Eliseo Flores v. Garfield Beach, CVS, L.L.C.

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaDecember 6, 20192:19-cv-09162California499 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELISEO FLORES, 19-CV-09162 DSF (AFMx) Plaintiff, Order to Show Cause re v. Diversity

CVS PHARMACY, INC., et al., Defendant.

On September 27, 2019, Plaintiff Eliseo Flores filed a complaint in state court against Garfield Beach CVS, LLC (CVS) 1 and thirty Doe Defendants alleging that he had been assaulted by an unnamed CVS employee—Defendant Doe 1—at a CVS branch in Los Angeles. Dkt. 3, Ex. B (Compl.). CVS removed this action on grounds of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and §§ 1441(a)&(b), Dkt. 1 (Removal), and moved to dismiss portions of the Complaint. Dkt. 12. Plaintiff then filed a motion to remand, asserting that “the Complaint sufficiently identifies [Defendant] Doe 1 as a California resident, thus destroying diversity jurisdiction.” Dkt. 14 (Mot.) at 5. CVS filed a late opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for remand. Dkt. 20. Generally, fictitious defendants are not considered for diversity jurisdiction purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1). However, Plaintiff’s allegations indicate that Defendant Doe 1 is an easily identifiable person and likely a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.