2012); see also Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Old
Republic Title Ins. Grp., Inc., __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2021 WL 1254352, at *6 (D. Nev. Apr.
2, 2021) (“snap removal runs counter to the expressly limited nature of diversity
jurisdiction, courts’ presumption against removal, public policy considerations
surrounding plaintiff’s choice of forum, and Congress’ rejection of gamesmanship when
originally enacting § 1441(b)(2).”). The Court agrees and finds that the joinder of
Murphy destroys diversity. As such the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.
IV.

Disposition

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion and
REMANDS this case to the Orange County Superior Court.
The Clerk shall serve this minute order on the parties.
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk: kdu