Lauren Nicole Waite v. Walmart, Inc. et al

Opinion

O 1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California

11 LAUREN NICOLE WAITE, Case № 2:26-cv-01460-ODW (CFEx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 13 v. MOTION TO REMAND [11] 14 WALMART, INC. et al

15 Defendants.

16 18 Plaintiff Lauren Nicole Waite filed this premises liability and general 19 negligence action in state court against Defendants Walmart, Inc. and Mariana 20 Martinez. (Notice Removal (“NOR”) Ex. A (“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 1.) Walmart 21 removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (NOR 3, Dkt. 22 No. 1.) Waite now moves to remand. (Mot. Remand (“Motion” or “Mot.”), Dkt. 23 No. 11.) For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion and REMANDS 24 this action to state court.1 25 26 27

28 1 After considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. 2 Walmart is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 3 Arkansas. (NOR 2.) Waite, a Nevada citizen, alleges she slipped and fell on a 4 shattered spaghetti sauce jar that dropped through an opening in her shopping cart at a 5 Walmart store managed by Martinez, a California citizen. (Compl. ¶¶ 1–4, 8, 17.) 6 On August 16, 2025, Waite initiated this negligence and premises liability 7 action in state court against Walmart and Martinez. (Id. ¶¶ 16–30.) On February 11, 8 2026, Walmart removed this action to this Court, invoking the Court’s diversity 9 jurisdiction and arguing Martinez is a fraudulently joined defendant whose citizenship 10 the Court should not consider in determining whether removal based on diversity was 11 proper. (NOR 3.) Waite now moves to remand this case, arguing Martinez was not 12 fraudulently joined and her presence as a California citizen bars removal under the 13 forum defendant rule. (Mot. 5–6.) The Motion is fully briefed.2 (Opp’n, Dkt. 14 No. 12.) 16 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that 17 jurisdiction as authorized by the Constitution and federal statute. U.S. Const. art. III, 18 § 2, cl. 1; Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 19 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a party may remove a civil action brought in a state court 20 to a district court only if the plaintiff could have originally filed the action in federal 21 court. Federal district courts have original jurisdiction where an action arises under 22 federal law, or where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s 23 citizenship (i.e., diversity is “complete”), and the amount in controversy exceeds 24 $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). 25 26

2 Waite filed her reply brief on March 31, 2026—thirteen days before the April 13, 2026 hearing 27 date on the Motion—making it untimely filed. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-10 (requiring the moving party 28 serve and file its optional reply brief not later than fourteen days before the designated hearing date). Thus, the Court does not consider Waite’s reply brief in reaching its decision. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12. 1 There is a strong presumption that a court is without jurisdiction until 2 affirmatively proven otherwise. Fifty Assocs. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 446 F.2d 3 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1970); see Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) 4 (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal 5 in the first instance.”). When a case is removed from state court, the removing party 6 bears the burden of demonstrating that removal is proper. Corral v. Select Portfolio 7 Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2017). Removal is strictly construed, and 8 any doubt as to removal is to be resolved in favor of remand. Id. at 773–74. 10 Waite moves to remand on the basis that Walmart improperly removed this 11 action under the forum defendant rule because it did not establish Martinez was 12 fraudulently joined. (Mot. 5.) Under the forum defendant rule, removals on the sole 13 basis of diversity jurisdiction are prohibited “if any of the parties in interest properly 14 joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is 15 brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). Defendant Martinez is a California citizen. 16 (Compl. ¶ 3.) Thus, unless Walmart can prove Martinez is fraudulently joined, her 17 California citizenship bars removal pursuant to the forum defendant rule. 18 A fraudulently joined defendant is one against whom the plaintiff “fails to state 19 a cause of action . . . and the failure is obvious according to the settled rules of the 20 state.” Hamilton Materials, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Corp., 494 F.3d 1203, 1206 (9th Cir. 21 2007). There is a general presumption against fraudulent joinder. Id. It is not enough 22 to show that a plaintiff is unlikely to prevail on her claim; the defendant must show, 23 by clear and convincing evidence, that there is no “possibility that a state court would 24 find that the complaint states a cause of action against any of the resident defendants.” 25 Grancare, LLC v. Thrower by & through Mills, 889 F.3d 543, 548 (9th Cir. 2018); see 26 Padilla v. AT&T Corp., 697 F. Supp. 2d 1156, 1158 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (“[A] 27 non-diverse defendant is deemed a sham defendant if . . . the plaintiff could not 28 possibly recover against the party whose joinder is questioned.”). 1 Here, Waite alleges premises liability and negligence claims against Martinez, 2 an agent of Walmart. (Compl. ¶¶ 16–30.) California state law permits tort actions 3 against agents through section 2343 of the California Civil Code. Celestino v. 4 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 22-CV-04723-JST, 2023 WL 3607285, at *2 5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2023). California courts allow recovery against an agent because 6 “[a]n agent or employee is always liable for his own torts, whether his employer is 7 liable or not.” Fleet v. Bank of Am. N.A., 229 Cal. App. 4th 1403, 1411 (2014); see 8 also Revay v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-03391-RSWL (ASx), 2015 WL 9 1285287, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2015) (“[A] corporate store manager is [not] 10 immune from liability merely because the corporation may be held vicariously liable 11 for the manager’s negligence.”). Thus, Waite’s claims against Martinez as a Walmart 12 store manager are viable on their face because tort claims may be brought against a 13 store manager under settled California law. Celestino, 2023 WL 3607285, at *2. 14 Having found that Waite’s claims against Martinez are viable, the Court further 15 finds that Walmart has not demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that there 16 is no possibility Waite could recover against Martinez. The case Gallegos v. Costco 17 Wholesale Corp. is instructive. No. 2:20-cv-3250-DMG (GJSx), 2020 WL 2945514, 18 at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2020). There, the court found insufficient evidence of 19 fraudulent joinder when the defendant merely argued that “boilerplate allegation[s] 20 against ‘Defendants’ generally” should be considered evidence of a failure to state a 21 claim against the individual manager defendant. Id. Here, like the defendant in 22 Gallegos, Walmart provides no evidence that recovery against Martinez is impossible. 23 (See generally Opp’n.) Indeed, Walmart submits no evidence at all in support of its 24 opposition brief. 25 Instead, Walmart argues that Waite’s reliance on “duplicative” and 26 “undifferentiated allegations asserted collectively against all defendants” constitutes a 27 failure to bring a viable cause of action against Martinez. (Id. at 2, 5.) This argument 28 fails for two reasons. First, as in Gallegos, Walmart does not discount the possibility 1 that “[its] conduct is intertwined” with Martinez, such that any undifferentiated 2 allegations would be proper and substantiated. 2020 WL 2945514, at *3. Second, 3 even if Waite’s claims are deficient, that deficiency does not amount to evidence the 4 claims themselves are not viable under California law, especially considering that 5 “[n]othing precludes [Waite] from amending [her] Complaint to cure any pleading 6 deficiencies.” Id. at *4. Thus, Walmart fails to demonstrate that Waite’s “duplicative” 7 or “undifferentiated allegations” necessarily mean that Waite cannot state a claim 8 against Martinez. 9 Walmart also argues Waite created her own peril, so she cannot establish a 10 cause of action against Martinez. (Opp’n 8.) However, Waite alleges Martinez 11 increased the risk of Waite’s injury. (Compl. ¶ 10.) Despite this, Walmart does 12 nothing to demonstrate that this factual allegation is impossible. Cf. Arguelles v. 13 Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2:24-cv-04199-RS (MAAx), 2024 WL 4579602, at *3 14 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2024) (finding fraudulent joinder where the store-defendant 15 submitted evidence that the manager-defendant was not the manager of the store, nor 16 on duty the day of plaintiff’s injury). Thus, even if Waite did create her own peril, that 17 does not foreclose Martinez’s liability. 18 In sum, Walmart does not present clear and convincing evidence of Martinez’s 19 fraudulent joinder, but instead offers only defenses that require “a searching inquiry 20 into the merits of [Waite’s] case.” Grancare, 889 F.3d at 549. Thus, the Court finds 21 Walmart has not proven Martinez was fraudulently joined. As Martinez was not 22 fraudulently joined and is a citizen of the forum state, the forum defendant rule bars 23 removal to this Court. Therefore, the Court must grant Waite’s Motion to Remand.3 24 25

26 3 Waite seeks attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). (Mot. 16–17.) The Court finds removal improper but Defendants’ removal was not objectively unreasonable. See Martin v. 27 Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005) (holding plaintiffs should not be awarded 28 attorneys’ fees for removals that are not objectively unreasonable). As such, the Court DENIES Waite’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs. 1 Vv. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Waite’s Motion to 3 | Remand. (Dkt. No. 11.) The Court hereby REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Compton Courthouse, 5 || 200 W. Compton Blvd., Compton, California 90220, Case No. 25CMCV01553. 6 All dates are hereby VACATED. The Clerk of Court shall close the case. 7 9 10 June 26, 2026 ya 11 OTIS D. WRIGHT, I 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28