1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARIA RAMIREZ PADILLA, Case No. 25-cv-07408-EMC (EMC)
8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 9 v. REMAND; DENYING FEES
10 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, et al., Docket No. 11, 23 11 Defendants. 12 13 This is a slip and fall case removed by Defendant Costco based on diversity jurisdiction 14 and fraudulent joinder. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff sought remand, arguing that Defendant failed to 15 establish diversity jurisdiction due to alleged in-state defendants Steven Chamberlain and “Wayne 16 Doe.” Dkt. No. 11. On November 3, 2025, the Court heard oral argument and granted Plaintiff 17 limited jurisdictional discovery into the citizenship of Defendant Steven Chamberlain and the 18 identity of fictitious defendant “Wayne Doe.” Dkt. No. 18. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s 19 supplemental brief based on this jurisdictional discovery, the Court GRANTS the motion for 20 remand and DENIES Plaintiff’s request for fees under Section 1447(c).1 21 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff, a California citizen, filed her complaint on April 2, 2025 in the Superior Court of 24 California, County of Contra Costa, asserting state law counts of general negligence and products 25 liability. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that she slipped and fell at Costco’s Concord property due 26 to a “clear liquid substance on the floor” and that this fall was caused by Defendant and its agents’ 27 1 failure to warn or remedy the dangerous condition. Dkt. No. 1-2 at 8. The complaint named as 2 Defendants Steven Chamberlain and Wayne Doe but did not plead any facts about their 3 involvement except that they were “agents and employees” of Costco. Id. 4 Defendant Costco, a Washington citizen, filed its Notice of Removal on September 3, 5 2025, asserting diversity jurisdiction and fraudulent joinder of in-state Defendants. Defendant 6 provided a declaration from Steven Chamberlain that he lives in Washington, works in 7 Washington at Costco’s Issaquah, Washington office, and that Washington is his permanent home. 8 Dkt. No. 1-4 at 2; see also Dkt. No. 13-1 at 2. Defendant also provided a declaration from its Pay 9 Roll Clerk that no employee with the first name “Wayne” worked at the Concord Costco on the 10 day of the slip and fall incident. Dkt. No. 1-3 at 2. Plaintiff responded with a declaration from 11 counsel providing additional information about Defendant “Wayne Doe,” which suggested that 12 this defendant was an identifiable person: William Wayne Thomas, a former manager at the 13 Concord Costco location. Dkt. No. 11-1. 14 After hearing oral argument, the Court granted jurisdictional discovery into the identities 15 and citizenship of Steven Chamberlain and “Wayne Doe.” Dkt. No. 18. Discovery confirmed that 16 Steven Chamberlain, as Costco has maintained, is a Washington citizen without California ties. 17 Dkt. No. 23-1 at 11 (establishing that Mr. Chamberland lives and works in Washington). Plaintiff 18 has thus abandoned her argument that Defendant Chamberlain’s citizenship provides a basis for 19 remand. Dkt. No. 23 at 1. 20 However, the jurisdictional discovery also established that “Wayne Doe” is William 21 Wayne Thomas, who was an Assistant General Manager at the Concord Costco where the slip and 22 fall occurred at the time of the incident. Dkt. No. 23-1. Mr. Thomas is a California citizen. Dkt. 23 No. 23 at 1. He was not working the day of the alleged slip and fall incident. Dkt. No. 23-1. 24 25 II. DISCUSSION 26 A. Whether Remand Is Required 27 A defendant may establish fraudulent joinder through “(1) actual fraud in the pleading of 1 diverse party in state court.’” GranCare, LLC v. Thrower, 889 F.3d 543, 548 (9th Cir. 2018) 2 (quoting Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 2009)). Under California 3 law, a store manager may be held individually liable for negligence. See Perkins v. Blauth, 163 4 Cal. 782, 787, 127 P. 50 (1912); PMC, Inc. v. Kadisha, 78 Cal. App. 4th 1368, 1381 (2000); 5 Dirkes v. Sam's W., Inc., No. 2:22-cv-03466-JLS-MAR, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212995, at *7 6 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 7, 2022). A manager need not be present at the store on the day of the slip and fall 7 to incur premise liability. See Nieves v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. CV 22-00977-JD, 8 2022 WL 5199904, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2022) (rejecting fraudulent joinder argument and 9 remanding slip-and-fall premises liability case brought against Costco store manager who was not 10 present in the store on the day of the alleged injury). 11 Given that jurisdictional discovery has established that Defendant “Wayne Doe” is indeed 12 a California citizen and was a Costco manager at the relevant Costco at the time of the slip and 13 fall, there is no actual fraud as to this defendant. Nor can Costco show that Plaintiff would be 14 unable to assert a cause of action for negligence against this defendant in state court. As noted, 15 California allows for manager liability and Plaintiff has presented authority suggesting that a 16 manager need not be present in a store the day of the injury for premises liability to attach. There 17 is thus no basis to consider “Wayne Doe” fraudulently joined. 18 The question becomes whether the inclusion of “Wayne Doe” necessitates remand. 19 Typically “the citizenship of fictitious defendants is disregarded for removal purposes.” Soliman 20 v. Philip Morris Inc., 311 F.3d 966, 971 (9th Cir. 2002); see also 28 U.S.C § 1441(b)(1) (“In 21 determining whether a civil action is removable on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 22 1332(a) of this title [28 USCS § 1332(a)], the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious 23 names shall be disregarded.”). However, the presence of a fictitious defendant becomes “relevant” 24 when the plaintiff seeks leave to substitute them as a named defendant. Soliman, 311 F.3d at 971. 25 Post-Soliman, district courts in this circuit remain split on whether, as a matter of procedure and 26 practicality, a plaintiff must seek formal leave to substitute in an identified fictitious defendant via 27 Section 1447(e), or whether it is sufficient for the plaintiff to demonstrate to the court’s 1 identified through discovery.” See Valdez v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 22-cv-01491-DMR, 2 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154180, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2022) (collecting cases adopting both 3 positions). 4 There are sound reasons to take this latter, less formalistic approach: a clearly identifiable 5 placeholder Jane Doe does not raise the gamesmanship concerns that Section 1441(b)(1) is meant 6 to address, especially where, as here, jurisdictional discovery permitted by the Court has 7 confirmed the identity of the Doe defendant. Id. at *8. But the Court need not resolve this 8 procedural question because it construes Plaintiff’s supplemental brief as seeking leave under 9 Section 1447(e) to join the now identified William Wayne Thomas as a defendant, and the Court 10 finds such leave to be appropriate. 11 “[A]mendment under § 1447(e) is a less restrictive standard than for joinder under Fed. R. 12 Civ. Proc. 19.” Tetsubayashi v. Indeed, Inc., No. 25-cv-05049-RS, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13 173980, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 5, 2025). Courts consider (1) whether the party sought to be joined 14 is needed for just adjudication and would be joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARIA RAMIREZ PADILLA, Case No. 25-cv-07408-EMC (EMC)
8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 9 v. REMAND; DENYING FEES
10 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, et al., Docket No. 11, 23 11 Defendants. 12 13 This is a slip and fall case removed by Defendant Costco based on diversity jurisdiction 14 and fraudulent joinder. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff sought remand, arguing that Defendant failed to 15 establish diversity jurisdiction due to alleged in-state defendants Steven Chamberlain and “Wayne 16 Doe.” Dkt. No. 11. On November 3, 2025, the Court heard oral argument and granted Plaintiff 17 limited jurisdictional discovery into the citizenship of Defendant Steven Chamberlain and the 18 identity of fictitious defendant “Wayne Doe.” Dkt. No. 18. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s 19 supplemental brief based on this jurisdictional discovery, the Court GRANTS the motion for 20 remand and DENIES Plaintiff’s request for fees under Section 1447(c).1 21 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff, a California citizen, filed her complaint on April 2, 2025 in the Superior Court of 24 California, County of Contra Costa, asserting state law counts of general negligence and products 25 liability. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that she slipped and fell at Costco’s Concord property due 26 to a “clear liquid substance on the floor” and that this fall was caused by Defendant and its agents’ 27 1 failure to warn or remedy the dangerous condition. Dkt. No. 1-2 at 8. The complaint named as 2 Defendants Steven Chamberlain and Wayne Doe but did not plead any facts about their 3 involvement except that they were “agents and employees” of Costco. Id. 4 Defendant Costco, a Washington citizen, filed its Notice of Removal on September 3, 5 2025, asserting diversity jurisdiction and fraudulent joinder of in-state Defendants. Defendant 6 provided a declaration from Steven Chamberlain that he lives in Washington, works in 7 Washington at Costco’s Issaquah, Washington office, and that Washington is his permanent home. 8 Dkt. No. 1-4 at 2; see also Dkt. No. 13-1 at 2. Defendant also provided a declaration from its Pay 9 Roll Clerk that no employee with the first name “Wayne” worked at the Concord Costco on the 10 day of the slip and fall incident. Dkt. No. 1-3 at 2. Plaintiff responded with a declaration from 11 counsel providing additional information about Defendant “Wayne Doe,” which suggested that 12 this defendant was an identifiable person: William Wayne Thomas, a former manager at the 13 Concord Costco location. Dkt. No. 11-1. 14 After hearing oral argument, the Court granted jurisdictional discovery into the identities 15 and citizenship of Steven Chamberlain and “Wayne Doe.” Dkt. No. 18. Discovery confirmed that 16 Steven Chamberlain, as Costco has maintained, is a Washington citizen without California ties. 17 Dkt. No. 23-1 at 11 (establishing that Mr. Chamberland lives and works in Washington). Plaintiff 18 has thus abandoned her argument that Defendant Chamberlain’s citizenship provides a basis for 19 remand. Dkt. No. 23 at 1. 20 However, the jurisdictional discovery also established that “Wayne Doe” is William 21 Wayne Thomas, who was an Assistant General Manager at the Concord Costco where the slip and 22 fall occurred at the time of the incident. Dkt. No. 23-1. Mr. Thomas is a California citizen. Dkt. 23 No. 23 at 1. He was not working the day of the alleged slip and fall incident. Dkt. No. 23-1. 24 25 II. DISCUSSION 26 A. Whether Remand Is Required 27 A defendant may establish fraudulent joinder through “(1) actual fraud in the pleading of 1 diverse party in state court.’” GranCare, LLC v. Thrower, 889 F.3d 543, 548 (9th Cir. 2018) 2 (quoting Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 2009)). Under California 3 law, a store manager may be held individually liable for negligence. See Perkins v. Blauth, 163 4 Cal. 782, 787, 127 P. 50 (1912); PMC, Inc. v. Kadisha, 78 Cal. App. 4th 1368, 1381 (2000); 5 Dirkes v. Sam's W., Inc., No. 2:22-cv-03466-JLS-MAR, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212995, at *7 6 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 7, 2022). A manager need not be present at the store on the day of the slip and fall 7 to incur premise liability. See Nieves v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. CV 22-00977-JD, 8 2022 WL 5199904, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2022) (rejecting fraudulent joinder argument and 9 remanding slip-and-fall premises liability case brought against Costco store manager who was not 10 present in the store on the day of the alleged injury). 11 Given that jurisdictional discovery has established that Defendant “Wayne Doe” is indeed 12 a California citizen and was a Costco manager at the relevant Costco at the time of the slip and 13 fall, there is no actual fraud as to this defendant. Nor can Costco show that Plaintiff would be 14 unable to assert a cause of action for negligence against this defendant in state court. As noted, 15 California allows for manager liability and Plaintiff has presented authority suggesting that a 16 manager need not be present in a store the day of the injury for premises liability to attach. There 17 is thus no basis to consider “Wayne Doe” fraudulently joined. 18 The question becomes whether the inclusion of “Wayne Doe” necessitates remand. 19 Typically “the citizenship of fictitious defendants is disregarded for removal purposes.” Soliman 20 v. Philip Morris Inc., 311 F.3d 966, 971 (9th Cir. 2002); see also 28 U.S.C § 1441(b)(1) (“In 21 determining whether a civil action is removable on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 22 1332(a) of this title [28 USCS § 1332(a)], the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious 23 names shall be disregarded.”). However, the presence of a fictitious defendant becomes “relevant” 24 when the plaintiff seeks leave to substitute them as a named defendant. Soliman, 311 F.3d at 971. 25 Post-Soliman, district courts in this circuit remain split on whether, as a matter of procedure and 26 practicality, a plaintiff must seek formal leave to substitute in an identified fictitious defendant via 27 Section 1447(e), or whether it is sufficient for the plaintiff to demonstrate to the court’s 1 identified through discovery.” See Valdez v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 22-cv-01491-DMR, 2 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154180, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2022) (collecting cases adopting both 3 positions). 4 There are sound reasons to take this latter, less formalistic approach: a clearly identifiable 5 placeholder Jane Doe does not raise the gamesmanship concerns that Section 1441(b)(1) is meant 6 to address, especially where, as here, jurisdictional discovery permitted by the Court has 7 confirmed the identity of the Doe defendant. Id. at *8. But the Court need not resolve this 8 procedural question because it construes Plaintiff’s supplemental brief as seeking leave under 9 Section 1447(e) to join the now identified William Wayne Thomas as a defendant, and the Court 10 finds such leave to be appropriate. 11 “[A]mendment under § 1447(e) is a less restrictive standard than for joinder under Fed. R. 12 Civ. Proc. 19.” Tetsubayashi v. Indeed, Inc., No. 25-cv-05049-RS, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13 173980, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 5, 2025). Courts consider (1) whether the party sought to be joined 14 is needed for just adjudication and would be joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a); 15 (2) whether the statute of limitations would preclude an original action against the new defendants 16 in state court; (3) whether there has been unexplained delay in requesting joinder; (4) whether 17 joinder is intended solely to defeat federal jurisdiction; (5) whether the claims against the new 18 defendant appear valid; and (6) whether denial of joinder will prejudice the plaintiff. See e.g., IBC 19 Aviation Servs. v. Compania Mexicana De Aviacion, S.A. de C.V., 125 F. Supp. 2d 1008, 1011 20 (N.D. Cal. 2000); see also Palmore v. Walmart Inc., No. 3:24-cv-02158-AR, 2025 U.S. Dist. 21 LEXIS 81545, at *6 (D. Or. Mar. 24, 2025) (section 1447(e) analysis for substitution of a Jane 22 Doe defendant should recognize that the defendant is not actually “new” but was “already part of 23 the lawsuit”). 24 In this case, William Wayne Thomas, previously “Wayne Doe”, was part of Plaintiff’s 25 lawsuit from the outset; Plaintiff simply lacked the information to properly name this defendant. 26 So there are no concerns of unexplained delay, improper motive, or the limitations period. As 27 discussed above, Plaintiff has alleged viable claims against Mr. Thomas under California premises 1 Plaintiff to pursue such claims in a separate state court action against Mr. Thomas would be 2 unduly prejudicial. The 1447(e) factors therefore support joinder. 3 With the joinder of Mr. Thomas, a California citizen, there is no longer complete diversity 4 between the parties. Remand is thus required. 5 6 B. Whether Fees Are Appropriate Under Section 1447(c) 7 “Absent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) only 8 where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal. Conversely, 9 when an objectively reasonable basis exists, fees should be denied.” Martin v. Franklin Capital 10 Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). 11 Here, at the time of removal, complete diversity existed between all the named defendants. 12 While Defendant Steven Chamberlain was named in the complaint as a California citizen, 13 discovery provided by Costco has confirmed, and Plaintiff now concedes, that Mr. Chamberlain is 14 a Washington citizen who was wrongly named as California citizen. Dkt. No. 23-1 at 11; Dkt. No. 15 23 at 1. As for “Wayne Doe,” given that Section 1441(b)(1) explicitly states that fictitious 16 defendants are ignored for the purpose of determining diversity jurisdiction, Costco was not 17 unreasonable in omitting this defendant from its removal analysis. Plaintiff’s complaint did not 18 plead “Wayne Doe”’s identity with a degree of specificity that suggested he was a placeholder for 19 a readily identifiable person. Costco thus had at the time of removal an objectively reasonable 20 basis to believe that complete diversity existed. 21 Plaintiff submits that fees are nevertheless merited because Plaintiff’s counsel “has good 22 reason to believe, based on conversation with Defendant’s counsel during parties’ Rule 26(f) 23 Conference, that Defendant Costco requires its counsel in all cases to remove state cases to federal 24 court of the basis of diversity jurisdiction, regardless of the merits of the removal.” Dkt. No. 23 at 25 6. While evidence of a bad faith litigation strategy may constitute unusual circumstances 26 justifying fees, Plaintiff’s bare accusation is insufficient to establish such. Compare City of N.Y. v. 27 Exxon Mobil Corp., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 25757, at *20-21 (2d Cir. Oct. 3, 2025). The fact 1 the case. The Court accordingly denies Plaintiff's request for fees. 2 3 Il. CONCLUSION 4 Plaintiff's Motion for Remand is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Fees is DENIED. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: December 15, 2025 9 10 EDWARD M. CHEN 11 United States District Judge a 12
15 16
= 17 6 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28