Maria Elena Prado Bolanos v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 2, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-06131
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CV 20-6131-RSWL-MRW x 12 MARIA ELENA PRADO BOLANOS, ORDER re: Motion to Remand 13 Plaintiff, Case to Los Angeles 14 v. Superior Court [28] 15 COSTCO WHOLESALE 16 CORPORATION; JOHN WEAVER; and DOES 1 to 30, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff Maria Elena Prado Bolanos (“Plaintiff”) 20 filed this Action [1-1] on June 1, 2020, in Los Angeles 21 Superior Court against Defendant Costco Wholesale 22 Corporation (“Costco”). Plaintiff alleges two causes of 23 action: (1) premises liability and (2) general 24 negligence. Costco removed [1] the Action to this Court 25 on July 9, 2020. 26 On November 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed her First 27 Amended Complaint and joined Defendant John Weaver 28 1 (“Weaver”) as a party. In the present Motion to Remand

2 Case to Los Angeles Superior Court [28] (the “Motion”),

3 Plaintiff seeks to remand the Action, contending that 4 Weaver’s joinder destroys complete diversity and thereby 5 deprives this Court of subject matter jurisdiction. 6 Having reviewed all papers submitted pertaining to 7 this Motion, the Court NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS: 8 the Court GRANTS the Motion. 9 I. BACKGROUND 10 Plaintiff is a California resident. First Am. 11 Compl. (“FAC”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 21. Costco is a company 12 doing business in California, with a branch store 13 located at 12324 Hoxie Avenue, Norwalk, California 90650 14 (the “Subject Property”). Id. ¶ 2. Costco’s principal 15 place of business is in Washington. Id. Weaver is the 16 manager of Costco’s branch store on the Subject 17 Property. Id. ¶ 3. 18 On June 15, 2018 Plaintiff was shopping as a guest 19 at the Subject Property. Id. ¶ 9. While walking in the 20 store, Plaintiff suddenly and without warning slipped 21 and fell to the ground. Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff sustained 22 serious injuries as a result of her fall, which required 23 and continues to require medical care and treatment. 24 Id. ¶ 10. 25 On September 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion to 26 Amend Complaint [12] to join Weaver as a defendant. The 27 Court granted [20] Plaintiff’s motion on November 10, 28 2020, and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint 1 within fifteen days. On November 16, 2020, Plaintiff

2 filed her First Amended Complaint [21].

3 Plaintiff filed this Motion [28] on December 23, 4 2020. Costco filed its Opposition [29] on January 5, 5 2021, and Plaintiff replied [30] on January 11, 2021. 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 A. Legal Standard 8 Civil actions may be removed from state court if 9 the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 10 Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 33 11 (2002) (“Under the plain terms of § 1441(a), in order 12 properly to remove [an] action pursuant to that 13 provision, . . . original subject-matter jurisdiction 14 [must] lie[] in the federal courts.”). Diversity 15 jurisdiction exists in all civil actions between 16 citizens of different states where the amount in 17 controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and 18 costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. There must be complete 19 diversity of citizenship, meaning “each of the 20 plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than 21 each of the defendants.” Morris v. Princess Cruises, 22 Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 23 Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996)). 24 Federal question jurisdiction exists in “all civil 25 actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or 26 treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 27 “The burden of establishing jurisdiction falls on 28 the party invoking the removal statute, which is 1 strictly construed against removal.” Sullivan v. First

2 Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F.2d 1368, 1371 (9th Cir.

3 1987) (internal citations omitted). Courts resolve all 4 ambiguities “in favor of remand to state court.” Hunter 5 v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 6 2009) (citing Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 7 (9th Cir. 1992)). A removed case must be remanded “[i]f 8 at any time before final judgment it appears that the 9 district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 10 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 11 B. Discussion 12 1. Local Rule 7-3 13 As a preliminary matter, Costco argues that the 14 Court should deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand because 15 Plaintiff’s counsel failed to meet and confer as 16 required under Local Rule 7-3. Opp’n to Mot. for Remand 17 (“Opp’n”) 7:3-14, ECF No. 29. When a party fails to 18 comply with the requirements of the Local Rules, the 19 Court may strike or deny the party’s motion. Oliver v. 20 Luner, No. LA:18-CV-02562-VAP-AFMX, 2018 WL 5928170, at 21 *1 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2018). However, the Court 22 maintains discretion to rule on the merits because 23 “[f]ailure to comply with the Local Rules does not 24 automatically require the denial of a party’s motion, . 25 . . particularly where the non-moving party has suffered 26 no apparent prejudice as a result of the failure to 27 comply.” CarMax Auto Superstores Cal. LLC v. Hernandez, 28 94 F. Supp. 3d 1078, 1088 (C.D. Cal. 2015). 1 Here, Costco contends that it was prejudiced by the

2 failure to meet and confer because counsel could have

3 discussed the deficiency in the First Amended Complaint 4 and the prematurity of the instant Motion. Opp’n 7:10- 5 14. Although Plaintiff failed to meet and confer with 6 Costco prior to filing the motion, Costco had sufficient 7 time to prepare and submit its Opposition. The Court 8 finds no apparent prejudice from the failure to comply 9 with Local Rule 7-3. See Wilson-Condon v. Allstate 10 Indem. Co., No. CV 11-05538 GAF (PJWx), 2011 WL 3439272, 11 at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2011) (finding that the 12 defendant did not appear to be prejudiced by the 13 plaintiff’s failure to meet and confer prior to filing a 14 motion to remand). Additionally, even assuming some 15 degree of prejudice, this Court must remand if it lacks 16 subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court 17 proceeds to the merits of the Motion. 18 2. Motion to Remand 19 The parties do not dispute that the amount in 20 controversy exceeds $75,000 or that there is diversity 21 of citizenship between Plaintiff, who is a California 22 resident,1 and Costco, which is incorporated in and has 23 a principal place of business in Washington. FAC ¶¶ 1- 24 2; Notice of Removal ¶ 2, ECF No. 1. At issue is 25 whether there is complete diversity following the 26 1 Residence is prima facie evidence of citizenship. See 27 Fjelstad v. Vitamin Shoppe Indus. LLC, No. 2:20-CV-07323 ODW 28 (AFMx), 2021 WL 364638, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2021). 1 joinder of Weaver as a defendant. In the FAC, Plaintiff

2 alleges that Weaver is the manager of the Costco located

3 at the Subject Property. FAC ¶ 3. Plaintiff also 4 provides in a declaration that Weaver is a resident of 5 California. Decl. of Eric A. Forstrom ¶ 3, ECF No. 28- 6 2. 7 a. Diversity Jurisdiction 8 Plaintiff contends that remand is proper because 9 this Court lacks diversity jurisdiction after Weaver’s 10 joinder. Mem. in Supp. of Mot. (“Mot.”) 4:14-21, ECF 11 No. 28-1. On the other hand, Costco argues that remand 12 is improper because the FAC does not establish a lack of 13 diversity jurisdiction.2 Opp’n 5:7-15. 14 Costco misplaces the relevant burden. Given the 15 “strong presumption against removal jurisdiction[,] . . 16 . the defendant always has the burden of establishing 17 that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 18 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Pringle v. Wheeler, 19 478 F. Supp. 3d 899, 907 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (citing 20 Kokkone v. Guardian Life Ins. Of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 21 (1994)) (stating that “[t]he party invoking the 22 jurisdiction of the federal court bears the burden of 23

24 2 Costco also argues that the Motion to Remand should be denied because Plaintiff is bound by her judicial admission in 25 the FAC that “[j]urisdiction . . . is proper.” FAC ¶ 7. Plaintiff’s allegation as to the Court’s jurisdiction is 26 irrelevant to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction because 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) mandates that district courts remand the action 27 “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the 28 district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 1 establishing that the court has the requisite subject

2 matter jurisdiction”). Moreover, because neither party

3 has adduced facts showing that Weaver’s citizenship is 4 diverse, the Court must remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 5 1447(c). 6 b. Rule 21 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 21 8 provides that district courts “may at any time, on just 9 terms, add or drop a party.” But a district 10 court’s Rule 21 discretion to dismiss a party “is not a 11 requirement that it do so.” Mendoza v. Nordstrom, 865 12 F.3d 1261, 1266 (9th Cir. 2017). 13 In opposing the Motion, Costco asks the Court to 14 exercise its discretion under Rule 21 to dismiss Weaver 15 from this case because: (1) Plaintiff has not pled 16 anything attributable to Weaver that is distinguishable 17 from Costco, and (2) it would resolve any inconsistency 18 in Plaintiff’s pleadings between the Court’s 19 jurisdiction and Plaintiff’s failure to plead Weaver’s 20 citizenship. Opp’n 6:16-25. 21 The Court finds Costco’s arguments unavailing. 22 Courts have consistently allowed plaintiffs to bring 23 negligence and premises liability claims against store 24 managers when also asserting claims against the store. 25 See, e.g., Leroy West v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. LA 26 CV20-04265 JAK (FFMx), 2020 WL 7023777, at *4-6 (C.D. 27 Cal. Nov. 30, 2020); Thomas v. WalMart Stores, Inc., No. 28 CV 18-03422-RSWL-SK, 2018 WL 3046967, at *4 (C.D. Cal. 1 June 19, 2018); Trujillo v. Target Corp., No. 17-cv-

2 06429 VAP (GJSx), 2017 WL 4864490, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Oct.

3 26, 2017). 4 Moreover, the Court declines to exercise its 5 discretion under Rule 21 to dismiss Weaver as a 6 defendant. Plaintiff alleges that: (1) Defendants had a 7 duty to maintain the Subject Property in a manner free 8 from dangerous conditions; (2) Defendants had 9 constructive knowledge of the hazard; (3) Defendants 10 breached their duty to ensure the area was safe; and (4) 11 Defendants’ alleged negligence caused her injuries.3 12 FAC ¶¶ 11-23. Plaintiff’s allegations appear to state 13 viable claims against Weaver. See Trujillo, 2017 WL 14 4864490, at *5 (allowing the joinder of a store manager 15 where the “[p]laintiff’s negligence claim . . . appears 16 to have merit”); see also Gallegos v. Costco Wholesale 17 Corp., No. CV 20-3250 DMG (GJSx), 2020 WL 2945514, at *1 18 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2020) (citation omitted) (“[T]he fact 19 that the principal thus becomes liable does not of 20 course exonerate the agent from liability.”). Because 21 Plaintiff properly joined Weaver, and because requiring 22 Plaintiff to bring a separate suit against Weaver would 23 be inefficient, the Court denies Costco’s request to 24 dismiss Weaver from this Action under Rule 21.

25 3 The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: (1) a legal duty of care; (2) 26 breach of duty; (3) and proximate cause resulting in injury. 27 Thomas v. WalMart Stores, Inc., No. CV 18-03422-RSWL-SK, 2018 WL 3046967, at *10 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2018) (citing Kesner v. 28 Superior Court of Alameda Cnty., 1 Cal. 5th 1132, 1158 (2016)). 1 3. Fees & Costs 2 Plaintiff seeks to recover fees and costs incurred

3 as a result of the removal. Mot. 4:24-5:9. Courts may 4 award fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) “where the removing 5 party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking 6 removal.” Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 7 141 (2005). At the time of removal, Weaver was not a 8 defendant in this Action, and there was complete 9 diversity between Plaintiff and Costco. Removal was not 10 objectively unreasonable. The Court therefore DENIES 11 the request for reimbursement of fees and costs. 12 III. CONCLUSION 13 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS 14 Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to Los Angeles Superior 15 Court. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for fees 16 and costs. The Clerk shall REMAND this Action to the 17 Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles and 18 close this matter. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 DATED: March 2, 2021 ________/s_/ R_o_n_al_d _S._W_. _Le_w___________ HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW 23 Senior U.S. District Judge 24 25 26 27 28