Green v. Walmart, Inc., 1:22-cv-00435

Plaintiff Shelby Green alleges she slipped and fell in a Walmart store in Hanford, CA on May 12, 2021 and sued for negligence and premises liability against Walmart and an individual identified as "Melody 'Doe'."
The state-court complaint names only Melody by first name and pleads boilerplate alternative allegations that Melody "owned, managed, repaired, maintained and/or controlled" the premises; no last name or clear employment status was pled.
Green served a Statement of Damages claiming over $300,000 in general damages and $213,337.61 in special damages.
Walmart removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, arguing Melody is a fictitious (Doe) defendant whose citizenship must be disregarded and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Green moved to remand, arguing Melody is a real person (not fictitious) and relying on Pullman; the court sustained Walmart's evidentiary objection to Green's declaration about Melody's managerial status for lack of personal knowledge.
The court considered precedent and statutory changes and concluded Melody is a fictitious defendant and the amount in controversy is satisfied, so diversity jurisdiction exists.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether "Melody Doe" is a fictitious defendant for removal purposes	Melody is a real person whose last name is unknown; plaintiff identified her by first name and as a manager	Melody is a fictitious Doe; citizenship of Doe defendants is disregarded under 28 U.S.C. § 1441	Melody is a fictitious defendant; her citizenship is disregarded for diversity analysis
Whether Pullman requires remand despite Doe status	Pullman permits remand where a Doe's relation to a corporate defendant was fully alleged	Pullman is distinguishable and superseded by the 1988 amendment to § 1441 that requires ignoring fictitious defendants	Pullman is inapplicable; statutory amendment and current precedent require disregarding fictitious defendants
Whether amount in controversy exceeds federal threshold	Impliedly disputes removal but did not contest damages amounts in state filings	Walmart relies on plaintiff’s Statement of Damages asserting well over $75,000	Amount in controversy satisfied based on plaintiff’s unchallenged Statement of Damages

Soliman v. Philip Morris Inc., 311 F.3d 966 (9th Cir.) (Doe defendants’ citizenship is disregarded for removal purposes)
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2014) (defendant’s plausible amount-in-controversy allegation in removal should be accepted if plaintiff does not contest)
Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir.) (complete diversity requirement explanation)
Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U.S. 534 (1939) (historical rule on Doe defendants when identity and citizenship were later shown)
Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (2002) (removal statutes are creatures of statute and strictly construed)
Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 888 F.3d 413 (9th Cir.) (amount in controversy measured by the complaint at time of removal)