Cristina Vaca v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 16, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-03895
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-03895-RSWL-RAO Document 23 Filed 03/16/23 Page1of15 Page ID #:249

1 0! JS-6 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 | CRISTINA VACA, CV 22-03895-RSWL-RAOx 1 plaintice, | ORDER re: MOTTON FOR LEAVE 14 vy. COMPLAINT AND TO REMAND ACTION TO STATE COURT [14] bs COSTCO WHOLESALE 16 | CORPORATION, 17 Defendant. 18 19 Plaintiff Cristina Vaca (“Plaintiff”) brought the 20 | instant Action against Defendant Costco Wholesale 21] Corporation (“Defendant”) alleging negligence and 22 | premises liability. Currently before the Court is 23 | Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to file a First Amended 24 | Complaint and to Remand Action to State Court. 25 Having reviewed all papers submitted pertaining to 26 | this Motion, the Court NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS: 27 | the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion and REMANDS this 28

Case 2:22-cv-03895-RSWL-RAO Document 23 Filed 03/16/23 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:250

1 Action to state court.1 The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to

2 file her First Amended Complaint with the Court by

3 March 31, 2023, at which time the Court will remand this 4 Action. 5 I. BACKGROUND 6 A. Factual & Procedural Background 7 Plaintiff claims that she slipped and fell while at 8 Costco Alhambra (Store #1626) (“Costco Location”) on 9 April 2, 2022, causing her to fracture her wrist. 10 Def.’s Notice of Removal, Ex. A (“Compl.”), ECF. No. 1. 11 Defendant owns and operates that Costco Location. Id. 12 Plaintiff contends that Defendant maintained the Costco 13 Location in a negligent and reckless manner, which 14 facilitated the dangerous condition that caused and/or 15 contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. Id. 16

17 1 Local Rule 7-3 provides that “counsel contemplating the filing of any motion shall first contact opposing counsel to 18 discuss thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the 19 contemplated motion and any potential resolution. The conference shall take place at least seven (7) days prior to the filing of 20 the motion.” L.R. 7-3. “Failure to comply with the Local Rules does not automatically require the denial of a party’s motion, 21 however, particularly where the non-moving party has suffered no apparent prejudice as a result of the failure to comply.” CarMax 22 Auto Superstores Cal. LLC v. Hernandez, 94 F. Supp. 3d 1078, 1088 (C.D. Cal. 2015). Here, the parties are in violation of Local 23 Rule 7-3 because there is no indication the parties met and 24 conferred. Nevertheless, Defendant does not seem to have been prejudiced by the violation because it was able to fully respond 25 to Plaintiff’s Motion. See generally Def.’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to Amend and to Remand (“Opp’n”), ECF No. 18. Thus, 26 the Court should exercise its discretion to consider the Motion’s merits. See CarMax Auto Superstores Cal. LLC, 94 F. Supp. 3d at 27 1088 (electing to consider a motion’s merits despite a violation 28 of Local Rule 7-3). 2 Case 2:22-cv-03895-RSWL-RAO Document 23 Filed 03/16/23 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:251

1 Plaintiff seeks $100,000.00 in general damages,

2 $33,893.00 in hospital expenses and bills, and

3 $32,400.00 in wage/income loss. Id. In response to her 4 discovery requests, Plaintiff received footage of the 5 incident which showed that Plaintiff fell near a kiosk 6 that she believes Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc. 7 (“Membership”) provided. Pl.’s Mot. to Am. and Remand 8 (“Mot.”) at 12-14, ECF No. 14. Now, Plaintiff seeks to 9 amend her Complaint to include Membership as a 10 defendant. Importantly, Plaintiff is a citizen of 11 California, Defendant is a Washington corporation, and 12 Membership is a California corporation. See generally 13 Mot.; Def.’s Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. Therefore, 14 amending the Complaint to include Membership as a 15 Defendant would destroy diversity. Accordingly, 16 Plaintiff also requests the Court remand this Action to 17 state court if Plaintiff is permitted to amend her 18 Complaint. See generally Mot. 19 Defendant filed its Notice of Removal [1] on 20 June 7, 2022. Defendant then filed its Answer [11] to 21 Plaintiff’s Complaint on September 30, 2022. On 22 December 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to 23 Amend and Motion to Remand [14]. Defendant then filed 24 its Opposition [18] on December 23, 2022. 25 II. DISCUSSION 26 A. Legal Standard 27 Generally, motions to amend a complaint to add new 28 parties are governed by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of 3 Case 2:22-cv-03895-RSWL-RAO Document 23 Filed 03/16/23 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:252

1 Civil Procedure. Rule 15 mandates that leave to amend

2 be freely granted whenever justice requires.

3 Rule 15, however, “does not apply when a plaintiff 4 amends her complaint after removal to add a diversity 5 destroying defendant.” Greer v. Lockheed Martin, No. CV 6 10-1704 JF (HRL), 2010 WL 3168408, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7 10, 2010) (quoting Chan v. Bucephalus Alternative Energy 8 Group, LLC, No. C 08-04537, 2009 WL 1108744, at *3 (N.D. 9 Cal. Apr. 24, 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 10 This type of amendment is instead analyzed under 11 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), which states that, “if after 12 removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional 13 defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter 14 jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or permit 15 joinder and remand the action to the State court.” 16 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e). “The language of § 1447(e) is 17 couched in permissive terms and it clearly gives the 18 district court the discretion to deny joinder.” 19 Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686, 691 (9th Cir. 20 1998). 21 B. Analysis 22 Plaintiff seeks to amend her Complaint and to have 23 her Action remanded to state court. See generally Mot. 24 Plaintiff argues that Membership is an indispensable 25 party and that she needs to amend her Complaint to join 26 it as a defendant because Membership provided a kiosk 27 that a majority of the subject incident revolves around. 28 Id. Defendant counters that Membership has no duty to 4 Case 2:22-cv-03895-RSWL-RAO Document 23 Filed 03/16/23 Page 5 of 15 Page ID #:253

1 keep the premises safe and that Plaintiff is merely

2 attempting to defeat diversity jurisdiction by trying to

3 add in Membership. See generally Opp’n. For the 4 reasons set forth, the Court agrees with Plaintiff and 5 therefore GRANTS the Motion. 6 District courts have considered the following 7 factors when determining whether joinder should be 8 permitted under Section 1447(e): (1) whether the party 9 sought to be joined is needed for adjudication and would 10 be joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 11 19(a); (2) whether the statute of limitations would 12 prevent the filing of a new action against the new 13 defendant should the court deny joinder; (3) whether 14 there has been unexplained delay in seeking the joinder; 15 (4) whether the joinder is solely for the purpose of 16 defeating federal jurisdiction; (5) whether the claim 17 against the new party seems valid; and (6) the possible 18 prejudice that may result to any of the parties in the 19 litigation. Murphy v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 74 F. 20 Supp. 3d 1267, 1278 (C.D. Cal. 2015). The Court 21 addresses each of these factors in turn. 22 1. Just Adjudication 23 Rule 19(a) provides that joinder is required if, in 24 the absence of the necessary party, “the court cannot 25 accord complete relief among existing parties.” Id. 26 at 1282. Although courts tend to consider the Rule 19 27 standard for a necessary party, the standard for 28 amendment under § 1447(e) is less restrictive than for 5 Case 2:22-cv-03895-RSWL-RAO Document 23 Filed 03/16/23 Page 6 of 15 Page ID #:254

1 joinder under Rule 19. Walsh v. Home Depot U.S.A.,

2 Inc., No. C-06-4207 SC, 2006 WL 2884411, at *3 (N.D.

3 Cal. Oct. 10, 2006). 4 Specifically, the standard is met when failure to 5 join will lead to separate and redundant actions, while 6 it is not met when the non-diverse defendants are only 7 tangentially related to an action, or their absence 8 would not prevent complete relief. IBC Aviation Servs., 9 Inc. v. Compania mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V., 125 10 F. Supp. 2d 1008, 1012 (N.D. Cal. 2000); see also 11 Forward-Rossi v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 12 No. 216CV00949CASKSX, 2016 WL 3396925, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 13 June 13, 2016) (holding that a proposed defendant is 14 more than just tangentially related to the action 15 because all of the claims asserted against the defendant 16 and the proposed defendant arise from the same 17 transactions, and the resolution of these claims will 18 likely require the same documents, witnesses, and legal 19 and factual questions). Further, under § 1447(e), a 20 court has discretion to deny joinder of a party “whose 21 identity was ascertainable and thus could have been 22 named in the first complaint.” Boon v. Allstate Ins. 23 Co., 229 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1023 (C.D. Cal.2002). 24 Here, Plaintiff argues that the video provided to 25 her during discovery “clearly showed the majority of the 26 subject incident revolved around a kiosk likely provided 27 by [Membership].” Mot. at 4:15-16. Plaintiff therefore 28 argues that if this Motion were denied, Plaintiff would 6 Case 2:22-cv-03895-RSWL-RAO Document 23 Filed 03/16/23 Page 7 of 15 Page ID #:255

1 have to litigate the same claims against Defendant and

2 Membership in two forums, thereby creating separate,

3 redundant actions. Id. at 4:23-27. The Court first 4 notes that it is possible Plaintiff may not be able to 5 bring a separate claim against Membership in another 6 forum because the statute of limitations on Plaintiff’s 7 potential claim has run. See Cal Code Civ. Proc. 8 § 335.1 (establishing that the statute of limitations 9 for injury claims is two years); Compl. at 5 (explaining 10 that Plaintiff was injured on April 1, 2020). 11 Regardless of whether the statute of limitations has 12 run, the claims against Defendant and Membership arise 13 from the same incident: Plaintiff’s slip and fall at the 14 Costco Location. Moreover, if Plaintiff were able to 15 bring claims against Membership, those claims and the 16 claims in this Action would likely require the same 17 documents, witnesses, and legal and factual questions. 18 Therefore, the Court finds that it cannot be said that 19 Membership is only “tangentially related” to the 20 existing claims against Defendant; rather, Membership is 21 directly related to these claims for relief. 22 Thus, this factor weighs in favor of granting 23 plaintiff leave to amend her complaint. 24 2. Statute of Limitations 25 In determining whether an amendment that destroys 26 complete diversity should be allowed, courts must 27 consider “whether the statute of limitations would 28 prevent the filing of a new action against the new 7 Case 2:22-cv-03895-RSWL-RAO Document 23 Filed 03/16/23 Page 8 of 15 Page ID #:256

1 defendant should the court deny joinder.” Clinco v.

2 Roberts, 41 F. Supp. 2d 1080 (C.D. Cal. 1999). Even if

3 the statute of limitations has run, however, a plaintiff 4 may amend its complaint to substitute named defendants 5 for Doe Defendants under California Code of Civil 6 Procedure § 474 “[w]hen the plaintiff is ignorant of the 7 name of a defendant” at the time the complaint is filed. 8 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 474; see also Lacombe v. Costco 9 Wholesale Corp., No. EDCV 20-2486 JGB (SHK), 2021 WL 10 3208031, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 29, 2021). 11 The statute of limitations for a personal injury 12 action is two years. See Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 13 (providing a two-year statute of limitations for claims 14 involving “injury to . . . an individual caused by the 15 wrongful act or neglect of another.”). The subject 16 incident occurred on April 2, 2020, meaning that the 17 statute of limitations ran April 2, 2022. 18 However, Plaintiff included Doe Defendants in her 19 Complaint because she was allegedly ignorant of the true 20 names of all necessary parties at the time the action 21 was filed. Mot. at 6:13. Plaintiff is now attempting 22 to amend her Complaint to substitute Membership in place 23 of Doe Defendants for claims that arose out of the same 24 incident that served as the basis for her original 25 claims. See generally Mot. Thus, Plaintiff would be 26 able to add Membership to her Complaint in state court 27 under § 474. 28 Accordingly, this factor weighs against allowing 8 Case 2:22-cv-03895-RSWL-RAO Document 23 Filed 03/16/23 Page 9 of 15 Page ID #:257

1 Plaintiff to amend her Complaint. See Lacombe, 2021 WL

2 3208031 at *2 (holding that since the plaintiff would

3 not be time-barred from filing a new claim in state 4 court under § 474, this factor weighed against 5 amendment). 6 3. Timeliness of Motion 7 Courts consider delay in determining whether to 8 allow amendment to add a non-diverse party. Dorfman v. 9 Massachusetts Cas. Ins. Co., No. CV 15-06370 MMM (ASx), 10 2015 WL 7312413, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2015). If 11 parties have yet to file dispositive motions, courts 12 have held that amending complaints is not unreasonable 13 even if done several months after filing the initial 14 complaint. Sabag v. FCA US, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-06639- 15 CAS(RAOx), 2016 WL 6581154, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 16 2016); see also Lara v. Bandit Indus., Inc., No. 2:12- 17 cv-02459-MCE-AC, 2013 WL 1155523, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 18 March 19, 2013) (holding that filing five months after 19 the initial complaint and three months after removal was 20 not untimely when the parties had not filed dispositive 21 motions). 22 Plaintiff allegedly sent Defendant’s counsel a 23 packet of discovery on June 1, 2022, but did not receive 24 responses until September 13, 2022, about a month after 25 Plaintiff followed up by serving a Request for 26 Production of Documents to obtain footage of the 27 incident. Mot. at 3:21-23, 4:13-15. Plaintiff states 28 that she therefore only recently identified Membership 9 Case 2:22-cv-03895-RSWL-RAO Document 23 Filed 03/16/23 Page 10 of 15 Page ID #:258

1 as a potential defendant to the Action. Id. at 7:10-12.

2 Moreover, Plaintiff informed Defendant the day after

3 Plaintiff received footage of the incident that she 4 would be filing a Motion to Amend and Remand. Id. 5 at 21-24. 6 Although it took approximately six months from the 7 date of removal for Plaintiff to file this Motion, this 8 delay is not unreasonable considering Plaintiff only 9 recently learned of Membership’s potential liability and 10 acted shortly thereafter. See Sagrero v. Bergen 11 Shippers Corp., No. 2:22-CV-04535-SPG-RAO, 2022 WL 12 4397527, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2022) (holding a 13 plaintiff’s explanation for her delay was “sufficiently 14 persuasive” because she alleged she “just recently found 15 out the correct names” of the defendants and that she 16 could not discover them sooner because [Third Party] had 17 provided incorrect contact information for Defendant’s 18 human resource department). 19 Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of allowing 20 Plaintiff to amend its Complaint and remand the Action. 21 4. Plaintiff’s Motive for Joinder 22 A court should look with particular care at a 23 plaintiff’s motive for joinder when the presence of a 24 new defendant will defeat the court’s diversity 25 jurisdiction and will require a remand to the state 26 court. Desert Empire Bank v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 27 623 F.2d 1371, 1376 (9th Cir. 1980). In instances like 28 these, there is a general presumption against fraudulent 10 Case 2:22-cv-03895-RSWL-RAO Document 23 Filed 03/16/23 Page 11 of 15 Page ID #:259

1 joinder of a sham defendant, but it will be found if the

2 plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against a

3 resident defendant, and the failure is obvious according 4 to the settled rules of the state. Hamilton Materials, 5 Inc. v. Dow Chem. Corp., 494 F.3d 1203, 1206 (9th Cir. 6 2007) (quotation omitted). 7 The removing party “carries the heavy burden of 8 establishing the absence of any possibility of 9 recovery,” and must prove there is “no possibility that 10 the plaintiff could prevail on any cause of action it 11 asserted against the non-diverse defendant.” Gonzalez 12 v. J.S. Paluch Co., No. 12-08696-DDP (FMOx), 2013 WL 13 100210, at *4 (C.D. Cal. 2013); see also Lighting Sci. 14 Grp. Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V., 624 F. 15 Supp. 2d 1174, 1179 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (“The claim of 16 fraudulent joinder must be supported by clear and 17 convincing evidence, with all ambiguities resolved in 18 favor of the non-removing party.”). Accordingly, if 19 there is a “glimmer of hope” that a plaintiff can 20 sustain a claim, that is enough to prevent application 21 of the fraudulent joinder doctrine. Id. 22 Plaintiff argues its motive for joinder was 23 evidenced before the case was removed as Plaintiff 24 stated causes of action against Doe Defendants and would 25 have substituted Membership in for the Doe Defendants 26 even if the case were still in state court. Mot. at 27 7:19-27. Defendant counters that Plaintiff seeks to 28 fraudulently join Membership as a sham defendant to 11 Case 2:22-cv-03895-RSWL-RAO Document 23 Filed 03/16/23 Page 12 of 15 Page ID #:260

1 defeat diversity jurisdiction, as Membership has no real

2 connection to the subject incident that gave rise to

3 Plaintiff’s claims. Opp’n at 5-7. Defendant also 4 contends that Plaintiff does not have a viable claim 5 against Membership because Membership was not 6 responsible for maintaining the premises surrounding its 7 kiosk. Id. at 7:14-15. 8 Defendant has not met its heavy burden to establish 9 there is no possibility Plaintiff can succeed in her 10 claims against Membership. See Lighting Sci. Grp. 11 Corp., 624 F. Supp. 2d at 1179. Plaintiff alleged a 12 substantial portion of the incident revolved around a 13 kiosk likely provided by Membership, and Defendant has 14 not established definitively that this is either not 15 true or that Membership cannot be liable in any way. 16 Mot. at 4:13-15, 8:1-3; see generally Opp’n. Defendant 17 claims Membership is not liable because it bore no 18 responsibility for maintaining the premises. Opp’n at 19 7:12-18. But at this point, it is unclear exactly what 20 Plaintiff slipped on. See generally Compl. Indeed, it 21 is possible that Membership’s kiosk could have played a 22 role in the slip. And the Court construes such 23 ambiguities in favor of Plaintiff, the non-removing 24 party. See Lighting Sci. Grp. Corp., 624 F. Supp. 2d 25 at 1179. 26 Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of allowing 27 Plaintiff to amend its Complaint and remand the Action. 28 /// 12 Case 2:22-cv-03895-RSWL-RAO Document 23 Filed 03/16/23 Page 13 of 15 Page ID #:261

1 5. Valid Claim

2 A facially valid claim need only “seem valid” under

3 section 1447(e), which is a lower standard than what is 4 required to survive a motion to dismiss or motion for 5 summary judgment. Prudenciano Flores v. Nissan N. Am., 6 Inc., No. CV 21-09411-RSWL-PDx, 2022 WL 1469424, at *4 7 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 2022). Further, “the claim need not 8 be plausible nor stated with particularity” for purposes 9 of joinder under § 1447. See Found. Bldg. Materials, 10 LLC v. Action Gypsum Supply, No. SACV 21-01804- 11 CJC(KESx), 2022 WL 705337, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 12 2022). 13 Plaintiff alleges that there is “no doubt” that 14 Plaintiff may have valid claims against Membership, due 15 to a substantial portion of the incident revolving 16 around a kiosk likely provided by Membership. Mot. 17 at 4:13-15, 8:1-3. Defendant counters that there is no 18 valid claim against Membership, as Membership is not 19 responsible for maintaining a safe environment at the 20 Costco Location, and thus, cannot be at fault for the 21 alleged negligence or recklessness that led to 22 Plaintiff’s claim. Opp’n at 7:12-18. 23 Plaintiff has met the low threshold for stating a 24 facially valid claim. Plaintiff has shown that it is 25 possible she may sustain a claim against Membership 26 because the footage of the incident “clearly” showed the 27 majority of the incident revolved around the kiosk that 28 was likely provided by Membership. 13 Case 2:22-cv-03895-RSWL-RAO Document 23 Filed 03/16/23 Page 14 of 15 Page ID #:262

1 Therefore, this factor tends to weigh in favor of

2 allowing Plaintiff to amend its Complaint and remand the

3 Action. 4 6. Prejudice to Parties in Litigation 5 In determining whether a plaintiff would suffer 6 prejudice if the court were to deny leave to amend, 7 courts have considered whether denial would lead the 8 plaintiff to forgo claims against the non-diverse 9 defendants. Murphy v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 74 F. 10 Supp. 3d 1267, 1286 (C.D. Cal. 2015). Further, where 11 claims against parties sought to be joined in an action 12 “arise out of the same factual circumstances,” it is to 13 the economic benefit of all parties and the judicial 14 system to “have the entire controversy adjudicated only 15 once,” and to force the plaintiff to “proceed with 16 expensive litigation in state court” to avoid prejudice. 17 Avellanet v. FCA US LLC, No. CV 19-7621-JFW(KSX), 18 2019 WL 5448199, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2019). 19 Plaintiff alleges she would be greatly prejudiced 20 if this Motion were denied. Mot. at 8:6-7. Plaintiff 21 claims that if she cannot join Membership, then she 22 would be forced to pursue redundant litigation arising 23 out of the same facts and legal issues, or in the 24 alternative, forgo pursuing any potential claims at all 25 against Membership. Id. at 8-12. 26 As Plaintiff’s claims against Membership arise from 27 the same incident for which Plaintiff asserts claims 28 against Defendant, the Court agrees that Plaintiff would 14 Case 2:22-cv-03895-RSWL-RAO Document 23 Filed 03/16/23 Page 15 of 15 Page ID #:263

1 be forced to pursue essentially the same claims in two

2 forums if this Motion were denied. Therefore, it would

3 be beneficial to have these claims adjudicated all at 4 once in state court. 5 Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of 6 allowing Plaintiff to amend her Complaint and remand the 7 Action. 8 Since five of the six factors weigh toward allowing 9 Plaintiff to amend her Complaint to substitute in 10 Membership as a Defendant, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 11 Motion to Amend. Consequently, diversity is destroyed, 12 and the Court should REMAND this Action to state court. 13 The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file her First Amended 14 Complaint with the Court by March 31, 2023, at which 15 time the Court will remand this Action. 16 III. CONCLUSION 17 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS 18 Plaintiff’s Motion and REMANDS this Action to state 19 court. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file her First 20 Amended Complaint with the Court by March 31, 2023, at 21 which time the Court will remand this Action. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 DATED: March 16, 2023 ________/S_/ _R_O_N_AL_D_ S_._W_. _LE_W_________ HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW 26 Senior U.S. District Judge 27 28 15