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-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?