Singh et al v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 5/10/2018 DENYING 7 Motion to Remand, GRANTING 9 Motion for Leave to File a 2nd Amended Complaint, and DENYING as moot 4 Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for More Definite Statement. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file their 2nd Amended Complaint within 10 days of the date this Order is filed. (York, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PAUL SINGH and ANDREA SINGH,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14
15

v.
LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC, and
DOES 1-50, inclusive

17

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION
TO DISMISS, MOTION TO REMAND,
AND MOTION TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendants.

16

18

CIV. NO. 2:18-445 WBS AC

Plaintiffs Paul Singh and Andrea Singh initiated this
action against defendants Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC (“Lowe’s) and
Does 1 through 50, bringing claims for assault, battery,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence,
vicarious liability, and negligent supervision, instruction, and
training.

(First Amended Compl. (“FAC”) (Docket No. 1., Ex. B).)

Presently before the court are plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand
(Docket No. 7); plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second
Amended Complaint (Docket No. 9); and Lowe’s Motion to Dismiss
or, in the alternative, for More Definite Statement (Docket No.
4).

28
1

1

I.

Motion to Remand

2

Generally, jurisdiction is a preliminary matter that

3

should be resolved before all others.

4

191 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (E.D. Cal. 2002)(“[J]urisdictional

5

issues should be resolved before the court determines if a stay

6

is appropriate.”).

7

plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.

8

A.

9

Smith v. Mail Boxes, Etc.,

Accordingly, the court will first address

Legal Standard
“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which

10

the district courts of the United States have original

11

jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants,

12

to the district court of the United States for the district . . .

13

where such action is pending.”

14

“it appears that the district court lacks subject matter

15

jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”

16

On a motion to remand, the defendant bears the burden of showing

17

by a preponderance of the evidence that federal jurisdiction is

18

appropriate.

19

599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

20

B.

21

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

However, if

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka,

Discussion
Federal courts have original jurisdiction over cases

22

where complete diversity exists between the parties and the

23

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and

24

costs.

25

complete diversity, “each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of

26

a different state than each of the defendants.”

27

Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001)

28

(citing Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996)).

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

To satisfy the requirements for

2

Morris v.

1

Plaintiffs initiated this case in Sutter County

2

Superior Court, and Lowe’s removed it to federal court, alleging

3

that “it is a civil action wherein the matter in controversy

4

exceeds the sum of $75,000.00,” and additionally alleging that

5

“the action is between citizens of different states.”

6

Removal (Docket No. 1) ¶ 17.)

7

sole named defendant, as well as Does 1 through 50.

8

undisputed that plaintiffs were, and presently remain, residents

9

of California, while Lowe’s is a citizen of North Carolina.

10

(Notice of

Defendants include Lowe’s, the
It is

(Id.

¶¶ 18-19.)

11

Plaintiffs argue that the presence of doe defendants

12

destroys complete diversity and thus precludes removal.

13

it is well established that “[i]n determining whether a civil

14

action is removable on the basis of jurisdiction under section

15

1332(a) . . . the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious

16

names shall be disregarded.”

17

language, the Ninth Circuit has concluded that “Congress

18

obviously reached the conclusion that doe defendants should not

19

defeat diversity jurisdiction.”

20

F.2d 1526, 1528 (9th Cir. 1989).

21

will disregard the citizenship of all doe defendants, it

22

concludes that complete diversity exists under 28 U.S.C. §

23

1332(a).

24

of the $75,000 requirement.

25

that this action was removable and will deny plaintiffs’ Motion

26

to Remand.

27
28

28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1).

However,

From this

Bryant v. Ford Motor Co., 886
Therefore, because the court

Further, there is no debate regarding the satisfaction
Accordingly, the court concludes

It is possible that plaintiffs may later seek leave to
add a nondiverse party.

In the event that occurs, “the court may
3

1

deny joinder, or permit joinder and remand the action to the

2

State court.”

3

(9th Cir. 1998)(explaining that if after removal plaintiff seeks

4

to join additional defendants whose joinder would destroy subject

5

matter jurisdiction, court has discretion to deny).

6

II.

7

Leave to Amend
A.

8
9

Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686, 690

Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 empowers

parties to agree to amendments and alternatively directs

10

the court to freely grant leave to amend “when justice so

11

requires.”

12

to be applied with extreme liberality.”

13

Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir.

14

1990).

15

the discretion of the district court.

16

371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

17
18

B.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

“[T]his policy is
Morongo Band of

Whether to grant or deny leave to amend is within
Foman v. Davis,

Discussion
Courts commonly consider four factors when deciding

19

whether to grant a motion for leave to amend a complaint: (1) bad

20

faith on the part of the movant; (2) undue delay in filing the

21

motion; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; and (4) the futility

22

of the proposed amendment.

23

628 (9th Cir. 1991).

24

factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of

25

granting leave to amend.

26

316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).

27

Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 942 F.2d 617,

Absent a strong showing of any of these

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.,

Here, the court does not find that plaintiff unduly

28
4

1

delayed proceedings or acted in bad faith.

2

generally only exists where amendment will significantly hinder a

3

defendant’s ability to defend against the plaintiff’s claims, as

4

in cases where discovery has already been completed or when the

5

amendment will require relitigation of significant issues.

6

Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1161 (9th

7

Cir. 1989); see also Georgiou Studio, Inc. v. Boulevard Invest,

8

LLC, 663 F. Supp. 2d 973, 978 (D. Nev. 2009).

9

court has not yet issued a scheduling order--no discovery has

Further, prejudice

See

In this case, the

10

occurred and no trial date has been set.

Because of this, there

11

is no indication that defendants would be prejudiced by the

12

amendment.

13

Defendants’ final argument regarding futility is also

14

insufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of amendment.

15

A court need not deny plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend based

16

on futility alone.

17

411 WBS GGH, 2011 WL 4006686, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 8,

18

2011)(citing Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. v. Cooper Cameron Corp.,

19

CV–F–05–1411 OWW GSA, 2010 WL 596312, at *14 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16,

20

2010) (“[D]enial on [the ground of futility] is rare and courts

21

generally defer consideration of challenges to the merits of a

22

proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend is granted

23

and the amended pleading is filed.”).)

24

will grant plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend.

25

III.

Argueta v. J.P. Morgan Chase, Civ. No. 2:11-

No.

Accordingly, the court

Lowe’s Motion to Dismiss

26

Lowe’s has moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ First Amended

27

Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

28

granted, pursuant to to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
5

1

or, in the alternative, Motion for a More Definite Statement

2

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e).

3

court will grant plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend, it will

4

deny as moot Lowe’s Motion to Dismiss and will defer

5

consideration of any challenges to the merits until after

6

plaintiffs have filed their second amended complaint.

7
8

Because the

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion to
Remand (Docket No. 7) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave

10

to File a Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. 9) be, and the

11

same hereby is, GRANTED.

12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Lowe’s Motion to Dismiss or,

13

in the alternative, for More Definite Statement (Docket No. 4)

14

be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as moot.

15

Plaintiffs are ordered to file their Second Amended

16

Complaint within ten days of the date this Order is filed.

17

Dated:

May 10, 2018

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6