Putthongvilai v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 7, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00029
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 ----oo0oo---- 9 10 JENNIFER PUTTHONGVILAI, an No. 2:25-cv-29 WBS CSK individual, 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER RE: MOTION TO REMAND v. 13 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a 14 Washington corporation; KENNETH WILLIAMS, an individual; and 15 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 ----oo0oo---- 19 Plaintiff Jennifer Putthongvilai (“plaintiff”) filed 20 this action in state court on July 9, 2024, against defendant 21 Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”) and defendant manager 22 Kenneth Williams (“Williams”) alleging negligence and premises 23 liability based on her slip-and-fall accident at the Costco 24 location in Vacaville, California. (Docket No. 1 at 7-15.) 25 Costco answered the complaint in state court on 26 September 11, 2024. (Id. at 28-32.) After learning that the 27 amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, Costco removed the case 28 1 to this court on January 2, 2025, based on diversity 2 jurisdiction. (Id. at 1-5.) Costco’s Notice of Removal does not 3 mention Williams, but it does state that “Costco Wholesale 4 Corporation is the only defendant that has been served.” (Id. at 5 1-5, 17-18.) Plaintiff now moves to remand. (Docket No. 4.) 6 “Any civil action brought in a State court of which the 7 district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, 8 may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the 9 district court of the United States for the district and division 10 embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. 11 § 1441(a). District courts have original jurisdiction over 12 diversity cases “involving citizens of different states.” Hansen 13 v. Grp. Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2018). 14 Traditional diversity jurisdiction requires “complete diversity” 15 of citizenship among the parties. Demarest v. HSBC Bank USA, 16 N.A., 920 F.3d 1223, 1225-26 (9th Cir. 2019). 17 Plaintiff is a citizen of California. (Docket No. 4 at 18 6.) Costco is a citizen of Washington. (Docket No. 1 Ex. B at 19 ¶ 2.) But because Williams appears to be a citizen of 20 California, the parties are not diverse. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1332(a). As such, the court must remand the case due to lack 22 of subject matter jurisdiction unless some exception to the 23 complete diversity rule applies. 24 Costco first argues that because Williams has not been 25 served, the court may ignore his citizenship in determining the 26 parties’ diversity. But “whenever federal jurisdiction in a 27 removal case depends upon complete diversity, the existence of 28 1 diversity is determined from the fact of citizenship of the 2 parties named and not from the fact of service.” Metcalf v. 3 Walmart, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-1630 AWI BAK, 2022 WL 856030, at *3-4 4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2022) (cleaned up) (quoting Clarence E. 5 Morris, Inc. v. Vitek, 412 F.2d 1174, 1176-77 (9th Cir. 1969)); 6 see also Ryce v. AutoZone Parts, Inc., No. 23-cv-01212, 2023 WL 7 9510577, at *5 (D. Or. Dec. 5, 2023) (“District courts have 8 likewise recognized that satisfaction of the complete diversity 9 requirement does not turn on the service or non-service of a 10 defendant who would destroy complete diversity.”). Here, both 11 plaintiff and Williams are citizens of California, which destroys 12 diversity jurisdiction. As a result, Costco’s argument about the 13 lack of service of process on Williams fails. 14 Costco next argues that Williams is a sham defendant, 15 which is an exception to the complete diversity rule. 16 See Grancare, LLC v. Thrower ex rel. Mills, 889 F.3d 543, 548 17 (9th Cir. 2018). “There are two ways to establish fraudulent 18 joinder: ‘(1) actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional 19 facts, or (2) inability of the plaintiff to show establish a 20 cause of action against the non-diverse party in state court.” 21 Id. (quoting Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1044 22 (9th Cir. 2009)). 23 However, it appears that Williams is not a sham 24 defendant because the removed complaint’s allegations against him 25 constitute potentially cognizable claims. (See Docket No. 1 26 Ex. A at ¶¶ 14-18, 20-22, 27-29.) For example, it states that 27 “on or about July 16, 2022, defendants Costco, Williams, and Does 28 ee ne IE EI I OE III NO

1 1 to 100 . . . operated, maintained, designed, installed, built, 2 managed, supervised, inspected and/or otherwise controlled the 3 subject location such that unsafe conditions were created which 4 led to the incident where plaintiff was injured while at the 5 subject location.” (Id. at 16 (cleaned up) .) 6 Notably, defendant has not moved to dismiss the claims 7 against Williams. While the court expresses no opinion as to how 8 it would have ruled if defendant had moved to dismiss Williams, 9 it finds that the complaint raises colorable allegations against 10 | him. See, e.g., Metcalf, 2022 WL 856030, at *3-4 (“By narrowing 11 events to a specific day and a specific store, and naming 12 defendant as a supervisor or manager of that store, the complaint 13 | has done enough to reasonably identify the role that the 14 defendant had in the events in question as well as her identity” 15 | (cleaned up).); Janke v. BOC Fin. Corp., No. C-04-0941, 2004 WL 16 | 894632, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2004) (remanding to state 17 court because complaint alleged non-diverse unserved defendants’ 18 | possible liability). Thus, the court cannot ignore Williams’ 19 | citizenship in determining whether the court has diversity 20 | jurisdiction. 21 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to 22 remand the case to the state court (Docket No. 4) be, and the 23 | same hereby is, GRANTED. This case is hereby REMANDED to the 24 Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County 25 of Solano. . 26 Dated: March 7, 2025 it thew AVS (eh WILLIAM B. SHUBB 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28