Putthongvilai v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al.

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Senior District Judge William B. Shubb on 3/7/2025 GRANTING 4 Motion to Remand and REMANDING this case to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Solano. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk OML)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

----oo0oo----

9
10

JENNIFER PUTTHONGVILAI, an
individual,

11
12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:25-cv-29 WBS CSK

Plaintiff,
ORDER RE: MOTION TO REMAND

v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a
Washington corporation; KENNETH
WILLIAMS, an individual; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants.

17
----oo0oo----

18
19

Plaintiff Jennifer Putthongvilai (“plaintiff”) filed

20

this action in state court on July 9, 2024, against defendant

21

Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”) and defendant manager

22

Kenneth Williams (“Williams”) alleging negligence and premises

23

liability based on her slip-and-fall accident at the Costco

24

location in Vacaville, California.

25

(Docket No. 1 at 7-15.)

Costco answered the complaint in state court on

26

September 11, 2024.

27

amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, Costco removed the case

(Id. at 28-32.)

28
1

After learning that the

1

to this court on January 2, 2025, based on diversity

2

jurisdiction.

3

mention Williams, but it does state that “Costco Wholesale

4

Corporation is the only defendant that has been served.”

5

1-5, 17-18.)

(Id. at 1-5.)

Costco’s Notice of Removal does not

Plaintiff now moves to remand.

(Id. at

(Docket No. 4.)

6

“Any civil action brought in a State court of which the

7

district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction,

8

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

9

district court of the United States for the district and division

10

embracing the place where such action is pending.”

11

§ 1441(a).

12

diversity cases “involving citizens of different states.”

13

v. Grp. Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2018).

14

Traditional diversity jurisdiction requires “complete diversity”

15

of citizenship among the parties.

16

N.A., 920 F.3d 1223, 1225-26 (9th Cir. 2019).

17

28 U.S.C.

District courts have original jurisdiction over
Hansen

Demarest v. HSBC Bank USA,

Plaintiff is a citizen of California.

(Docket No. 4 at

18

6.)

19

¶ 2.)

20

California, the parties are not diverse.

21

§ 1332(a).

22

of subject matter jurisdiction unless some exception to the

23

complete diversity rule applies.

Costco is a citizen of Washington.

(Docket No. 1 Ex. B at

But because Williams appears to be a citizen of
See 28 U.S.C.

As such, the court must remand the case due to lack

24

Costco first argues that because Williams has not been

25

served, the court may ignore his citizenship in determining the

26

parties’ diversity.

27

removal case depends upon complete diversity, the existence of

But “whenever federal jurisdiction in a

28
2

1

diversity is determined from the fact of citizenship of the

2

parties named and not from the fact of service.”

3

Walmart, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-1630 AWI BAK, 2022 WL 856030, at *3-4

4

(E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2022) (cleaned up) (quoting Clarence E.

5

Morris, Inc. v. Vitek, 412 F.2d 1174, 1176-77 (9th Cir. 1969));

6

see also Ryce v. AutoZone Parts, Inc., No. 23-cv-01212, 2023 WL

7

9510577, at *5 (D. Or. Dec. 5, 2023) (“District courts have

8

likewise recognized that satisfaction of the complete diversity

9

requirement does not turn on the service or non-service of a

10

defendant who would destroy complete diversity.”).

11

plaintiff and Williams are citizens of California, which destroys

12

diversity jurisdiction.

13

lack of service of process on Williams fails.

14

Metcalf v.

Here, both

As a result, Costco’s argument about the

Costco next argues that Williams is a sham defendant,

15

which is an exception to the complete diversity rule.

16

See Grancare, LLC v. Thrower ex rel. Mills, 889 F.3d 543, 548

17

(9th Cir. 2018).

18

joinder: ‘(1) actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional

19

facts, or (2) inability of the plaintiff to show establish a

20

cause of action against the non-diverse party in state court.”

21

Id. (quoting Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1044

22

(9th Cir. 2009)).

“There are two ways to establish fraudulent

23

However, it appears that Williams is not a sham

24

defendant because the removed complaint’s allegations against him

25

constitute potentially cognizable claims.

26

Ex. A at ¶¶ 14-18, 20-22, 27-29.)

27

“on or about July 16, 2022, defendants Costco, Williams, and Does

28
3

(See Docket No. 1

For example, it states that

1

1 to 100 . . . operated, maintained, designed, installed, built,

2

managed, supervised, inspected and/or otherwise controlled the

3

subject location such that unsafe conditions were created which

4

led to the incident where plaintiff was injured while at the

5

subject location.”

6

(Id. at ¶ 16 (cleaned up).)

Notably, defendant has not moved to dismiss the claims

7

against Williams.

8

it would have ruled if defendant had moved to dismiss Williams,

9

it finds that the complaint raises colorable allegations against

10

him.

11

events to a specific day and a specific store, and naming

12

defendant as a supervisor or manager of that store, the complaint

13

has done enough to reasonably identify the role that the

14

defendant had in the events in question as well as her identity”

15

(cleaned up).); Janke v. BOC Fin. Corp., No. C-04-0941, 2004 WL

16

894632, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2004) (remanding to state

17

court because complaint alleged non-diverse unserved defendants’

18

possible liability).

19

citizenship in determining whether the court has diversity

20

jurisdiction.

While the court expresses no opinion as to how

See, e.g., Metcalf, 2022 WL 856030, at *3-4 (“By narrowing

Thus, the court cannot ignore Williams’

21

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to

22

remand the case to the state court (Docket No. 4) be, and the

23

same hereby is, GRANTED.

24

Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County

25

of Solano.

26

Dated:

This case is hereby REMANDED to the

March 7, 2025

27
28
4