{"id":368,"date":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=368"},"modified":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","slug":"farmer-foot-locker-cd-cal-denies-remand-fictitious-doe-defendant","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=368","title":{"rendered":"Farmer v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. \u2014 C.D. Cal. Denies Remand Where Doe Defendant Identified Only by First Name Treated as Fictitious"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Farmer v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Central District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-06<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
2:25-cv-09672<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Removal jurisdiction; 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1441(b)(1) fictitious defendants; complete diversity; Doe defendants<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Stephen M. Farmer sued Foot Locker Retail, Inc. and “Employee Doe” in California state court asserting only state-law claims. Foot Locker removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds. Farmer then filed a Corrected First Amended Complaint identifying “Employee Doe” as “Employee Sam,” alleging Sam was a California citizen because he worked at one of Foot Locker’s California stores. Plaintiff is a California citizen; Foot Locker is a New York citizen.<\/p>\n

Farmer moved to remand, arguing that with both himself and the in-state employee as parties, complete diversity was lacking. Foot Locker opposed, arguing that “Employee Sam” \u2014 identified only by a first name and physical description \u2014 remained a fictitious defendant whose citizenship must be disregarded under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1441(b)(1).<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Judge R. Gary Klausner denied the motion to remand. Section 1441(b)(1) provides that “in determining whether a civil action is removable on the basis of [diversity] jurisdiction . . . the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded.” Even though Farmer alleged that the employee’s first name was “Sam” and that he worked at a California store, the FAC did not identify the employee’s full identity or other pertinent information that would distinguish him from any other “Sam.” That left him a fictitious defendant under the plain text of \u00a7 1441(b).<\/p>\n

The court was aware of nonbinding district-court decisions holding that a “sufficiently identified” fictional defendant may count for diversity analysis, but found that approach incompatible with \u00a7 1441’s plain language and declined to follow it (citing Bee v. Walmart, 2022 WL 782382). The court noted that Farmer had since learned the employee’s full name (“Sam Rodriguez”) and filed a motion to amend the FAC to add him; that motion was still pending and did not affect the present analysis. The court left open the possibility of revisiting jurisdiction once Sam Rodriguez was actually substituted as a defendant.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n