Theiss v. Burger King Restaurant, et al
Filing
10
Order denying plaintiff's 5 Motion to remand without prejudice to renewal should plaintiff seek to amend by identifying the now fictitious defendants and thereby destroy diversity. Judge Sara Lioi on 6/7/2011. (P,G)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JEAN THEISS,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
BURGER KING RESTAURANT, et al.,
DEFENDANTS.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 5:11CV0787
JUDGE SARA LIOI
ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. No. 5) and defendants’
memorandum in opposition (Doc. No. 6). No reply was filed.
Plaintiff argues in her motion that the case should be remanded to the Summit
County Court of Common Pleas due to lack of complete diversity. She asserts that that John/Jane
Doe Employees are “clearly citizens of Ohio.” Plaintiff anticipates learning through discovery
the exact identity of the Doe defendants, who are the actual persons who “negligently
manufactured, inspected, prepared, tested, supplied, marketed, distributed, handled, cooked,
and/or served ‘chicken fries’ and/or chicken products to Burger King customers [...]” at the
relevant Burger King restaurant.
In opposition, defendants argue that diversity is determined at the time of the
commencement of the lawsuit and that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “[f]or purposes of removal
[...], the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded.” Therefore, at
the time the lawsuit was both filed and removed, there was complete diversity of citizenship.
The Court is of the view that plaintiff’s motion is premature. Under 28 U.S.C. §
1447(e), should plaintiff succeed in amending the complaint by identifying the now fictitious
defendants, if any of them are citizens of Ohio, this Court would then be required to remand. See
Curry v. U.S. Bulk Transport, Inc., 462 F.3d 536, 541 (6th Cir. 2006), citing Casas Office
Machines, Inc. v. Mita Copystar America, Inc., 42 F.3d 668, 674 (1st Cir. 1994) for the
proposition that although § 1447(e) “relates expressly to joinder, the legislative history to the
Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act of 1988 indicates that [it] applies also to the
identification of fictitious defendants after removal.” (citing H.R.Rep. No. 889, 100th Cong., 2d
sess. 72-73 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5982, 6033 (“Th[e] provision also helps to
identify the consequences that may follow removal of a case with unidentified fictitious
defendants.”)). However, these defendants have not yet been identified and may never be.
Therefore, it would be premature to remand where, as here, diverse citizenship existed at the
time of removal and still exists to date.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. No. 5) is DENIED without
prejudice to renewal should plaintiff seek to amend by identifying the now fictitious defendants
and thereby destroy diversity.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 7, 2011
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
It is not a foregone conclusion that a later-filed motion to amend will be granted. The Court will have to consider
any such motion in light of both 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 19. In addition, should an amended
complaint be permitted, the Court has the duty, with or without a motion to remand, to sua sponte address the
question of subject matter jurisdiction. Curry, supra, 462 F.3d at 539-41; Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?