Ernestine Torres v. Ford Motor Company et al

Filing 31

ORDER by Judge Cormac J. Carney: granting #26 Plaintiff's MOTION to Remand Case. Case Remanded to Orange County Superior Court, 30-2018-00965488 CU-BC-CJC. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (twdb)

JS-6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SOUTHERN DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

)
) Case No.: SACV 18-00232-CJC(DFMx)
)
)
ERNESTINE TORRES,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
) MOTION TO REMAND
v.
)
)
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, FORD OF )
)
ORANGE, and DOES 1 through 10,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)

23
24

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

25
26

On January 8, 2018, Plaintiff Ernestine Torres filed this action in Orange County

27

Superior Court against Defendants Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) and Ford of Orange,

28

Ford’s authorized dealership. (Dkt. 1 Ex. B [Complaint, hereinafter “Compl.”].) Plaintiff
-1-

1

is a resident of California who leased a purportedly defective 2013 Ford Escape from

2

Defendant Ford of Orange in March 2013. (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 7.) Plaintiff alleges that

3

Defendants violated the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“California Lemon

4

Law”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1790 et seq., by selling a defective vehicle, failing to repair the

5

vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts, refusing to repurchase the vehicle

6

despite knowledge of its defects, breaching the express warranty, breaching the implied

7

warranty of merchantability, and engaging in fraud. (Id. ¶¶ 14–32.) Plaintiff brings all

8

six causes of action against Defendant Ford. Only the cause of action for breach of the

9

implied warranty of merchantability is also asserted against Defendant Ford of Orange.

10
11

Ford removed the case to this Court on February 8, 2018, invoking diversity

12

jurisdiction. (Dkt. 1 [Notice of Removal].) According to the Notice of Removal, Ford is

13

incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Michigan. (Id. at 5.)

14

Ford concedes that Ford of Orange is a citizen of California, but contends that its

15

citizenship should be ignored for purposes of diversity jurisdiction because Ford of

16

Orange was fraudulently joined. (Id. at 5–7.) On July 31, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion

17

to remand the action to Orange County Superior Court, arguing that Ford of Orange has

18

not been fraudulently joined and that diversity jurisdiction does not exist. (Dkt. 26-1

19

[hereinafter “Mot.”].) For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.1

20
21

II. DISCUSSION

22

A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to a federal district court

23
24

if the federal court may exercise original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C.

25

§ 1441(b). The defendant removing the action to federal court bears the burden of

26
27
28

1

Having read and considered the papers presented by the parties, the Court finds this matter appropriate
for disposition without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set
for September 10, 2018, at 1:30 p.m. is hereby vacated and off calendar.
-2-

1

establishing that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action, and the

2

removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980

3

F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt

4

as to the right of removal in the first instance.”). A federal court may assert diversity

5

jurisdiction over cases that are between diverse parties and involve an amount in

6

controversy that exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

7
8
9

Although diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship, there is
an exception to the diversity requirement “where a non-diverse defendant has been

10

fraudulently joined.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2009).

11

“Joinder is fraudulent ‘if the plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against a resident

12

defendant, and the failure is obvious according to the settled rules of the state.’” Id.

13

(quoting Hamilton Materials Inc. v. Dow Chem. Corp., 494 F.3d 1203, 1206 (9th Cir.

14

2007)). Conversely, “if there is any possibility that the state law might impose liability

15

on a resident defendant under the circumstances alleged in the complaint, the federal

16

court cannot find that joinder of the resident defendant was fraudulent, and remand is

17

necessary.” Id. at 1044.

18
19

Defendants have not carried their burden of showing that Plaintiff obviously fails

20

to state a cause of action against Ford of Orange. Plaintiff brings a cause of action

21

against Ford of Orange for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability in violation

22

of California Lemon Law, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1791.1(a), 1794(c). The implied warranty

23

of merchantability requires that the vehicle (1) will pass without objection in the trade

24

under the contract description, (2) is fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods

25

are used, (3) is adequately contained, packaged, and labeled, and (4) will conform to the

26

promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label. Cal. Civ. Code §

27

1791.1(a). In support of this cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that her 2013 Ford Escape

28

had defects in its cooling system, engine, seatbelt, door handles, and control module,
-3-

1

among other components. (Compl. ¶ 9.) Due to these defects, Plaintiff purportedly

2

returned the vehicle to the dealership on “numerous occasions,” yet Ford of Orange still

3

failed to adequately repair it. (Id. ¶ 10.) Because of the extensive, continued defects,

4

Plaintiff alleges that her vehicle was not fit for its ordinary purpose and failed to conform

5

to specifications. (Id. ¶ 31.)

6
7

Defendant has failed to show that there is no possibility that California Lemon Law

8

might impose liability on Ford of Orange given Plaintiff’s allegations. Where, as here,

9

the breach of warranty claims against the manufacturer and dealership arise from the

10

same vehicle and alleged defects, California district courts have held that the dealership is

11

“necessary for just adjudication” of the claims and thus was properly joined. Blowers v.

12

Ford Motor Co., 2018 WL 654415, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018); Sabag v. FCA US,

13

LLC, 2016 WL 6581154, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2016). Here, Ford of Orange leased

14

Plaintiff the vehicle and serviced it. (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 7, 10.) All of Plaintiff’s claims

15

involve the same vehicle, defects, and repair attempts, and resolution of those claims will

16

likely require many of the same documents and witnesses. See Sabaq, 2016 WL

17

6581154, at *6. There is no evidence that Plaintiff does not intend to prosecute the action

18

against Ford of Orange or that its inclusion in the action was otherwise fraudulent.

19
20

Defendants nevertheless argue that Plaintiff cannot prevail on the implied warranty

21

cause of action because the implied warranty “shall be coextensive in duration with [the]

22

express warranty” provided by Ford. (Dkt. 30 [Defendants’ Opposition, hereinafter

23

“Opp.”] at 11.) Thus, Defendants assert, this cause of action “provides no remedies in

24

addition to or different from those available against Ford.” (Id.) But the burden for

25

showing fraudulent joinder is not whether Plaintiff alleges causes of action with distinct

26

remedies. Rather, Defendants must show there is no “possibility that the state law might

27

impose liability on the resident defendant.” See Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1044. As noted,

28

Defendants have not met this burden. Defendants further argue that because Ford has
-4-

1

agreed to indemnify Ford of Orange for Plaintiff’s claim, the Court should drop Ford of

2

Orange from the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. (Opp. at 11.)

3

However, Defendants fail to cite any authority for the broad assertion that joinder of an

4

indemnitee is improper or renders an otherwise valid claim invalid simply because the

5

indemnitor is also a party to the action. See Sandhu v. Volvo Cars of N. Am., LLC, 2017

6

WL 403495, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2017) (holding that a claim for breach of the

7

implied warranty of merchantability is valid against the dealership even though the co-

8

defendant is the indemnitor). The Court declines to exercise its discretion under Rule 21

9

here.

10
11

In the alternative, Defendants request leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery to

12

show that diversity jurisdiction exists. (Mot. at 15–16.) Limited discovery of factual

13

matters may be allowed if it can help resolve issues of fact presented on a motion to

14

dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. See Hayashi v. Red Wing Peat Corp., 396 F.2d 13, 14

15

(9th Cir. 1968). However, a district court need not allow discovery “based on little more

16

than a hunch that it might yield jurisdictionally relevant facts.” Boschetto v. Hansing,

17

539 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008). Defendants have failed to specify how their

18

“targeted interrogatories and/or requests for admission,” (Mot. at 16), will render Ford of

19

Orange immune from any liability, as necessary to overcome the diversity requirement

20

here. Without fraudulent joinder or complete diversity, diversity jurisdiction does not

21

exist. The Court declines to grant jurisdictional discovery on these grounds.

22
23

In light of the presumption against removal jurisdiction, see Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566,

24

Defendants have failed to show that joinder of Ford of Orange was fraudulent. Because

25

the fraudulent joinder exception to the diversity requirement does not apply, the parties in

26
27
28
-5-

1

this action are not completely diverse and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.2

2

The action was improperly removed, and must be remanded to the Orange County

3

Superior Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears

4

that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”)

5
6

III. CONCLUSION

7

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED.

8
9
10
11

DATED:

12

August 30, 2018
__________________________________

13

CORMAC J. CARNEY

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Since Plaintiff and Defendant Ford of Orange are not diverse parties, the Court need not address
whether the Defendants have shown the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction is
met.
-6-