1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOHN ROE DJ 40, Case No. 24-cv-09218-MMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND; VACATING 9 v. HEARING

10 DOE 1, et al.,

Defendants. 11

12 13 Before the Court is plaintiff John Roe DJ 40's Motion to Remand, filed January 21, 14 2024. Defendant Doe 1 has filed opposition, to which plaintiff has replied. Having read 15 and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court 16 deems the matter suitable for decision on the parties' respective written submissions,1 17 VACATES the hearing scheduled for March 14, 2025, and rules as follows. 18 In his Complaint, filed in state court on August 26, 2024, plaintiff, who states he is 19 a "resident" of California and "over the age of 40," alleges he was the "victim of unlawful 20 sexual assault, molestation, abuse, and other extreme misconduct" by an individual 21 identified as "Perpetrator Smith." (See Compl. ¶ 3.) According to plaintiff, Smith was an 22 "employee, agent, servant, and/or volunteer of [d]efendants" Doe 1, Doe 2, and Doe 3 23 (see Compl. ¶ 15), each of which is alleged to be a "religious entity" (see Compl. ¶¶ 5-7) 24 that is "responsible, in some manner, for the events and happenings [alleged by plaintiff], 25

26 1 Subsequent to the completion of briefing, and pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7- 3(d)(2), plaintiff filed a Statement of Recent Decision and defendant filed four such 27 Statements. The Court has considered each of those documents and the authorities 1 thereby legally causing the injuries and damages to [p]laintiff [described in the 2 Complaint]" (see Compl. ¶ 17). Based thereon, plaintiff asserts against Doe 1, Doe 2, 3 and Doe 3 six Causes of Action arising under California law. 4 The Complaint includes the specific street addresses at which plaintiff states Doe 5 1, Doe 2, and Doe 3 maintain their respective principal places of business (see Compl. 6 ¶¶ 3-5), and it readily can be presumed he is aware of the actual identity of each such 7 defendant. Under California law, however, a plaintiff who, as here, asserts claims based 8 on "childhood sexual assault" and is "40 years of age or older at the time the action is 9 filed," see Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 340.1(a), (e), is required to name each defendant 10 using a "'Doe' designation," see Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.1(k), until such time as the 11 plaintiff makes an "in camera" showing of "corroborative fact as to the charging 12 allegations against that defendant," after which "the complaint may be amended to 13 substitute the name of the defendant or defendants, see Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 14 §§ 340.1(k), (m). 15 On November 4, 2024, defendant Doe 1, which acknowledges it has not yet been 16 served with "any process" (see Def.'s Notice of Removal ¶ 24), removed the above-titled 17 action to district court, on the ground of diversity jurisdiction. A district court has diversity 18 jurisdiction if "the matter in controversy exceeds the sum and value of $75,000, exclusive 19 of interest and costs," see

(a), and each defendant's citizenship is 20 diverse from that of the plaintiff, see

Here, defendant argues, the amount in 21 controversy exceeds $75,000, plaintiff is a citizen of California, Does 1 and 2 are citizens 22 of Utah, and Doe 3, which has a California address, has been fraudulently joined. 23 Where removal is based on diversity jurisdiction,

provides that 24 "the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded." See 28

(b)(1). The Court, having in mind the principle that "[r]emoval statutes are 26 strictly construed, and any doubt about the right of removal requires resolution in favor of 27 remand," see Casola v. Dexcom, Inc.,

, 954 (9th Cir. 2024) (internal 1 considered § 1441(b)(1) as applied to removed actions in which the above-referenced 2 subsections of § 340.1 were applicable, finds persuasive, and adopts the reasoning of, 3 those courts that have concluded remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is 4 required. See, e.g., Roe MG 60 v. Doe 1,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. February 11, 5 2025) (holding Congress, in enacting § 1441(b)(1), "dictated a bright-line rule" for courts 6 to follow); Roe JB 84 v. Doe 1,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. January 31, 2025) 7 (finding "strict application" of § 1441(b)(1) "requires" courts to "disregard the citizenship of 8 all Doe defendants"); Geppert v. Doe 1,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. September 7, 9 2023) (holding where "plaintiff is a citizen of one state, and every single defendant (for 10 purposes of assessing removal based on diversity jurisdiction) is effectively a citizen of 11 no state," court "lacks diversity jurisdiction"); Roe KL 66 v. Doe 1,

, at 12 *1 (N.D. Cal. December 31, 2024) (holding § 1441(b)(1) "obligates" courts to disregard 13 citizenship of Doe defendant "regardless of whether Doe [defendant] is actually fictitious 14 or whether state law mandates use of the Doe designation" (emphasis in original)); Roe 15 DC 57 v. Doe 1,

, *3 (C.D. Cal. February 13, 2025) (holding § 1441(b)(1) 16 requires remand "until such time as there is at least one named defendant upon which 17 [d]efendants could properly invoke federal diversity jurisdiction"). 18 Although defendant disagrees, on the ground the actual identities of Doe 1 and 19 Doe 2 are known, and, consequently, that they are not "fictitious defendant[s]" (see 20 Notice of Removal ¶¶ 8, 9), § 1441(b)(1) does not require a court to disregard the 21 citizenship of "fictitious defendants," but, rather, to disregard the citizenship of 22 "defendants sued under fictitious names," which is precisely how all defendants are 23 designated in the Complaint. 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 Accordingly, as defendant has not, at least at this time, established diversity 2 || jurisdiction, the motion to remand is hereby GRANTED, and the above-titled action is 3 || hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County 4 || of Del Norte.? 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 || Dated: March 3, 2025 : INE M. CHESNEY 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12

13

15

16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 > In light thereof, the Court takes no action on the parties' Stipulation, filed 27 || February 21, 2025, "to Enter Dismissal of Plaintiff's Sixth Cause of Action and to Strike Attorneys' Fees With Prejudice," as well as the parties' proposed Stipulated Protective 2g || Order, filed February 28, 2025.