IDEA Custom Cabinetry and Design, Inc. v. DS Services of America, Inc., 2:20-cv-10138

IDEA Custom Cabinetry (Plaintiff) alleges a Remington Pure water filtration system installed/serviced at its Sun Valley business leaked in Sept. 2019, causing property and inventory damage.
Plaintiff sued DS Services of America (DS) and Doe Defendants in Los Angeles County Superior Court for negligence, breach of implied warranty of fitness, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; the underlying contract was with Remington Pure.
DS (a Delaware corporation) removed the action to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction; removal noted Plaintiff had previously demanded $76,307 in damages.
Plaintiff moved to remand, explaining it intends to amend the complaint to name Remington Pure (allegedly a California corporation) as a Doe defendant, which would destroy complete diversity.
DS argued 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1) requires courts to disregard the citizenship of fictitious (Doe) defendants for purposes of removal; Plaintiff countered the complaint sufficiently identified Remington Pure such that its citizenship may be considered.
The Court held that where the complaint gives specific clues to a fictitious defendant’s identity/role (and the named defendant knew the relationship), the court may consider the fictitious defendant’s citizenship; because Remington Pure was specifically implicated, the Court found diversity likely lacking and granted remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Doe defendants’ citizenship must be disregarded under §1441(b)(1) for removal purposes	Doe citizenship should be considered because Plaintiff will amend to name Remington Pure, a California corp, and the Complaint specifically alleges Remington Pure’s role	§1441(b)(1) mandates disregarding fictitious defendants’ citizenship when determining removability	Court rejected blanket disregard; statutory text is not dispositive where allegations identify the Doe’s likely identity and citizenship
Whether the Complaint’s allegations permit consideration of a Doe defendant’s citizenship	Complaint specifically names/attributes the contract and installation to Remington Pure and alleges its wrongdoing, so its citizenship may be considered	DS argues Remington Pure is separate and its citizenship should be ignored for removal	Court held the Complaint’s specific allegations and DS’s relationship to Remington Pure make it fair to consider Remington Pure’s California citizenship, destroying complete diversity

In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig., 549 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 2008) (complete diversity requirement and standards governing diversity jurisdiction)
Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010) (strong presumption against removal; any doubt resolved against removability)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (party seeking removal bears burden to establish federal jurisdiction)
Gardiner Family, LLC v. Crimson Resource Mgmt. Corp., 147 F. Supp. 3d 1029 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (courts may consider a Doe defendant’s citizenship where the complaint’s description gives clues to identity/citizenship)
United States v. 2.61 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Mariposa Cnty., 791 F.2d 666 (9th Cir. 1985) (suspended corporations may be sued though their ability to defend may be limited)
Reed v. Norman, 48 Cal.2d 338 (Cal. 1957) (California law on capacity of suspended corporations to sue or be sued)