Haley O'Brien et al v. Ford Motor Company et al

Filing 8

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: At least three considerations lead the Court to conclude that removal is improper here. The Court therefore REMANDS the action to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case Number BC687062. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

Date

CV 18-1411-DMG (PLAx)

Title Haley O’Brian, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, et al.
Present: The Honorable

JS-6 / REMAND

February 27, 2018
Page

1 of 5

DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN
Deputy Clerk

NOT REPORTED
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

On December 18, 2017, Plaintiffs, California citizens, filed in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court a Complaint, which alleged, as relevant here, violations of the Song-Beverly Act,
Cal. Civ. Code § 1790 et seq.; state law fraud claims; and violation of the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq., against Defendant Ford Motor
Company (“Ford”), a Delaware citizen. [Doc. # 1-1.] The Complaint also alleged against
Defendant NGP Motors, Inc. dba Sunrise Ford of North Hollywood (“NGP”), a California
citizen, a state law cause of action for negligent repair. Id. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs sought
general, special, and actual damages; rescission of the purchase contract and restitution of all
monies expended, diminution in value; incidental and consequential damages, civil penalties,
punitive damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees. Id. at 32–33, Prayer for Relief. It is not clear
when, if at all, Plaintiffs served Ford with the Complaint.
On January 16, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which they
served on Ford on January 18, 2018. [Doc. ## 1 (Notice of Removal (“NOR”)) at ¶ 22, 1-2
(FAC).] Similar to the Complaint, the FAC seeks general, special, and actual damages;
rescission of the purchase contract and restitution of all monies expended, diminution in value,
incidental and consequential damages, and civil penalties—but not punitive damages or
reasonable attorney’s fees. FAC at 32, Prayer for Relief. The FAC, unlike the Complaint, aims
both the negligent repair and the CLRA causes of action against NGP. See FAC at ¶¶ 159–85.
At least three considerations lead the Court to conclude that removal is improper here.
The Court therefore REMANDS the action to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, as
discussed further below.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

CV 18-1411-DMG (PLAx)

Title Haley O’Brian, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, et al.

JS-6 / REMAND

Date

February 27, 2018
Page

2 of 5

I.
LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a)(1), a district court shall have jurisdiction over a
civil action where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 and there is
complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. An action may be removed from a state
court to a federal district court if the latter would have had “original jurisdiction” over the action
had it been filed in that court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
Fraudulently joined defendants are “ignored for purposes of determining diversity.”
Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001). To demonstrate that the
removal of an action involving a non-diverse defendant was proper, the removing party must
show fraudulent joinder by “clear and convincing evidence.” See Hamilton Materials, Inc. v.
Dow Chem. Corp., 494 F.3d 1203, 1206 (9th Cir. 2007). Specifically, “[t]he defendant must
show that there is no possibility that the plaintiff could prevail on any cause of action it brought
against the non-diverse defendant” and that “plaintiff would not be afforded leave to amend his
complaint to cure the purported deficiency.” Padilla v. AT&T Corp., 697 F. Supp. 2d 1156,
1159 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (emphasis added).
Related to fraudulent joinder is the doctrine of fraudulent misjoinder. Under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, two or more persons may be joined in one action when, as relevant
here, a plaintiff “assert[s] a right to relief arising out of the same transaction and occurrence.”
Visendi v. Bank of Am., N.A., 733 F.3d 863, 870 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)).
Where a plaintiff joins in the action “a resident defendant having no real connection with the
controversy” between plaintiff and the nonresident defendant, the misjoinder is fraudulent.
Sutton v. Davol, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 500, 503 (E.D. Cal. 2008). “A defendant’s ‘right of removal
cannot be defeated by’” such misjoinder. Id. In the case of fraudulent misjoinder, a district court
may “at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21.
“Federal jurisdiction [under the removal statute] must be rejected if there is any doubt as
to the right of removal in the first instance.” See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F. 2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.
1992) (emphasis added).

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

JS-6 / REMAND

Date

CV 18-1411-DMG (PLAx)

Title Haley O’Brian, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, et al.

February 27, 2018
Page

3 of 5

II.
DISCUSSION
A.

Amount in Controversy

Contending that the $75,000 minimum threshold is satisfied for purposes of the amount
in controversy requirement in federal court, Ford argues that the FAC’s sought relief, “[u]pon
information and belief,” is in excess of $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. NOR at ¶ 8.
Ford has not established that the amount in controversy is satisfied.
The purchase price of the vehicle at issue appears to have been $21,380. See Ex. 1 to
FAC; Ex. 1 to Complaint. No other dollar amounts appear anywhere on either the Complaint,
FAC, or exhibits attached thereto. Accordingly, based on the Plaintiffs’ Prayer for Relief alone,
it is not clear how the amount in controversy is satisfied. Ford has thus failed to carry its burden
of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699
(9th Cir. 2007) (“[W]here it is unclear or ambiguous from the face of a state-court complaint
whether the requisite amount in controversy is pled[,] . . . . [t]he removing defendant bears the
burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy
exceeds [the jurisdictional amount].” (final alteration in original) (quoting Sanchez v
Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996))); Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566–67 (“If it
is unclear what amount of damages the plaintiff has sought . . ., then the defendant bears the
burden of actually proving the facts to support jurisdiction, including the jurisdictional
amount.”). Ford states no facts—only its belief—to prove that at least $75,000 are at issue.1
Moreover, where a plaintiff initiates his case in state court, “[t]here is a strong
presumption that the plaintiff has not claimed a large amount in order to confer jurisdiction on a
federal court.” Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 375 (9th Cir. 1997)
((alteration in original) quoting St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 290
(1938))). Ford has failed to rebut this presumption.

1

Additionally, Plaintiffs sought almost identical relief in the Complaint, which was filed in December
2017. In fact, Plaintiffs’ Complaint also seeks punitive damages, which the FAC does not include in its Prayer for
Relief. Because it is not clear to the Court when Ford received service of the Complaint, if ever, the Court will not
remand on this basis. Nonetheless, it appears that Ford’s removal may have been untimely because, according to
Ford’s grounds for removal, “the case stated by the initial pleading is removable on its face,” which would have
triggered the first 30-day removal period under 28 U.S.C. section 1446(b). Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC,
629 F.3d 876, 885 (9th Cir. 2010).
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

CV 18-1411-DMG (PLAx)

JS-6 / REMAND

Date

February 27, 2018

Title Haley O’Brian, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, et al.
B.

Page

4 of 5

Fraudulent Joinder

Second, Ford argues that Plaintiffs fraudulently joined or misjoined NGP solely in an
effort to destroy diversity jurisdiction such that NGP’s citizenship should be disregarded. In
support of this argument, Ford states that Plaintiffs alleged only one cause of action against
NGP—negligent repair—and the FAC, according to Ford, is insufficiently pled. NOR at ¶ 13.
This argument fails to satisfy the high evidentiary burden of showing fraudulent joinder.
See Rangel v. Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, 200 F. Supp. 3d 1024, 1031 (C.D. Cal. 2016)
(“The removing party . . . bears a heavy burden to rebut the presumption against removal.”).
Ford does not make any arguments as to Plaintiffs’ ability to amend the FAC to maintain this
causes of action against NGP, nor does Ford assert any legal bar to the claim. Thus, Ford has not
demonstrated that Plaintiffs fraudulently joined NGP for the sole purpose of destroying diversity,
and NGP’s citizenship will not be ignored for purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction.
Accordingly, NGP’s California citizenship defeats diversity jurisdiction.
C.

Fraudulent Misjoinder

Finally, Ford contends that Plaintiffs’ claims against Ford arise out of a distinct set of
facts from those giving rise to the negligence claim alleged against NGP such that fraudulent
misjoinder supports removal jurisdiction. While Ford is correct that the negligence-based cause
of action appears to be related to a handful of repairs, separate and apart from Ford’s alleged
warranty obligations, the FAC alleges against NGP the cause of action under the CLRA, which
relates to the purchase of the subject vehicle. To this point, Ford argues that “Plaintiff[s]
erroneously identif[y] NGP” in that cause of action because “none of [their] factual allegations
refer to NGP.” NOR at ¶ 4 n.1.
From the face of the FAC, it is not clear whether Plaintiffs intended to bring suit against
NGP only or Ford only in connection with the CLRA claim. The underlying allegations name
“Ford” not “SUNRISE FORD [NGP]” as the alleged wrongdoer, while the title of the cause of
action names both NGP and Ford. See FAC at 29. Further, Plaintiffs allege that they purchased
the subject vehicle at a Ford location separate and apart from Defendant Ford, called “Advantage
Ford Lincoln.” Id. at ¶ 71. Advantage Ford Lincoln is not a defendant in the action and does not
appear to be named anywhere else in the FAC, whereas Sunrise Ford—NGP—is allegedly a
Ford location separate and apart from Defendant Ford where Plaintiffs took the vehicle several
times for repairs. While it is not clear what typographical errors, if any, Plaintiffs’ counsel made
when drafting the FAC, it is possible (construing the issue in the light most favorable to
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

CV 18-1411-DMG (PLAx)

Title Haley O’Brian, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, et al.

JS-6 / REMAND

Date

February 27, 2018
Page

5 of 5

Plaintiffs) that Plaintiffs purchased the vehicle from NGP and intend to aim the CLRA claim
against that party.2 “Where doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be
remanded to state court.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th
Cir. 2003).
Because it is not clear that NGP was fraudulently misjoined, the Court will not ignore its
citizenship in determining federal jurisdiction.
II.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Court REMANDS this action to the Los Angeles County
Superior Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

CV-90

Even if this is not the case, Ford’s failure to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement mandates remand.
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT