Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Christina Pabst

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: November 14, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-08430
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC, 10 Case No. 25-cv-08430-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 REMAND CHRISTINA PABST, 13 Defendant. 14

15 16 Plaintiff Anheuser-Busch, LLC initiated this action in May of 2024, by filing a complaint 17 in Contra Costa County Superior Court against defendant Christina Pabst. After Pabst filed a 18 cross-complaint against Anheuser-Busch also naming Anheuser-Busch InBev Services, LLC, 19 (“InBev”), Anheuser-Busch and InBev filed a notice of removal of the case to this court. Pursuant 20 to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), defendant Pabst’s motion for remand and for an award of attorney fees 21 is suitable for disposition without oral argument, and the hearing set for November 21, 2025, is 22 vacated.1 23 As the original plaintiff in this action, Anheuser-Busch has no right to remove. See 28 24 U.S.C. § 1441 ( . . . may be removed by the defendant or the defendants (emphasis added)). That it 25

26 1 Because this order finds the removal was improper and jurisdiction is lacking, there is no basis to reach the motion by Anheuser-Busch and InBev to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay set on 27 the same day. That motion is denied for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice to the state court’s 1 was named as defendant to a cross-complaint does not change the result. See Shamrock Oil & Gas 2 Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 107 (1941). Nor does the addition of a third-party defendant to the 3 cross-complaint. See Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. 435, 441 (2019) 4 (“Considering the phrase ‘the defendant or the defendants’ in light of the structure of the statute 5 and our precedent, we conclude that §1441(a) does not permit removal by any counterclaim 6 defendant, including parties brought into the lawsuit for the first time by the counterclaim.”). 7 Anheuser-Busch insists the statutory language and Home Depot are not controlling here for 8 two reasons. First, Anheuser-Busch contends Pabst is relying on a “general rule under federal 9 question jurisdiction” despite the fact that the removal here was predicated on diversity. The 10 statutory limitation that only defendants may remove, however, does not turn on any distinction 11 between removals based on federal question and those based on diversity. Indeed, Home Depot 12 involved a removal on diversity grounds. See 587 U.S. at 439. 13 Second, Anheuser-Busch contends the Supreme Court in Home Depot did not consider the 14 issue of “realignment.” As the cases invoked by Anheuser-Busch reveal, however, “realignment” 15 is a concept employed by courts to determine if diversity exists, notwithstanding the nominal 16 alignment of the parties.

17 The courts, not the parties, are responsible for aligning the parties according to their interests in the litigation. If the interests of a party 18 named as a defendant coincide with those of the plaintiff in relation 19 to the purpose of the lawsuit, the named defendant must be realigned as a plaintiff for jurisdictional purposes. 20 21 Cont’l Airlines, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 819 F.2d 1519, 1523 (9th Cir. 1987) 22 (quoting Dolch v. United Cal. Bank, 702 F.2d 178, 181 (9th Cir. 1983)). In other words, if a party 23 is on the wrong side of the “v,” it can “realigned” to be a co-party with one or more parties on the 24 other side of the “v,” with whom its litigation interests are shared. The principle has no application here, where there is no claim that any party on either side of the “v” actually shares interests with 25 the parties on the other side of the “v.” Anheuser-Busch does not contend any party is improperly 26 aligned with another party where they actually are in opposition to each other, hence there is no 27 1 cause to realign. Simply switching the labels of all existing plaintiffs to become “defendants,” and 2 || all existing defendants to become “plaintiffs” is not a realignment. 3 The motion to remand this case to Contra Costa County Superior Court is granted. While 4 || Anheuser-Busch’s claimed basis for removal bordered on objectively unreasonable, rendering the 5 question close, Pabst’s request for an award of attorney fees will be denied. 6 7 || ITISSO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: November 14, 2025 10 RICHARD SEEBORG 11 Chief United States District Judge a 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE No. 25-cv-08430-RS