Cline v. Safeway Inc, et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying 9 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

CASE NO. C17-5828RBL

CASEY K CLINE,
9
Plaintiff,
10

v.

11

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
REMAND

SAFEWAY INC,

12

Defendant.

13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Cline’s Motion to Remand. [Dkt. # 9]

15

Cline was injured in a slip and fall accident at a Safeway store in Bremerton. She sued Safeway

16

(an out-of-state corporation) and two “Doe” defendants in state court. The amount in controversy

17

exceeds $75,000.

18

Safeway timely removed the case here, invoking the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. 28

19

U.S.C. §1332. It claimed, and continues to claim, that the fictitious defendants are sham

20

defendants fraudulently named to destroy diversity, and that their alleged citizenship should be

21

disregarded for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. It also argues that “doe” defendants are not

22

considered in determining diversity (even if they are not fraudulently joined). See Bryant v. Ford

23

Motor Co., 886 F.2d 1526, 1527 (9th Cir. 1989). See also Kruso v. International Telephone &

24

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND - 1

1

Telegraph Corp., 872 F.2d 1416, 1424, 1425 (9th Cir. 1989) (with this 1988 amendment, “the

2

naming of Doe defendants no longer defeats diversity jurisdiction”). [Dkt. # 10 at 3]

3

Cline argues that the two “Doe” defendants she named are not purely fictitious; she

4

named a specific manager (Karen Doe Manager) with whom she had contact on the day of the

5

accident, and another specific employee—she knew the actual persons, but not their actual

6

names, which is materially different than just naming a John Doe with no idea who that person

7

is. She also argues that her claims against these individuals are not fraudulent or sham, and that

8

Safeway cannot adjudicate the plausibility of those claims in opposing remand.

9

The Court agrees that Safeway has not established that the Doe individuals were

10

fraudulently named to defeat diversity. Nevertheless, the Rule in the Circuit is that the

11

citizenship of Doe defendants is not considered for evaluating diversity jurisdiction. Of course, if

12

these individuals are identified and named, and diversity is destroyed, we may re-visit this issue

13

as well as the viability of such claims under Rule 12(b)(6).

14

The Motion to Remand is DENIED.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated this 12th day of December, 2017.

18

A

19

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

17

20

21
22
23
24

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND - 2