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

facts in its possession regarding his citizenship. Dkt. 21 (OSC). On December 12, 2019, CVS filed a declaration identifying Doe 1 as Jorge Lizama, a resident of Los Angeles, California. Dkt. 25-1. However, this alone did not establish the Court’s lack of jurisdiction over this matter or resolve Plaintiff’s pending Motion for Remand. See Dkt. 14. Fictitious defendants are not considered for diversity jurisdiction purposes. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1); see also Soliman v. Philip Morris Inc., 311 F.3d 966, 971 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The citizenship of

1 The Complaint names “CVS Pharmacy, LLC” as the corporate defendant. In its Notice of Removal, CVS indicates that the proper corporate defendant is “Garfield Beach CVS, LLC.” fictitious defendants is disregarded for removal purposes and becomes relevant only if and when the plaintiff seeks leave to substitute a named defendant.”). Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, Plaintiff has since substituted Mr. Lizama for Doe 1. Under the circumstances of this case, the Court finds the addition of the non-diverse defendant was proper (and would have granted a motion for leave to amend). The Court may now consider his citizenship for the…