Judith Mendoza v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Jimmy Johnson, and Does 1-50

Mendoza · United States District Court for the Central District of California · August 20, 2025 · No. 8:24-cv-00845-JWH-AJR

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Judith Mendoza’s renewed motion to remand her premises-liability and negligence action against Costco Wholesale Corporation and other defendants. The court held that Mendoza’s attempted addition of Russell Follmer as a nondiverse defendant was procedurally improper, would be denied under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), and did not establish that Follmer was the person previously identified as Jimmy Johnson. The action therefore remained in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.

Holdings

  1. Once a scheduling order has been entered, a request to amend a pleading must be treated as a request to amend the scheduling order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16; amendment requires good cause and the judge's consent. Mendoza's purported amendment was improper because she did not seek the Court's consent.
  2. The Court would deny joinder of Follmer even if Mendoza had sought permission to amend because Costco could fully satisfy any damages award, Mendoza could pursue claims against Follmer separately in state court, and the circumstances indicated that the proposed joinder was intended to defeat federal jurisdiction rather than to add an indispensable defendant.
  3. The record did not establish that Russell Follmer was the Doe defendant previously identified as Jimmy Johnson; Mendoza's attempt to substitute Follmer as a nondiverse defendant was unavailing.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Mendoza's purported amendment identifying Russell Follmer as the Doe defendant Jimmy Johnson was proper after entry of a scheduling order without compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) or consent under Rule 16(b).
  2. Whether the Court should permit joinder of Russell Follmer as a nondiverse defendant under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) and remand the action.
  3. Whether the record established that Russell Follmer was the same person as the previously named defendant Jimmy Johnson.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (11)

  • Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)(followed)
  • DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n.3 (2006)(followed)
  • Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32-33 (2002)(followed)
  • In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litigation, 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990)(followed)
  • Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
  • Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
  • Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
  • Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
  • Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686, 691 (9th Cir. 1998)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 11.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…