Takiya Benjamin Johnson v. Nissan North America Inc. et al

Filing 8

ORDER REMANDING Case by Judge Dale S. Fischer. The Court finds that Lithia Nissan was not fraudulently joined and that there is not complete diversity. The case is therefore REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. (Case Terminated. Made JS-6.) (jp)

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAKIYA BENJAMIN-JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

2:24-cv-02338-DSF-AJRx
Order REMANDING Case

v.
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) removed this
case based on diversity jurisdiction. However, Plaintiff and Defendant
Lithia Nissan of Downtown Los Angeles are not diverse. Nissan
nonetheless argues that removal is proper because Lithia Nissan was
fraudulently joined.
The Court disagrees. A defendant who is a resident of the forum
state is fraudulently joined “‘if the plaintiff fails to state a cause of
action against [the] resident defendant, and the failure is obvious
according to the settled rules of the state.’” Morris v. Princess Cruises,
Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting McCabe v. Gen.
Foods Corp., 811 F.2d 1336, 1339 (9th Cir. 1987)). “[T]he test for
fraudulent joinder and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)
are not equivalent.” Grancare, LLC v. Thrower, 889 F.3d 543, 549 (9th
Cir. 2018). In evaluating a claim of fraudulent joinder, “a federal court
must find that a defendant was properly joined and remand the case to
state court if there is a ‘possibility that a state court would find that the
complaint states a cause of action against any of the [non-diverse]
defendants.’” Id. (quoting Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039,

1044 (9th Cir. 2009)) (emphasis in original). In this inquiry, “the
district court must consider . . . whether a deficiency in the complaint
can possibly be cured by granting the plaintiff leave to amend.” Id. at
550.
This case generally involves an allegedly defective Nissan
automobile. In addition to various claims against Nissan itself,
Plaintiff brought a claim against Lithia Nissan for negligent repair.
While the allegations against Lithia Nissan are not very detailed, there
is certainly a possibility that the state court would find that the
complaint states a cause of action, and there is no reason to think that
any deficiencies that might exist could not be cured by amendment. In
fact, Lithia Nissan – represented by the same lawyers as Nissan –
answered the complaint and there is no indication that any demurrer
was filed. 1 Nissan also suggests that pretrial documents show that
Plaintiff has abandoned her claim against Lithia Nissan, but Nissan
does not indicate that Lithia Nissan has been formally dismissed.
The Court finds that Lithia Nissan was not fraudulently joined
and that there is not complete diversity. The case is therefore
REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: March 27, 2024

___________________________
Dale
S. Fischer
D l S
Fi h
United States District Judge

There is a separate issue of timeliness that the Court need not reach. The
Court will note, however, that the grounds for Nissan’s fraudulent joinder
argument presumably would have been apparent long before the case was
removed (1) one day short of the one-year limit set out in 28 U.S.C. §
1446(c)(1) and (2) close enough to trial that final pretrial documents have
already been filed.
1

2