United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND RE:
DKT. NO. 13
H. KOH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Kelly Heslop and Garin Heslop (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) bring this lawsuit against
Defendants Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) and Lake
Elsinore Ford (“Lake Elsinore”) (collectively,
“Defendants”) for claims arising from Ford's
sale of an allegedly defective vehicle. Before the Court is
Plaintiffs' motion to remand. Having considered the
parties' submissions, the relevant law, and the record in
this case, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion to remand.
are residents of Riverside County, California. ECF No. 1-1,
Ex. B (“Compl.”), at ¶ 2. Defendant Ford
(also referred to in the Complaint as FMC) is a Delaware
corporation operating in California that designs,
manufactures, and sells automobiles. Id. at ¶
4. Defendant Lake Elsinore sells, services, and repairs
automobiles in Riverside County, California. Id. at
allege that on or about October 24, 2012, Plaintiffs
purchased from Defendant Lake Elsinore a 2013 Ford F-150
(“Vehicle”) “manufactured and or
distributed by Defendant FMC.” Id. at ¶
8. When Plaintiffs purchased the Vehicle, Defendant Ford
provided Plaintiffs with express written warranties including
a “3 year/36, 000 mile express bumper to bumper
warranty [and] ¶ 5 year/60, 000 mile powertrain warranty
which, inter alia, covers the engine and transmission.”
Id. at ¶ 9.
warranties provided that if “a defect developed with
the Vehicle during the warranty period, Plaintiffs could
deliver the Vehicle for repair services to Defendant's
representative and the Vehicle would be repaired.”
Id. Plaintiffs allege that during the warranty
period, the Vehicle developed defects related to the
Vehicle's navigation system, Bluetooth, transmission,
brakes, check engine light, steering system, air
conditioning, and many other components of the Vehicle.
Id. at ¶ 10. However, “Defendant and its
representatives in this state have been unable to service or
repair the Vehicle to conform to the applicable express
warranties after a reasonable number of opportunities.”
Id. at ¶ 11. Plaintiffs allege that when
Plaintiffs presented the Vehicle to Defendant Ford's
representative, “Defendant and its representative
failed to commence the service or repairs within a reasonable
time and failed to service or repair the Vehicle so as to
conform to the applicable warranties within 30 days.”
Id. at ¶ 18.
Defendant Lake Elsinore, Plaintiffs allege that “the
sale of the Vehicle was accompanied by Defendant's
implied warranty of merchantability.” Id. at
¶ 30. Plaintiffs allege that both Defendants have
breached the implied warranty. Id. ¶ 33.
February 6, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their complaint against
Defendants in California Superior Court for the County of
Santa Clara. Compl. at 1. On February 15, 2019, Plaintiffs
served their complaint on Defendants. ECF No. 1 at 2.
complaint includes six causes of action: (1) violation of
California Civil Code § 1793.2(d) against Defendant
Ford, Compl. at ¶¶ 8-16; (2) violation of
California Civil Code § 1793.2(b) against Defendant
Ford, id. at ¶¶ 17-21; (3) violation of
California Civil Code § 1793.2(a)(3) against Defendant
Ford, id. at ¶¶ 22-24; (4) breach of
express written warranty in violation of California Civil
Code §§ 1791.2(a), 1794 against Defendant Ford,
id. at ¶¶ 25-28; (5) breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability in violation of California Civil
Code §§ 1791.1, 1794 against both Defendants,
id. at ¶¶ 29-33; and (6) fraud by omission
against Defendant Ford. Id. at ¶¶ 34-46.
allege that any applicable statutes of limitation are subject
to “equitable tolling, class action tolling (e.g.
American Pipe rule), the discovery rule, fraudulent
concealment rule, equitable estoppel, equitable tolling
and/or repair rule.” Id. at ¶ 7.
March 18, 2019, Defendants removed Plaintiffs' complaint
to federal court. ECF No. 1. Defendants' notice of
removal states that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs' complaint. Id. at 3. Although
Plaintiffs and Defendant Lake Elsinore are all citizens of
California, Defendants state that Plaintiffs fraudulently
joined Defendant Lake Elsinore, such that diversity
jurisdiction is not defeated. Id. at 7-9.
April 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to
remand. ECF No. 13 (“Mot.”). On May 1, 2019,
Defendants filed their opposition, ECF No. 15
(“Opp.”), and on February 1, 2019, ...