United States District Court, C.D. California
JOE RUIZ SR. and JOE RUIZ JR., Plaintiff,
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE FIRST AMENDMENT COMPLAINT AND DENYING MOTION TO REMAND
D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Joe Ruiz Sr. and Joe Ruiz Jr. (“Plaintiffs”),
both residents of California, filed suit against BMW of North
America (“BMW”), a Delaware Corporation, in Los
Angeles County Superior Court, alleging breach of warranty
claims under state and federal law. (Compl., ECF No. 1-1.)
After BMW removed the case to this Court, Plaintiffs moved to
amend their complaint to add diversity-destroying Defendant
Finchey Corporation of California, a California Corporation
d/b/a Pacific BMA (“Pacific BMW”), for alleged
negligent repairs made to Plaintiffs’ vehicle. (Mot.
for Leave to File First Am. Compl. (“Mot. to
Am.”), ECF No. 9.) Plaintiffs also move to remand the
case, claiming that the addition of Pacific BMW renders the
parties non-diverse and that its federal claims can be heard
in state court. (Mot. to Remand, ECF No. 10.) For the reasons
discussed below, the Court GRANTS
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended
Complaint and DENIES Plaintiffs’
Motion to Remand.
purchased a new 2014 BMW 427i couple from an authorized BMW
dealer in Irvine, California on May 27, 2014. (Hamblin Decl.
in support of Mot. for Leave (“Hamblin Decl.”)
¶ 5, ECF No. 9.) Plaintiffs allege that they received
the subject vehicle with various engine defects. (Compl.
¶ 8.) On at least six occasions between September 2014
and July 2015, Plaintiffs took the vehicle in for service.
(Hamblin Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 9.) Plaintiffs claim that
BMW wrongfully denied them warranty coverage, in violation of
the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code §
1790 et seq., and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15
U.S.C. § 2301. (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 27.)
15(a)(2) provides that “[t]he court should freely give
leave [to amend] when justice so requires.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2); Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv.,
572 F.3d 962, 972 (9th Cir. 2009). The decision whether to
grant leave to amend rests in the sound discretion of the
trial court. Swanson v. U.S. Forest Serv., 87 F.3d
339, 343 (9th Cir. 1996); California v. Neville Chem.
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2004).
U.S. Supreme Court has held that courts should freely grant
leave to amend absent special circumstances, such as: (1)
undue delay; (2) bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of
the movant; (3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies with
previous amendment; (4) prejudice to the opposing party; and
(5) futility of amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.
178, 182 (1962). The party opposing the amendment carries the
burden of showing why leave to amend should be denied.
DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183,
186-187 (9th Cir. 1987).
federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having
subject-matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by
the Constitution and Congress. U.S. Const. art. III, §
2, cl. 1; e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A suit filed in
state court may be removed to federal court if the federal
court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a). But courts strictly construe the
removal statute against removal jurisdiction, and
“[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is
any doubt as to the right of removal in the first
instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564,
566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party seeking removal bears the
burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Durham v.
Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir.
2006) (citing Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566).
courts have original jurisdiction where an action presents a
federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or diversity of
citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A defendant may
remove a case from a state court to a federal court pursuant
to the federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, on the
basis of federal question or diversity jurisdiction. To
exercise diversity jurisdiction, a federal court must find
complete diversity of citizenship among the adverse parties,
and the amount in controversy must exceed $75, 000, usually
exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Motion For Leave To File First Amended Complaint
their Motion, Plaintiffs seek leave to add a new claim for
negligent repairs against a new diversity-destroying
defendant, Pacific BMW. (Mot. for Leave 2.) Plaintiffs claim
that further investigation has led them to discover that
Pacific BMW conducted three of the six repair attempts on the
subject vehicle. (Id.) Plaintiffs argue that the
Court should grant leave to amend because the proposed
amendments stem from the same series of transactions, the
same vehicle, and the same repairs. (Id. 3.) They
claim they only have legitimate motives and have acted with
haste in seeking such an amendment. (Id. 5.)
asserts that Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied
because of undue delay and bad faith. (Opp’n 2, ECF No.
12.) In its Opposition, BMW states that the purpose of
Plaintiffs’ joinder of Pacific BMW is solely to defeat
diversity jurisdiction. (Id. 3.) BMW suggests that
the timing of Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments further
point to an improper motive because Plaintiffs knew that
their vehicle was serviced at Pacific BMW prior to the ...