Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Ashleigh Vansickle, a California citizen, filed a twelve-count complaint in San Bernardino County Superior Court on June 10, 2026, against her former employer Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Tennessee) and two individual managers: Ellis Garrett, a California citizen and General Manager of the Victorville restaurant, and Gabrian Bartholomew, a Nevada citizen and Associate Manager. The complaint alleged state-law claims under FEHA for sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, as well as California Labor Code violations for wage-and-hour claims and a Business and Professions Code claim. Cracker Barrel removed the case to federal court on August 28, 2026, before Garrett or Bartholomew had been served, invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and asserting the 'snap removal' doctrine. Plaintiff served Garrett on September 4, 2026, and voluntarily dismissed Bartholomew on September 23, 2026. Plaintiff then moved to remand, arguing that her shared California citizenship with Garrett destroyed complete diversity.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. It held that because Plaintiff and defendant Garrett are both citizens of California, complete diversity is lacking under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and therefore the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The court rejected Cracker Barrel's snap-removal argument, citing Ninth Circuit precedent that the existence of diversity is determined by the citizenship of the parties named, not by service of process. The court declined to award attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), finding that the snap-removal doctrine presents an unsettled question of law and that Cracker Barrel had an objectively reasonable basis for removal. The case was remanded to San Bernardino County Superior Court, and the court's Order to Show Cause was discharged as moot.
Key Takeaways
- Complete diversity requires each plaintiff to be diverse from each defendant; the presence of a single non-diverse defendant defeats removal jurisdiction regardless of service status.
- The 'snap removal' doctrine—removing before an in-state defendant is served—does not overcome the complete-diversity requirement in the Ninth Circuit.
- Citizenship for diversity purposes is assessed at the time of removal based on the parties named in the complaint, not on whether they have been served.
- A removing defendant bears the burden of establishing removal is proper, and any doubts are resolved against federal jurisdiction.
- Attorney's fees under § 1447(c) are inappropriate where the legal basis for removal, though ultimately unsuccessful, is objectively reasonable due to unsettled law.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Ninth Circuit's strict adherence to the complete-diversity rule in removal cases and rejects the snap-removal maneuver as a means to circumvent the forum-defendant rule. By holding that citizenship—not service—controls the diversity analysis, the court aligns with binding precedent (Clarence E. Morris, Inc. v. Vitek) and recent district court authority (Reyes-Arcon v. CookUnity). The ruling clarifies that even if an in-state defendant has not yet been served at the time of removal, their citizenship still destroys diversity if they are properly joined in good faith. The denial of fees signals that snap removal remains a colorable, if ultimately unavailing, argument in this circuit. Practically, removing before service cannot create jurisdiction that the named parties’ citizenship defeats. The order separates that threshold defect from Section 1441(b)(2), which bars removal when a properly joined and served forum citizen is a defendant. Employers considering early removal therefore must test complete diversity before relying on the service-based statutory language.