1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ) 11 RENE AGUILAR, ) Case No.: CV 20-03194-CJC (JCx) ) 12 ) ) Plaintiff, 13 ) ) v. 14 ) ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING ) CASE TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY 15 FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited ) SUPERIOR COURT ) 16 Liability Company, SCOTT ) ROBINSON CHRYSLER DODGE ) 17 JEEP RAM, a Business Organization ) ) 18 Form Unknown, and DOES 1 through ) 10, inclusive, ) 19 ) ) 20 Defendants. ) ) 21 ) 22 23 I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 24 25 On February 4, 2020, Plaintiff Rene Aguilar filed this action in Los Angeles 26 County Superior Court against Defendants FCA US, LLC (“FCA”) and Scott Robinson 27 Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram (“Scott Robinson”). (Dkt. 1-1 [Complaint, hereinafter 1 with engine, fuel system, and electrical defects. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 9, 14.) FCA manufactured the 2 vehicle, Scott Robinson leased it, and on “numerous occasions,” Plaintiff brought it to 3 “authorized FCA US LLC repair facilities for repair.” (Id. ¶¶ 13–18.) Based on the 4 alleged defects in her vehicle, Plaintiff asserts a claim against FCA and Scott Robinson 5 for breach of implied and express warranties under the Song-Beverly Consumer 6 Warranty Act. (Id. ¶¶ 11–27.) 7 8 For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff appears to be a California citizen. 9 (Id. ¶ 1.) FCA is a limited liability company organized under Delaware law with its 10 principal place of business in Michigan. (Dkt. 1 [Notice of Removal, hereinafter “NOR”] 11 ¶ 18.) Its sole member is another LLC organized under Delaware law with its principal 12 place of business in Michigan. (Id.) The sole member of that LLC is a company 13 organized under the laws of the Netherlands with its principal place of business in 14 London, United Kingdom. (Id. ¶ 19.) And the sole member of that company is a 15 publicly traded company incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands with its principal 16 place of business is London, United Kingdom. (Id.) Scott Robinson is a California 17 entity.1 (Id. ¶ 21.) On April 6, 2020, FCA removed the action to this Court, invoking 18 diversity jurisdiction. 19 20 II. LEGAL STANDARD 21 22 A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to a federal district court 23 only if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over it. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. 24 Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over cases between completely diverse parties 25 that involve an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Principles 26 of federalism and judicial economy require courts to “scrupulously confine their 27 1 [removal] jurisdiction to the precise limits which [Congress] has defined.” See Shamrock 2 Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 109 (1941). Indeed, “[n]othing is to be more 3 jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction.” See United States v. Ceja-Prado, 333 4 F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). The defendant removing 5 the action to federal court bears the burden of establishing that the district court has 6 subject matter jurisdiction over the action, and the removal statute is strictly construed 7 against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 8 9 Federal courts have a duty to examine their subject matter jurisdiction whether or 10 not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, 11 Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[A] district court’s duty to establish subject 12 matter jurisdiction is not contingent upon the parties’ arguments.”). “The court may— 13 indeed must—remand an action sua sponte if it determines that it lacks subject matter 14 jurisdiction.” GFD, LLC v. Carter, 2012 WL 5830079, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012). 15 16 III. ANALYSIS 17 18 FCA contends that Scott Robinson was fraudulently joined and cannot be used to 19 destroy complete diversity. (NOR ¶¶ 21–23.) The Court disagrees. When there is a 20 sufficient showing of fraudulent joinder, a court will not consider the citizenship of the 21 fraudulently-joined party in determining whether there is complete diversity. See 22 Grancare, LLC v. Thrower by and through Mills, 889 F.3d 543, 548 (9th Cir. 2018). 23 However, “a defendant invoking federal court diversity jurisdiction on the basis of 24 fraudulent joinder bears a heavy burden since there is a general presumption against 25 [finding] fraudulent joinder.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). To establish fraudulent 26 joinder, a defendant must show that the defendant who purportedly destroys complete 27 diversity “cannot be liable on any theory.” See Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co., 139 F.3d 1 state court would find that the complaint states a cause of action against the resident 2 defendant, “the federal court must find that the joinder was proper and remand the case to 3 the state court.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir. 2009). In 4 other words, for joinder to be fraudulent, the plaintiff must fail to state a cause of action 5 against the resident defendant, and the failure must be “obvious according to the settled 6 rules of the state.” Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001). 7 Before finding fraudulent joinder, a court must also determine “whether a deficiency in 8 the complaint can possibly be cured by granting the plaintiff leave to amend.” Grancare, 9 889 F.3d at 549. 10 11 FCA has not shown that Scott Robinson “cannot be liable on any theory” on 12 Plaintiff’s warranty claims. See Ritchey, 139 F.3d at 1318. Accordingly, it has not met 13 its burden of establishing fraudulent joinder. The Court need only examine Plaintiff’s 14 implied warranty claim to reach this conclusion. California Civil Code § 1791.1(a) states 15 an implied warranty of merchantability, including that goods must be “fit for the ordinary 16 purposes for which goods are used.” Plaintiff alleges that the car she leased from Scott 17 Robinson had engine, fuel system, and electrical defects. (Compl. ¶ 9.) These alleged 18 defects pose safety and reliability issues sufficient to overcome an assertion of fraudulent 19 joinder. See Malone v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, 2015 WL 3889157, at 20 *7 (C.D. Cal. June 23, 2015) (denying motion to dismiss—which requires a higher 21 showing from the plaintiff than the fraudulent joinder standard—implied warranty of 22 merchantability claim where plaintiff alleged the vehicle jerked and hesitated, and repairs 23 did not correct the problems). 24 25 FCA does not explain how Plaintiff’s claims against Scott Robinson are so 26 obviously deficient that remand is necessary. Rather, “FCA believes Plaintiff has no 27 intention of prosecuting her warranty claims against Scott Robinson, and only added 1 Complaint’s allegations show only bare-boned, non-specific allegations as related to 2 Scott Robinson.” (NOR ¶ 22.) These conclusory assertions do not come close to 3 meeting FCA’s heavy burden of establishing fraudulent joinder.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ) 11 RENE AGUILAR, ) Case No.: CV 20-03194-CJC (JCx) ) 12 ) ) Plaintiff, 13 ) ) v. 14 ) ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING ) CASE TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY 15 FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited ) SUPERIOR COURT ) 16 Liability Company, SCOTT ) ROBINSON CHRYSLER DODGE ) 17 JEEP RAM, a Business Organization ) ) 18 Form Unknown, and DOES 1 through ) 10, inclusive, ) 19 ) ) 20 Defendants. ) ) 21 ) 22 23 I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 24 25 On February 4, 2020, Plaintiff Rene Aguilar filed this action in Los Angeles 26 County Superior Court against Defendants FCA US, LLC (“FCA”) and Scott Robinson 27 Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram (“Scott Robinson”). (Dkt. 1-1 [Complaint, hereinafter 1 with engine, fuel system, and electrical defects. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 9, 14.) FCA manufactured the 2 vehicle, Scott Robinson leased it, and on “numerous occasions,” Plaintiff brought it to 3 “authorized FCA US LLC repair facilities for repair.” (Id. ¶¶ 13–18.) Based on the 4 alleged defects in her vehicle, Plaintiff asserts a claim against FCA and Scott Robinson 5 for breach of implied and express warranties under the Song-Beverly Consumer 6 Warranty Act. (Id. ¶¶ 11–27.) 7 8 For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff appears to be a California citizen. 9 (Id. ¶ 1.) FCA is a limited liability company organized under Delaware law with its 10 principal place of business in Michigan. (Dkt. 1 [Notice of Removal, hereinafter “NOR”] 11 ¶ 18.) Its sole member is another LLC organized under Delaware law with its principal 12 place of business in Michigan. (Id.) The sole member of that LLC is a company 13 organized under the laws of the Netherlands with its principal place of business in 14 London, United Kingdom. (Id. ¶ 19.) And the sole member of that company is a 15 publicly traded company incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands with its principal 16 place of business is London, United Kingdom. (Id.) Scott Robinson is a California 17 entity.1 (Id. ¶ 21.) On April 6, 2020, FCA removed the action to this Court, invoking 18 diversity jurisdiction. 19 20 II. LEGAL STANDARD 21 22 A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to a federal district court 23 only if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over it. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. 24 Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over cases between completely diverse parties 25 that involve an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Principles 26 of federalism and judicial economy require courts to “scrupulously confine their 27 1 [removal] jurisdiction to the precise limits which [Congress] has defined.” See Shamrock 2 Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 109 (1941). Indeed, “[n]othing is to be more 3 jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction.” See United States v. Ceja-Prado, 333 4 F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). The defendant removing 5 the action to federal court bears the burden of establishing that the district court has 6 subject matter jurisdiction over the action, and the removal statute is strictly construed 7 against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 8 9 Federal courts have a duty to examine their subject matter jurisdiction whether or 10 not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, 11 Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[A] district court’s duty to establish subject 12 matter jurisdiction is not contingent upon the parties’ arguments.”). “The court may— 13 indeed must—remand an action sua sponte if it determines that it lacks subject matter 14 jurisdiction.” GFD, LLC v. Carter, 2012 WL 5830079, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012). 15 16 III. ANALYSIS 17 18 FCA contends that Scott Robinson was fraudulently joined and cannot be used to 19 destroy complete diversity. (NOR ¶¶ 21–23.) The Court disagrees. When there is a 20 sufficient showing of fraudulent joinder, a court will not consider the citizenship of the 21 fraudulently-joined party in determining whether there is complete diversity. See 22 Grancare, LLC v. Thrower by and through Mills, 889 F.3d 543, 548 (9th Cir. 2018). 23 However, “a defendant invoking federal court diversity jurisdiction on the basis of 24 fraudulent joinder bears a heavy burden since there is a general presumption against 25 [finding] fraudulent joinder.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). To establish fraudulent 26 joinder, a defendant must show that the defendant who purportedly destroys complete 27 diversity “cannot be liable on any theory.” See Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co., 139 F.3d 1 state court would find that the complaint states a cause of action against the resident 2 defendant, “the federal court must find that the joinder was proper and remand the case to 3 the state court.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir. 2009). In 4 other words, for joinder to be fraudulent, the plaintiff must fail to state a cause of action 5 against the resident defendant, and the failure must be “obvious according to the settled 6 rules of the state.” Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001). 7 Before finding fraudulent joinder, a court must also determine “whether a deficiency in 8 the complaint can possibly be cured by granting the plaintiff leave to amend.” Grancare, 9 889 F.3d at 549. 10 11 FCA has not shown that Scott Robinson “cannot be liable on any theory” on 12 Plaintiff’s warranty claims. See Ritchey, 139 F.3d at 1318. Accordingly, it has not met 13 its burden of establishing fraudulent joinder. The Court need only examine Plaintiff’s 14 implied warranty claim to reach this conclusion. California Civil Code § 1791.1(a) states 15 an implied warranty of merchantability, including that goods must be “fit for the ordinary 16 purposes for which goods are used.” Plaintiff alleges that the car she leased from Scott 17 Robinson had engine, fuel system, and electrical defects. (Compl. ¶ 9.) These alleged 18 defects pose safety and reliability issues sufficient to overcome an assertion of fraudulent 19 joinder. See Malone v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, 2015 WL 3889157, at 20 *7 (C.D. Cal. June 23, 2015) (denying motion to dismiss—which requires a higher 21 showing from the plaintiff than the fraudulent joinder standard—implied warranty of 22 merchantability claim where plaintiff alleged the vehicle jerked and hesitated, and repairs 23 did not correct the problems). 24 25 FCA does not explain how Plaintiff’s claims against Scott Robinson are so 26 obviously deficient that remand is necessary. Rather, “FCA believes Plaintiff has no 27 intention of prosecuting her warranty claims against Scott Robinson, and only added 1 Complaint’s allegations show only bare-boned, non-specific allegations as related to 2 Scott Robinson.” (NOR ¶ 22.) These conclusory assertions do not come close to 3 meeting FCA’s heavy burden of establishing fraudulent joinder. Although the facts 4 underlying Plaintiff’s claim are not highly detailed, this potential deficiency—if there is 5 one at all—could easily be cured by granting Plaintiff leave to amend. See Grancare, 6 889 F.3d at 549 (explaining that before finding fraudulent joinder, a court must also 7 determine “whether a deficiency in the complaint can possibly be cured by granting the 8 plaintiff leave to amend”). 9 10 Particularly interesting is the statement in the Notice of Removal that “FCA’s 11 counsel’s vast litigation experience in opposing these types of cases has been that 12 individual dealerships have not been regularly sued.” (Id. ¶ 23.) First, FCA’s counsel’s 13 “vast litigation experience” in other cases says nothing of Plaintiffs’ ability to state a 14 cognizable claim in this case. And second, this statement is surprising given that this 15 experience includes at least nine cases in the last year alone where courts in this district 16 have remanded cases because FCA failed to meet its burden to show that a local 17 dealership was fraudulently joined. See, e.g., Gallardo v. FCA US, LLC, 2020 WL 18 1650754, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2020) (remanding because FCA failed to meet its 19 burden to show a local dealership was fraudulently joined); Dun Xie v. FCA US, LLC, 20 2020 WL 1676372, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2020) (remanding because FCA’s argument 21 did “not come close to convincing the Court that Plaintiff fails to state a claim against 22 [the local dealership], let alone that the failure is obvious and cannot be cured by 23 amendment”); Raul Duenas v. FCA US LLC, et al., 2020 WL 1546424, at *4 (C.D. Cal. 24 Apr. 1, 2020) (permitting amendment to add local dealership and remanding); Magana v. 25 FCA US, LLC, 2020 WL 1502608, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2020) (remanding because 26 FCA’s argument fell “far short of convincing the Court that the claim against [the local 27 dealership] is even deficient, let alone obviously deficient and not capable of being cured 1 2020) (remanding because FCA failed to meet its burden of showing that the local 2 ||dealership was fraudulently joined); Saldivar v. FCA US LLC, 2019 WL 5310188, at *3 3 11(C.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2019) (same); Barillas v. FCA US LLC, 2019 WL 2865925, at *2 4 ||(C.D. Cal. July 2, 2019); Ruiz v. FCA US LLC, 2019 WL 4137613, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 5 2019) (same); Gorelick v. FCA US LLC, 2019 WL 2123570, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 15, 6 ||2019) (same). 7 8 FCA has fallen far short of meeting its burden of showing that Scott Robinson was 9 ||fraudulently joined. Accordingly, this action must be remanded for lack of subject matter 10 || jurisdiction. The Court notes that this is the third case in the last five days that the Court 11 ||has had to sua sponte remand because FCA failed to meet its burden of proving 12 || fraudulent joinder. The Court must remind FCA’s counsel of the obligation of an 13 |] attorney under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure not to remove a case to 14 federal court unless it has a factual and legal basis for doing so. Counsel is hereby 15 || advised that the Court will consider imposing sanctions if another similar case is 16 || wrongfully removed to federal court after the filing of this order. 17 is || IV. CONCLUSION 19 20 “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of 21 ||removal in the first instance.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. Because FCA has failed to carry 22 ||1ts burden to establish the elements of diversity jurisdiction, the Court sua sponte 23 || REMANDS this action to Los Angeles County Superior Court. 24 25 DATED: April 8, 2020 fo f oe > 26 / 27 CORMAC J. CARNEY 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE