Hernandez v. Ford Motor Co., CV 18-1546 DSF (ASx). (2018)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20180803671
Visitors: 9
Filed: Aug. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 02, 2018
Summary: Order REMANDING Case DALE S. FISCHER , District Judge . Defendant Ford Motor Company removed this case on the basis of diversity. Defendant recognizes that Defendant Galpin Motors, Inc. is not diverse from Plaintiff, but argues that Galpin is fraudulently joined. A defendant who is a resident of the forum state is fraudulently joined "`if the plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against [the] resident defendant, and the failure is obvious according to the settled rules of the state.'"
Summary: Order REMANDING Case DALE S. FISCHER , District Judge . Defendant Ford Motor Company removed this case on the basis of diversity. Defendant recognizes that Defendant Galpin Motors, Inc. is not diverse from Plaintiff, but argues that Galpin is fraudulently joined. A defendant who is a resident of the forum state is fraudulently joined "`if the plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against [the] resident defendant, and the failure is obvious according to the settled rules of the state.'" ..
More
Order REMANDING Case
DALE S. FISCHER, District Judge.
Defendant Ford Motor Company removed this case on the basis of diversity. Defendant recognizes that Defendant Galpin Motors, Inc. is not diverse from Plaintiff, but argues that Galpin is fraudulently joined. A defendant who is a resident of the forum state is fraudulently joined "`if the plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against [the] resident defendant, and the failure is obvious according to the settled rules of the state.'" Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001). Ford does not show that no claim can be stated against Galpin. The complaint alleges Galpin is liable for negligence in its failure to repair Plaintiff's vehicle. It is certainly not obvious that such a claim could not succeed. Ford further argues that Galpin should be ignored because Ford has agreed to indemnify Galpin. But Ford cites no authority — and the Court knows of none — that states that a party's citizenship can be ignored if another party has agreed to indemnify it.
The case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
