Leticia Espinoza v. Wal-mart Inc., 2:24-cv-03809

Plaintiff Leticia Espinoza initially filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Wal-Mart, Inc., Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., and Sergia Doe.
Defendants Wal-Mart, Inc. and Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. removed the case to federal court, claiming diversity jurisdiction.
For federal jurisdiction based on diversity, all plaintiffs must be citizens of different states than all defendants, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.
The Wal-Mart Defendants are Delaware corporations with principal places of business in Arkansas; Plaintiff and Defendant Doe are California citizens.
Defendant Doe had been properly served, making her a party to the action.
The District Court reviewed jurisdiction sua sponte and questioned whether diversity jurisdiction existed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Complete diversity exists	n/a	Not complete diversity because Doe is a CA citizen; but says Doe was not properly joined/served	Doe was properly joined/served so not complete diversity	No diversity jurisdiction, remand required

Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
City of Chi. v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (Propriety of removal depends on whether federal court has original jurisdiction)
Hertz v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (Corporation's citizenship for diversity purposes)
Strawbridge v. Curtis, 7 U.S. 267 (Requires complete diversity between parties)
Kanter v. Warner-Lambert, Co., 265 F.3d 853 (Citizenship of individuals for diversity)
Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083 (Removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction)
Luther v. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, 533 F.3d 1031 (Burden of proof for removal is on the defendant)
Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241 (Doubt about removal resolved in favor of remand)