Angela Adams v. Target Corporation, d/b/a Target, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 23, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00719
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 ANGELA ADAMS, Case No.2:25-CV-719 JCM (DJA)

8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 9 v.

10 TARGET CORPORATION, d/b/a TARGET, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12

13 Presently before the court is plaintiff Angela Adams’ motion to remand the case to state 14 court. (ECF No. 32). Defendants/third party plaintiffs Metro One Loss Prevention Services 15 Group, et al. (“Metro One defendants”) filed a response (ECF No. 32), to which defendant Target 16 Corporation joined. (ECF No. 45). Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 44). 17 I. Background 18 This is a personal injury case concerning an alleged assault and robbery of plaintiff at 19 knifepoint outside of a Target store. Plaintiff asserts state law claims of negligence, negligent 20 infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision. 21 On April 24, 2025, Target removed this case from the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada. 22 (ECF No. 1). Thereafter, on November 24, 2025, Target disclosed the existence of a third-party 23 security contractor, Metro One. Plaintiff obtained leave to amend the complaint and filed her first 24 amended complaint on December 3, 2025, to join the Metro One entities as defendants in this case. 25 (ECF No. 18). 26 On January 12, 2026, the Metro One defendants informed plaintiff that they subcontracted 27 their security work for Target to Security Intelligence LLC. The Metro One defendants filed a 28 1 motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and their answer and third party complaint against 2 Security Intelligence LLC on January 13, 2026. (ECF Nos. 28, 29). The next day, plaintiff filed 3 a second amended complaint adding Security Intelligence LLC as a defendant. (ECF No. 30). 4 While Target and the Metro One defendants are domiciled in other states, Security 5 Intelligence LLC is a citizen of Nevada. (ECF No. 57). Plaintiff, also a resident of Nevada, now 6 moves the court to remand the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 7 II. Legal Standard 8 Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 215, 256 9 (2013) (citations omitted). Although a plaintiff is generally entitled to deference in her choice of 10 forum, a defendant may remove a case originally filed in state court to federal court if the district 11 courts of the United States would have original jurisdiction over it. Ayco Farms, Inc. v. Ochoa, 12 862 F.3d 945, 949–60 (9th Cir. 2017); 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Relevant to this motion, original 13 jurisdiction includes diversity jurisdiction, which requires that (1) all plaintiffs be of different 14 citizenship than all defendants, and (2) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. 15 § 1332(a). For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability company’s citizenship is 16 that of each of its members. Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 17 (9th Cir. 2006). 18 III. Discussion 19 There is no dispute that there was complete diversity of citizenship among the parties when 20 Target removed this case to federal court. Where the parties differ is whether the court was 21 deprived of subject matter jurisdiction when plaintiff added Security Intelligence LLC as a party. 22 The Metro One defendants (joined by Target) argue that the post-removal addition of a 23 local defendant does not require the court to remand the case. They also argue that 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1441(b)(2) permits a non-forum defendant to remove a case to federal court before a diversity- 25 defeating defendant is served. These arguments have no bearing on the rule that “once the court 26 has permitted the joinder of a non-diverse party, § 1447(e) permits the court only to remand the 27 case to state court.” Winner’s Circle of Las Vegas, Inc. v. AMI Franchising, Inc., 916 F. Supp. 28 1024, 1029 (9th Cir. 1996). 1 The Metro One defendants’ citation to Spencer supports this proposition, as the court in 2 that case held that remand is not required for subsequent events except where original subject- 3 matter jurisdiction has been destroyed. See, e.g., Spencer v. United States Dist. Court, 393 F.3d 4 867, 871 (9th Cir. 2006). Their other out-of-circuit citations do not contemplate the effect of post- 5 removal joinder of a non-diverse defendant under § 1447(e). See Van Meter v. State Farm Fire & 6 Cas. Co., 1 F.3d 445, 450 (6th Cir. 1993) (concerning application of § 1447(c)); In re Shell Oil, 7 966 F.2d 1130, 1133 (7th Cir. 1992) (same). 8 There is no diversity of citizenship here. Plaintiff is a resident of Nevada, (ECF No. 30 9 ¶ 1), and defendant Security Intelligence, LLC is a citizen of the same state. (ECF No. 57) 10 (confirming that “William Bibbs, owner and managing member of Security Intelligence LLC . . . 11 is a citizen of the state of Nevada.”). 12 Pursuant to § 1447(e), “If after removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants 13 whose joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or permit 14 joinder and remand the action to the State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e.) Here, the joinder of 15 Security Intelligence LLC to this case destroyed the diversity of citizenship that first gave this 16 court jurisdiction to hear the state law claims asserted therein. Under § 1447(e), the court must 17 remand the action to state court. See Stevens v. Brink’s Home Sec., Inc., 378 F.3d 944, 949 (citing 18 Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1068 (9th Cir. 2001)) (“once the non-diverse 19 defendants were joined remand became mandatory”). 20 IV. Conclusion 21 Accordingly, 22 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this case be REMANDED 23 to state court for further proceedings. (See ECF No. 32). 24 Given the posture of this order, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ECF Nos. 28, 40, 51, 25 52, and 58 are DENIED AS MOOT. The clerk of court is instructed to close this case. 26 DATED March 23, 2026.

27 ______________________________________ 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28