Rojas v. Ford Motor Co.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 24, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-03793
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 ----oo0oo---- 9 10 JASMINE ROJAS, an individual, No. 2:24-cv-3793 WBS CKD 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER RE: MOTION TO REMAND 13 FORD MOTOR CO., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 14 50, inclusive, 15 Defendants. 16 17 ----oo0oo---- 18 Plaintiff Jasmine Rojas (“plaintiff”) filed this action 19 in state court on November 14, 2024 against defendant Ford Motor 20 Co. (“Ford”) and a fictitiously named defendant dealer alleging 21 various claims based on her allegedly defective vehicle 22 manufactured by Ford and sold to her by the dealer in Fairfield, 23 California. (Docket No. 1-2.) Ford answered the complaint on 24 December 23, 2024. (Docket No. 1-9.) 25 Ford then removed the case to this court on December 26 31, 2024, based on diversity jurisdiction. (Docket No. 1 (citing 27 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, 1446).) On January 13, 2025, 21 days 28 1 after Ford served its original answer, plaintiff amended her 2 complaint to substitute Ford Lincoln Fairfield (“dealer”) for the 3 fictitiously named defendant dealer. (Docket No. 12.) 4 Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) 5 requires “complete diversity” of citizenship among the parties. 6 Demarest v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 920 F.3d 1223, 1225-26 (9th 7 Cir. 2019). However, “[i]f after removal the plaintiff seeks to 8 join additional defendants whose joinder would destroy subject 9 matter jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or permit 10 joinder and remand the action to the State Court.” 11 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e). 12 Because plaintiff filed the first amended complaint 13 within 21 days of Ford’s answer in state court, it was properly 14 filed without the need for motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 15(a)(1)(B). Furthermore, considering that the last two claims 16 in the removed complaint refer to a “defendant dealer”, albeit 17 under a fictitious name, it does not appear that the dealer is a 18 sham defendant. The court will thus permit plaintiff’s joinder 19 of the dealer.1 20 Plaintiff is a citizen of California. (Docket No. 1-1 21 at ¶¶ 7-12.) Ford is a citizen of Delaware and Michigan. 22 (Docket No. 1-1 at ¶ 13.) But because the dealer is a citizen of 23 California, the parties are no longer diverse. (See Docket 24 No. 18 Exs. 1, 3-4.) Accordingly, plaintiff’s amendment has 25

26 1 Even if the dealer were not sued in the original complaint, the six-factor test of McGrath v. Home Depot USA, 27 Inc., 298 F.R.D. 601, 606-08 (S.D. Cal. 2014), used to decide whether to permit joinder of the dealer, weigh in favor of 28 joinder and remand pursuant to § 1447(e). ne nnn en en ee Onn no nn NOI ED EO

1 divested the court of subject matter jurisdiction over the 2 matter. See, e.g., Garcia v. Ford Motor Co., No. 24-cv-563 KJM 3 SCR, 2025 WL 314072, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2025) (remanding 4 suit against car manufacturer after plaintiff joined non-diverse 5 dealer); Williams v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., No. 21-cev-275 6 | JLT EPG, 2022 WL 538970, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2022) 7 (same). 8 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to 9 remand the case back to state court (Docket No. 13) be, and the 10 | same hereby is, GRANTED. This case is hereby REMANDED to the 11 | Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County 12 | of Placer.? □ 13 | pated: February 21, 2025 atte A hh be WILLIAM B. SHUBB 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 The court does not find that defendant Ford should be 27 sanctioned based on its removal of the case. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for sanctions raised in the motion to remand 28 | is DENIED.