Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Shawn Anthony McMillian, representing himself, alleged that Walmart benefited from his ideas without compensation. According to the complaint, he was a Chico barber and former Walmart associate who submitted approximately 202 startup concepts to IdeasWatch.com in 2015. One concept, “The Shop and Pick-Up App,” concerned online ordering, designated pickup times, curbside loading, and delivery integration. McMillian alleged that Walmart later expanded services overlapping those concepts. His state-law claims included negligence, conversion, and misappropriation of ideas.
McMillian filed in Butte County Superior Court in April 2026, and Walmart removed the case in June based on diversity jurisdiction. Walmart asserted that McMillian was a California citizen, while it was a citizen of Delaware and Arkansas, and that his demand for $10 billion to $100 billion exceeded the jurisdictional threshold. Walmart moved to dismiss; McMillian opposed, moved to remand, and later sought sanctions. The court also addressed his request to stay the dismissal hearing, denying it as moot after that hearing was vacated.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied remand. It found no proper service on Walmart through attorney Scott Forman because the evidence did not show that Forman was authorized to accept service. Even assuming Forman were authorized, mailing the summons and complaint to Missouri on May 4 made service complete on May 14 under California law. Walmart’s thirty-day removal period therefore concluded on June 13, 2026, and, because that date was a Saturday, continued to Monday, June 15, 2026, when Walmart removed. The court also rejected McMillian’s argument that Walmart’s e-commerce operations made part of the corporation a California citizen, explaining that corporate citizenship is determined for the corporation as a whole. His objection to receiving the removal notice by mail five days after removal did not establish prejudice or warrant remand.
The court granted Walmart’s motion to dismiss but permitted amendment. McMillian did not plead the elements of an implied-in-fact idea-submission contract: he submitted concepts to IdeasWatch rather than Walmart, did not allege Walmart knew of a payment condition before disclosure, and alleged only overlapping services rather than substantial use of his ideas. His trade-secret theories failed because the complaint described public submission of the concepts and did not plausibly allege reasonable secrecy efforts or improper acquisition, disclosure, or use. The court also found his remaining arguments unavailing, including those concerning negligence, conversion, unjust enrichment, unfair competition, privacy, concealment, and spoliation.
The sanctions motion failed procedurally and substantively. McMillian mailed it only two days before filing, without demonstrating Rule 11’s required twenty-one-day advance service. The court nevertheless reviewed his fraud accusations and found them meritless, including disputes over emailed and mailed service, Walmart’s principal place of business, and an earlier court order’s mistaken description of him as represented by counsel. The final order dismissed the complaint with leave to amend and allowed fourteen days to file an amended complaint; failure to do so would result in a recommendation of dismissal for failure to state a claim.
Key Takeaways
- Removal was timely because the thirty-day period concluded on June 13, 2026, and continued to Monday, June 15, 2026, under the Saturday rule.
- The court found no proper service on attorney Scott Forman, and addressed the mailed-service calculation only as a conditional hypothetical.
- A corporation’s citizenship for diversity jurisdiction is not divided among individual operations or departments.
- Publicly submitting ideas and alleging later overlap with a company’s services did not adequately plead an implied contract or trade-secret misappropriation.
- The dismissal was not final because McMillian received fourteen days to amend after the first notice of pleading deficiencies, and the sanctions request was denied both for inadequate Rule 11 advance service and because the underlying fraud accusations lacked merit.
Why It Matters
The order separates jurisdictional and service objections from the merits, resolving each through the parties’ filings and the applicable procedural rules. It also illustrates that liberal construction of a pro se complaint does not supply missing elements of a claim.
The immediate outcome preserves McMillian’s opportunity to plead a viable amended complaint, but it does not validate his allegations or guarantee that the action will continue. The order expressly warns that failing to amend within fourteen days will produce a recommendation for dismissal for failure to state a claim.