Gardiner Family, LLC v. Crimson Resource Management Corp.
147 F. Supp. 3d 1029
E.D. Cal.2015Background
- Plaintiffs Gardiner Family and Rosedale Farming filed in federal court alleging diversity jurisdiction with damages over $75,000.
- Crimson moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) arguing Doe defendants defeat diversity.
- California Doe statutes (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 474) are at issue for their effect on diversity in a § 1332 action.
- Erie governs the choice of substantive law; California Doe statutes are treated as substantive, not procedural.
- The court must decide whether Doe defendants destroy or do not destroy diversity and whether exceptions apply.
- The court denies Crimson’s motion, allowing Doe pleading to proceed and deferring jurisdictional issues until actual parties are substituted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Doe defendants defeat diversity in a § 1332 action? | Gardiner argues Lindley allows Doe statutes; Doe do not destroy diversity. | Crimson contends Garter-Bare requires Doe defendants to destroy diversity. | Doe pleading does not defeat diversity. |
| Should California Doe statutes be applied in diversity actions under Erie? | Lindley treats Doe statutes as substantive; apply state law under Erie. | Garter-Bare controls, Doe presences destroy diversity. | California Doe statutes are substantive; apply them; they do not bar federal jurisdiction here. |
| If Doe pleading would destroy diversity, are there exceptions to permit proceeding? | Exceptions permit disregarding Does when facts are unclear or shams; details lacking here. | Exceptions do not rescue the action from lack of jurisdiction if Doe are presented nominally. | Even with exceptions, jurisdiction is not defeated; court may disregard wholly fictitious Does and proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindley v. Gen. Electric Co., 780 F.2d 797 (9th Cir. 1986) (Doe statutes are substantive; Erie requires application in diversity cases)
- Garter-Bare Co. v. Munsingwear, Inc., 650 F.2d 975 (9th Cir. 1980) (Doe defendants destroy diversity in original § 1332 action (pre-Bryant concerns))
- Bryant v. Ford Motor Co., 886 F.2d 1526 (9th Cir. 1989) (Bryant II; context leading to removal statute amendment regarding Doe defendants)
- Erie R. R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1938) (federal courts apply state substantive law in diversity actions)
- Chism v. National Heritage Life Ins. Co., 637 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1981) (disregard Does when identity is unclear in doing so for jurisdiction)
- Grigg v. Southern Pac. Co., 246 F.2d 613 (9th Cir. 1957) (Does wholly fictitious may be disregarded for jurisdictional purposes)
- Kruso v. Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416 (9th Cir. 1989) (finding Does sham precludes remand when appropriate)