Tracy Shaw v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, 2:25-cv-03035

Tracy Shaw filed a slip and fall lawsuit in California state court against Costco Wholesale Corp., alleging negligence and premises liability, and named an unnamed (DOE 1) store manager as a defendant.
Costco removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction, claiming Shaw is a California citizen, Costco is a Washington citizen, and DOE 1 was joined fraudulently to defeat federal jurisdiction.
Shaw moved to remand the case back to state court on May 2, 2025, arguing the presence of a properly named California defendant destroyed diversity.
Costco did not file a timely opposition to Shaw’s motion to remand.
The court reviewed the pleadings, found the case suitable for decision without oral argument, and evaluated both subject matter jurisdiction and Shaw’s request for attorneys’ fees and sanctions.
The court ultimately granted remand and denied attorneys’ fees, costs, and sanctions to Shaw.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject matter jurisdiction	Presence of Doe 1, a California resident, defeats diversity.	Joinder of Doe 1 is fraudulent and should be ignored for diversity.	No subject matter jurisdiction; remand granted.
Timeliness of opposition	Costco did not timely oppose; court should remand.	(No timely opposition filed.)	Failure to oppose supports remand.
Fraudulent joinder	DOE 1 is a real, specifically described party, not fraudulent.	DOE 1 was fraudulently joined to defeat diversity.	Insufficient evidence of fraud; joinder not fraudulent.
Attorneys’ fees and sanctions	Seeks fees and sanctions for improper removal.	Removal was objectively reasonable.	Request denied; removal not unreasonable.

Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (federal courts’ limited jurisdiction must be invoked under Constitution or statute)
City of Chi. v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (removal propriety rests on whether case could have been filed in federal court)
Int’l Primate Prot. League v. Adm’rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 500 U.S. 72 (remand required if jurisdiction lacking at any time before final judgment)
Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190 (removal statutes are strictly construed against removal; burden on removing party)
Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061 (standard for fraudulent joinder; nondiverse party ignored only if no claim stated)
Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (standard for awarding attorneys’ fees on remand; only if removal lacked objectively reasonable basis)
Operating Eng’r’s Pension Tr. v. A-C Co., 859 F.2d 1336 (sanctions under Rule 11 are extraordinary and exercised with caution)