Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06261/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06261-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal Libel,Assault,Slander

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

J. DOE,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIMBERLY MITCHELL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-06261-HSG 

SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER

Plaintiff J. Doe filed this complaint in the Superior Court of California for San Mateo 

County on September 13, 2018, against Defendants Kimberly Mitchell Sorensen (“Kimberly 

Sorensen”) and her mother Earline Mitchell. Dkt. No. 1-4 (“Compl.”). On October 12, 2018,

Earline Mitchell removed this action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. 

No. 1. For the following reasons, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the Court sua sponte remands this 

case to the Superior Court of California for San Mateo County for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a citizen of California, Compl. ¶ 2, as is Defendant Kimberly Sorensen, Dkt. 

No. 28 at 1. Defendant Kimberly Sorensen’s mother, Defendant Earline Mitchell, is a citizen of 

Alabama. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. According to Plaintiff, Defendants allegedly made false statements to 

third parties and governmental entities about Plaintiff, claiming that Plaintiff had committed 

crimes. Compl. ¶¶ 11–15. Plaintiff brings four causes of action under California law against 

Defendants: (1) defamation under California Civil Code § 46; (2) intentional infliction of 

emotional distress; (3) invasion of privacy; and (4) abuse of process. Id. ¶¶ 9–40. On February 

14, 2019, Defendants filed a special motion to strike under the California Anti-SLAPP statute and 

Case 4:18-cv-06261-HSG Document 30 Filed 04/19/19 Page 1 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

a motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 18. Defendants’ motion to dismiss included arguments to dismiss 

Defendant Earline Mitchell for lack of personal jurisdiction and to dismiss both Defendants based 

on insufficient process. Id. at 17–20. The Court held a hearing on the motion on April 18, 2019, 

and asked the parties to brief whether there is complete diversity in this case, and whether the 

Court is required to continue exercising jurisdiction if it is established that there is no diverse 

defendant. Dkt. Nos. 26, 27. The parties submitted their supplemental briefs on April 17, 2019. 

Dkt. Nos. 28, 29.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and “[n]o principle is more 

fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of government than the constitutional 

limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies.” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. 

Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 341 (2006) (quotations omitted). Consistent with this foundational principle, 

there is a “‘strong presumption’ against removal jurisdiction,” and the removing party “always has 

the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th 

Cir. 1992). The district court must remand the case if it appears before final judgment that the 

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 

456 F.3d 933, 937 (9th Cir. 2006). The district court has “a duty to establish subject matter 

jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” 

United Inv’rs Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). “It is well 

established that ‘lack of federal jurisdiction cannot be waived or be overcome by an agreement of 

the parties.’” Id. at 966–67 (quoting Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, 244 (1934)).

III. DISCUSSION

Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction in civil actions where the matter in controversy 

exceeds $75,000 and is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Defendants 

removed this action based on diversity jurisdiction, claiming that “Plaintiff is a citizen of 

California, Defendant Earline Mitchell is a citizen of Alabama, and no forum-state Defendant has 

yet been served.” Dkt. No. 1 at 2. In Defendants’ supplemental brief, they concede that 

Defendant Kimberly Sorensen and Plaintiff are both California citizens, Dkt. No. 28 at 1. 

Case 4:18-cv-06261-HSG Document 30 Filed 04/19/19 Page 2 of 4
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

However, Defendants allege that because Defendant Kimberly Sorensen, a “forum defendant,” 

was not served, Earline Mitchell, “a diverse defendant,” could still “remove from state court to 

federal court” notwithstanding the absence of complete diversity here. Id. at 2.1 

 The Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit have expressly rejected Defendants’ apparent 

position that an unserved defendant’s citizenship is not considered in determining whether 

complete diversity exists. See, e.g., Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U.S. 534, 541 (1939); Lopez v. 

Gen. Motors Corp., 697 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1983); Clarence E. Morris, Inc. v. Vitek, 412 

F.2d 1174, 1176 (9th Cir. 1969) (“[a] nonresident defendant cannot remove a ‘nonseparable’ 

action if the citizenship of any codefendant, joined by the plaintiff in good faith, destroys complete 

diversity, regardless of service or nonservice upon the codefendant” (citing Pullman, 305 U.S. 

534)). As the Ninth Circuit explained in Vitek, “[w]henever federal jurisdiction in a removal case 

depends on complete diversity, the existence of diversity is determined from the fact of citizenship 

of the parties named and not from the fact of service.” 412 F.2d at 1176.

Further, Defendants’ primary case advanced in support of their proposition, Regal Stone 

Ltd. v. Longs Drugs Stores California, LLC, 881 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (N.D. Cal. 2012) is inapposite, 

as that case discusses an exception to the forum defendant rule when the forum defendant has not

been served, not an exception to the complete diversity requirement. The forum defendant rule, 

codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), bars removal when defendant “is a citizen of the state in whose 

court the action originated,” and the rule “embodies the notion that a defendant cannot complain of 

being haled before the courts of his or her own state.” Regal Stone, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 1126. The 

 

1 Defendants acknowledge that “it may be argued that this interpretation of the federal removal 

statute permits gamesmanship by defendants who closely monitor state court dockets so as to 

remove before plaintiffs have had an opportunity to serve process . . . .” Dkt. No. 28 at 2. The 

Court agrees that “gamesmanship” is the right word to describe Defendants’ actions here. The 

purported basis for removability was that Defendant Kimberly Sorensen, the California resident, 

had not been served before Defendant Earline Mitchell, the Alabama resident, sought removal. Of 

course, it is undisputed that Earline Mitchell has not been served either. Dkt. No. 1 at 1 (“As of 

the date of this Notice of Removal, Plaintiff has not served any Defendant.”); Dkt. No. 18 at 2 

(“Yet Plaintiff still has not served Defendants with the Complaint or Summons.”). So Defendants’

theory that one unserved defendant can rush from state to federal court based on the fact that 

another defendant has not yet been served makes little practical sense. In any event, because the 

Court has no subject matter jurisdiction, it need not grapple in this case with the problematic 

implications of Defendants’ reading of the forum defendant rule. 

Case 4:18-cv-06261-HSG Document 30 Filed 04/19/19 Page 3 of 4
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Ninth Circuit has held that the forum defendant rule is a “procedural, or non-jurisdictional, rule,” 

and is an “additional limitation on diversity-based removal jurisdiction.” Lively, 456 F.3d at 939

(emphasis added). Whether the forum defendant rule bars or allows removal is thus distinct from 

the foundational question of whether there is complete diversity, which must exist for the Court to 

have subject matter jurisdiction at all. See id. at 938; see also Boren Found. v. HHH Inv. Tr., 295 

F. App’x 151, 152 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Because [the party] has failed to establish diversity of 

citizenship, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and should have dismissed the 

action.”).

Importantly, in Regal Stone, no one disputed that there was complete diversity, such that

the Court clearly had subject matter jurisdiction. See id. at 1124, 1126 and n.5. The question was 

whether the defendants could still remove to federal court, despite the forum defendant rule, when 

the California defendants had not been served. Id. at 1126. The court in Regal Stone never 

addressed whether lack of service on a non-diverse defendant could somehow waive the 

jurisdictional requirement of complete diversity. This Court finds that neither Regal Stone nor any 

other authority supports Defendants’ claim that removal was appropriate based on the undisputed 

facts here. 

Because Defendant Kimberly Sorensen and Plaintiff are citizens of California, complete 

diversity is lacking, and the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case. 

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court ORDERS this case REMANDED to the California Superior Court for San 

Mateo County. Defendants’ special motion to strike and motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 18, is 

DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk is directed to remand the case and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

4/19/2019

Case 4:18-cv-06261-HSG Document 30 Filed 04/19/19 Page 4 of 4