JUAREZ v. CARDINAL HEALTH INC. et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM & ORDER granting 8 Motion to Remand this action to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County. Signed by Judge Michael A. Shipp on 2/9/2016. (eaj) Modified on 2/9/2016 (eaj).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

LUIS JUAREZ,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 15-6328 (MAS) (LHG)
v.
MEMORANDUM ORDER

CARDINAL HEALTH INC., et al.,
Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Luis Juarez's ("Plaintiff') motion to
remand this matter to the Superior Court ofNew Jersey, Middlesex County, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff brought this employment discrimination action in state court

against Defendants Cardinal Health Inc. ("Cardinal Health"), "Tim," "John," "Joshua," and John
Does One through Ten (collectively, "Defendants"). Cardinal Health removed the matter to this
Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction as Plaintiff is a citizen of New Jersey and Cardinal
Health is organized under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place ofbusiness in Ohio. In
its Notice of Removal, Cardinal Health additionally asserted that the citizenship of the remaining
fictitious defendants is disregarded pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144l(b).

Plaintiff now moves to

remand this matter arguing that Cardinal Health has failed to establish diversity jurisdiction
because defendants "Tim," "John," and "Joshua" are not fictitious parties but represent the first
names of Plaintiffs co-employees and employees of Cardinal Health who perpetrated acts of
discrimination in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
Under§ 1447(c), "[i]f 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). Thus, where

a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a case removed from state court, the case must
be remanded. The law is clear in this Circuit, that "the party asserting federal jurisdiction in a
removal case bears the burden of showing, at all stages of the litigation, that the case is properly
before the federal court." Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188, 193 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing
Samuel-Bassett v. KIA Motors Am., Inc., 357 F.3d 392, 396 (3d Cir. 2004)). The removal statute

"is to be strictly construed against removal, so that the Congressional intent to restrict federal
diversity jurisdiction is honored." Samuel-Bassett, 357 F.3d at 396 (citing Boyer v. Snap-On Tools
Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir. 1990)). "This policy 'has always been rigorously enforced by

the courts."' Id. (quoting St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288 (1938)).
Section 144l(b), expressly states that "[i]n determining whether a civil action is removable
on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 13 32(a) of this title, the citizenship of defendants sued
under fictitious names shall be disregarded." 28 U.S.C.A. § 144(b)(l). Although a pro forma
"John Doe" defendant with no further identifying information is undisputedly a fictitious party, "a
name will not be treated as fictitious merely because the name varies from that on a person's birth
certificate." Brooks v. Purcell, 57 F. App'x 47, 50 (3d Cir. 2002) ("Thus, a person named
'William' at birth may be known as "Bill" and if so may be sued in that name."). In Brooks, the
Third Circuit held, in a non-precedential opinion, that a defendant identified by a first name only,
without any additional identifying information, should be considered a fictitious party for purposes
of diversity jurisdiction. Id. at 50-51; see also Joshi v. K-Mart Corp., No. 06-5448, 2007 WL
2814599, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 25, 2007) (disregarding the citizenship of a defendant identified as
"Defendant Frank Last Name Unknown").
Here, in the Complaint Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants, 'Tim,' 'John,' and 'Joshua' at all
relevant times, resided in Middlesex County, New Jersey, and were employed as supervisors by

2

defendant, Cardinal Health Inc." (Compl. iJ 2, ECF No. 1.) Additionally, in his Complaint Plaintiff
alleges that "Tim," "John," and "Joshua" made specific discriminatory comments to him on a daily
basis, and Plaintiff complained of the discrimination to his supervisors "John," "Joshua," and
"Sam." Plaintiffs Complaint and moving papers do not offer any other factual allegations as to
these three defendants' full names or states of citizenship. In his reply brief, however, Plaintiff is
able to identify "Joshua" as "employee, Joshua Ford, who resides at Hale Street, New Brunswick,
New Jersey." (Pl.'s Reply Br. 1, ECF No. 10; Pl.'s Certification iJ 2, ECF No. 10.) Thereafter,
Plaintiff submitted an additional certification to this Court identifying "Tim" as "Timothy Vitalle
of Monroe, New Jersey" and "John" as "Jonathan Bosques who resides in Cranbury, New Jersey,"
(Pl.'s Supp. Certification ilil 2-3, ECF No. 11.) Therefore, based on these new facts, this Court
does not have subject matter jurisdiction as diversity is lacking. See Santiago v. Fed. Express
Freight, Inc., No. 14-5081, 2015 WL 6687617, at *3 (D.N.J. Oct. 30, 2015) (allowed limited

jurisdictional discovery aimed at the identities and citizenship of partially named defendants to
deal with the "topsy-turvy" jurisdictional issue from the outset); Caywood v. Anonymous Hosp.,
No. 11-1313, 2012 WL 3264572, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 9, 2012) ("Common sense provides that
when a court knows the citizenship of a given defendant, it should not tum a blind eye to an
indisputable and obvious reality. Simply put, a contrary decision would elevate form over
substance and needlessly risk wasting federal judicial resources.").
Plaintiff also requests that the Court award him costs and fees associated with bringing the
motion to remand pursuant to § 1447(c). Under§ 1447(c), a court may award attorney's fees if
the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis to seek removal. Martin v. Franklin
Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). Here, as Plaintiff did not submit the jurisdictional facts

regarding his partially named defendants until his reply brief, Plaintiff has not shown that

3

Defendant lacked an objectively reasonable basis to seek removal. Thus, Plaintiff's request for
costs and fees is denied. Accordingly,
IT IS on this

Cf 1.~y of February 2016, ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to remand this

matter is GRANTED, and this action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Middlesex County.

4