Caroline Lautner v. Ford Motor Company et al

Filing 11

MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge John F. Walter: For all of the foregoing reasons, this action is hereby remanded to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC626216. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No.

CV 18-1616-JFW (JPRx)

Title:

Caroline Lautner -v- Ford Motor Co., et al.

Date: March 5, 2018

PRESENT:
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Shannon Reilly
Courtroom Deputy

None Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
None
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES
SUPERIOR COURT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

On February 28, 2018, Ford Motor Company (“Defendant”) filed a Notice of Removal.
Defendant is attempting to remove an action commenced by Plaintiff Caroline Lautner (“Plaintiff”)
in Los Angeles Superior Court on July 7, 2016. Defendant asserts that this Court has subject
matter jurisdiction on the basis of a pending bankruptcy proceeding in the District of Delaware. See
28 U.S.C. § 1452(a).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over
matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction exists. Gaus v.
Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). In seeking removal, a defendant bears the burden
of proving that jurisdiction exists. Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986).
28 U.S.C. Section 1452(a) allows a party to “remove any claim or cause of action in a civil
action to the district court for the district where such action is pending” if the district court has
jurisdiction of the claim or cause of action under 28 U.S.C. Section 1334. Section 1334(b) vests
district courts with “original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under title
11 or arising in or related to cases under title 11.” Once a claim is removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1452(a), the court to which the claim has been removed “may remand such claim or cause
of action on any equitable ground.” 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b). An order remanding an action pursuant
to Section 1452(b) “is not reviewable by appeal or otherwise by the court of appeals under section
Page 1 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

158(d), 1291, or 1292 [of Title 28] of by the Supreme Court.” Id. Section 1452(b)’s “‘any equitable
ground’ remand standard is an unusually broad grant of authority. It subsumes and reaches
beyond all of the reasons for remand under nonbankruptcy removal statutes . . . . At bottom, the
question is committed to the sound discretion of the . . . judge.” McCarthy v. Prince, 230 B.R. 414,
417 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1999) (internal citation omitted).
In assessing whether “equitable grounds” exist to remand actions removed under Section
1452, courts have looked to a number of factors:
These factors have included, among other things, judicial economy,
comity and respect for state law decision-making capabilities, the
impact that remand would have upon the orderly administration of the
debtor’s bankruptcy case, the effect of bifurcating claims and parties to
an action and the possibilities of inconsistent results, the predominance
of state law issues and nondebtor parties, and the extent of any
prejudice to nondebtor parties.
In re TIG Ins. Co., 264 B.R. 661, 665–66 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 2001) (citing W. Helicopters, Inc. v.
Hiller Aviation, Inc., 97 B.R. 1, 2 (E.D. Cal. 1988)). “Because Section 1452(b) affords ‘an unusually
broad grant of authority,’ any one of the relevant factors may provide a sufficient basis for equitable
remand.” Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 447 B.R. 302, 310 (C.D. Cal.
2010) (quoting In re Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego, 374 B.R. 756, 761 (Bankr. S.D. Cal.
2007)).
In this case, Defendant claims that the Court has jurisdiction under Section 1452 because
Defendant is entitled to indemnity from TK Holdings, Inc., which has commenced Chapter 11
bankruptcy proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.
However, even if the Court may have jurisdiction over the action, the Court concludes that
equitable grounds support remand.
Plaintiff, a local California resident, brought suit against Defendant relating to allegedly
defective airbags installed in a car that she purchased. Plaintiff does not assert any claims against
Takata, the airbag manufacturer. Plaintiff commenced her state court action and served
Defendant well before Defendant asserted its claims against TK Holdings, a Takata entity, and
before TK Holdings filed for bankruptcy. See Notice of Removal. Plaintiff asserts only California
state law claims against Defendant, and Defendant's claims against TK Holdings also are based in
state law. See Estate of Scott v. Cervantes, 2008 WL 11337657, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 29, 2008)
(“Where issues of state law predominate, comity . . . favors remand.”); see also McCarthy, 230
B.R. at 418 (“State courts are, by definition, fully competent to resolve disputes governed by state
law.”). Additionally, Defendant's claims against TK Holdings could have been brought
independently of Plaintiff’s action. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that it would
be inequitable to require Plaintiff to litigate her case in federal court.
For all of the foregoing reasons, this action is hereby remanded to the Los Angeles County
Superior Court, Case No. BC626216.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Page 2 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr