Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02990/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02990-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN ROE AJ 1,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF 

LATTER-DAY SAINTS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:24-cv-02990-DC-CSK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO REMAND

(Doc. No. 4)

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion to remand this case to the Solano

County Superior Court. (Doc. No. 4.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the pending motion was 

taken under submission to be decided on the papers. (Doc. No. 6.) For the reasons explained 

below, the court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to remand. 

BACKGROUND

On September 4, 2024, Plaintiff John Roe AJ 1 filed the complaint initiating this action in 

the Solano County Superior Court against Defendant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints 

(“LDS Church”); Defendant Temple Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day 

Saints (“LDS Temple”); Defendant Napa California Stake, The Church of Jesus Christ of LatterDay Saints (“Napa Stake”); and Doe Defendants 4 through 100. (Doc. No. 1-1.)

Therein, Plaintiff alleges he was groomed and sexually abused by a “Bishop,” an adult 

LDS Church leader, from 2000 until 2001. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff in his complaint brings the 

Case 2:24-cv-02990-DC-CSK Document 8 Filed 01/14/25 Page 1 of 5
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

2

following claims against all Defendants: (1) negligence; (2) negligent supervision of a minor; (3) 

sexual abuse of a minor; (4) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention; (5) negligent failure to 

warn, train, or educate plaintiff; and (6) breach of mandatory duty. (Id. at 1.) 

On October 30, 2024, Defendants LDS Church and LDS Temple filed a notice of removal 

asserting diversity jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446. (Doc. No. 

1.)

On November 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed the pending to motion to remand this case back to 

state court, arguing that Defendants LDS Church and LDS Temple cannot meet their burden to 

establish diversity of citizenship because Defendant Napa Stake is an entity independent of 

Defendant LDS Church and has its own citizenship in California, which is the same citizenship as 

Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 4.) Defendants LDS Church and LDS Temple filed their opposition to that 

motion on December 10, 2024, arguing that Defendant Napa Stake is not a separate legal entity 

from Defendant LDS Church, a Utah citizen, and thus they have met their burden to show 

diversity of citizenship. (Doc. No. 5.) Plaintiff did not file a reply in support of his pending 

motion to remand.

Defendants LDS Church and LDS Temple filed a statement of notice of supplemental 

authority on December 24, 2024. (Doc. No. 7.) The notice of supplemental authority alerted the 

court to a recent on-point decision within this circuit in the case Roe JW 142 v. The Church of 

Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, et al., No. 24-cv-2150-KK-SP, 2024 WL 5182415 (C.D. Cal. 

Dec. 20, 2024), which involves the same Plaintiff’s counsel as this case and largely addresses the 

same issues as those raised in the pending motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

A. Removal Jurisdiction

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 

America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A defendant may remove any action from state court to 

federal court when the federal court has original jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 

Removal to federal court is proper when a case filed in state court poses a federal question or 

where there is diversity of citizenship among the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds 

Case 2:24-cv-02990-DC-CSK Document 8 Filed 01/14/25 Page 2 of 5
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

3

$75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a).

The party removing the action has the burden of establishing grounds for federal 

jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Hansen v. Grp. Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051,

1057 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Est. of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 

F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010)). “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district 

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

Removal statutes are strictly construed against jurisdiction. Grancare, LLC v. Thrower by & 

through Mills, 889 F.3d 543, 550 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 

(9th Cir. 1992)). A federal court must remand the case to state court if there is any doubt as to 

right of removal. Id.; Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 

2003).

A party’s notice of removal must contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for 

removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). “By design, § 1446(a) tracks the general pleading requirement 

stated in Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” and a “statement ‘short and plain’ 

need not contain evidentiary submissions.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 

574 U.S. 81, 84, 87 (2014); see also Ramirez-Duenas v. VF Outdoor, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-0161-

AWI-SAB, 2017 WL 1437595, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2017) (“The notice of removal may rely 

on the allegations of the complaint and need not be accompanied by any extrinsic evidence.”).

ANALYSIS

A. Defendant Napa Stake’s Citizenship 

The parties do not dispute that Defendant LDS Church and LDS Temple are Utah 

corporations, with their principal places of business in Utah. (Doc. No. 1 at 3.) The federal 

diversity jurisdiction statute provides “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State

and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has 

its principal place of business . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). For diversity jurisdiction purposes, a

corporation’s “principal place of business” is its “nerve center.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 

77, 93 (2010). A corporation’s “nerve center” is typically its headquarters and “the place where a 

corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities . . . .” 

Case 2:24-cv-02990-DC-CSK Document 8 Filed 01/14/25 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Id. at 78. Further, a corporation’s division is “not an independent entity for jurisdictional 

purposes” because it “does not possess the formal separateness upon which the general rule is 

based . . . .” Breitman v. May Co. Cal., 37 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). 

In their opposition to the pending motion, Defendants LDS Church and LDS Temple 

assert that Defendant Napa Stake is an unincorporated, “ecclesiastical” division within the 

hierarchical structure of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and therefore is a citizen 

of Utah for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 5 at 5.)

On the other hand, Plaintiff argues in his motion that Defendant Napa Stake is an 

unincorporated association with its principal place of business in Napa, California. (Doc. No. 4-1 

at 6.) According to Plaintiff, Defendant Napa Stake is an entity independent from Defendant LDS 

Church because it is headed by a “Stake President,” “comprised of Stake clerks, secretaries, 

councils, and committees,” maintains its own Stake Center and records, and maintains its own 

finances, among other reasons. (Id. at 9–10.) However, by Plaintiff’s own suggestion in an exhibit 

in support of his motion to remand, this hierarchical structure is typical for “Stakes” in the Church 

of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. (Doc. No. 4-2 at 28.) Further, Plaintiff’s argument—that 

Defendant Napa Stake is an independent entity—is undercut through two allegations in his 

complaint. First, Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant Napa Stake is “a religious entity and 

subsidiary of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.” (Doc. No. 1-1 at ¶ 7.) Second, 

Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant LDS Church “is and was at all relevant times, the religious 

entity, located at Vallejo, California” through which a Bishop allegedly groomed and abused 

Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Plaintiff also does not cite to any authority on point to support his position

that Defendant Napa Stake should be treated as an entity independent from Defendant LDS 

Church.

For these reasons, the court is not persuaded that Defendant Napa Stake is an independent 

entity for jurisdictional purposes.1 Rather, Defendants have shown that Defendant Napa Stake is 

1 Because the court finds that Defendant Napa Stake is a citizen of California for diversity 

jurisdiction purposes, the court declines to address the parties’ respective arguments regarding 

whether Defendant Napa Stake is fraudulently joined and denies Plaintiff’s related request for 

additional time to conduct discovery on that issue. 

Case 2:24-cv-02990-DC-CSK Document 8 Filed 01/14/25 Page 4 of 5
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

5

controlled by Defendant LDS as one of its many places of worship and is a citizen of Utah for the 

purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See Roe JW 142, 2024 WL 5182415, at *2 (finding the Stake to 

be part of and controlled by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and therefore not an 

independent entity for purposes of diversity jurisdiction). Plaintiff affirmatively alleged in his 

complaint that he is a resident of California, and admits he is domiciled in California in his 

motion to remand. (Doc. No. 4-1 at 10.)

Therefore, Defendants LDS Church and LDS Temple have met their burden of pleading 

complete diversity. Because there is complete diversity of citizenship and the parties do not 

dispute the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, the court finds diversity jurisdiction exists 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446 and will deny Plaintiff’s motion to remand. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s motion to remand this case to the Solano

County Superior Court (Doc. No. 4) is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2025 ___________________________

Dena Coggins

United States District Judge

Case 2:24-cv-02990-DC-CSK Document 8 Filed 01/14/25 Page 5 of 5