United States District Court, C.D. California
Edward Hocking, et al.
Ford Motor Company, et al.
Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District
(In Chambers): ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND 
the Court is Plaintiffs Edward Hocking and Kimberly
Hocking's Motion to Remand (the “Motion”),
filed on June 11, 2019. (Docket No. 10). Defendants Ford
Motor Company (“Ford”) and Cappo Management XXIX,
Inc. d/b/a Harrold Ford (“Harrold Ford”) filed an
Opposition on June 24, 2019. (Docket No. 14). Plaintiffs
filed their Reply on July 1, 2019. (Docket No. 15).
Motion was noticed to be heard on July 15, 2019. The Court
read and considered the papers on the Motion and deemed the
matter appropriate for decision without oral argument.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Local Rule 7-15. The
hearing was therefore VACATED and removed
from the Court's calendar.
reasons discussed below, the Motion is
GRANTED. Ford has not established that
Harrold Ford, the dealership, was fraudulently joined,
“fraudulently” being used here with its technical
jurisdictional meaning. Specifically, Plaintiffs' claim
against Harrold Ford might be timely because there are
sufficient facts alleged supporting a colorable argument of
delayed discovery. The Court also declines to exercise its
discretion to drop Harrold Ford as a Defendant. Because
Plaintiffs are California residents and Harrold Ford is a
California corporation, this Court lacks diversity
jurisdiction and the action must be remanded.
April 11, 2019, Plaintiffs commenced this action in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court. (See Notice of
Removal (“NoR”), Ex. 1, Complaint (Docket No.
1-1)). Plaintiffs are residents of West Sacramento,
California. (Id. ¶ 2). Ford is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business is in
Michigan. (Id. ¶ 4; NoR ¶ 18). Harrold
Ford is a California corporation conducting business in
Sacramento. (Compl. ¶ 5).
Complaint alleges as follows:
February 12, 2013, Plaintiffs purchased from Harrold Ford a
2013 Ford C-Max vehicle (the “Vehicle”).
(Id. ¶ 7). Plaintiffs received an express
written warranty in which Ford undertook to “preserve
or maintain the utility or performance” of the Vehicle
or to “provide compensation if there is a failure in
utility or performance for a specified period of time.”
(Id. ¶ 8). The warranty provided, in relevant
part, that in the event of a defect during the warranty
period, Plaintiffs could “deliver the Vehicle for
repair services to [Ford's] representative and the
Vehicle would be repaired.” (Id.). After
purchasing the Vehicle and during the warranty period,
Plaintiffs experienced problems with the Vehicle related to
the engine, defects related to the Vehicle's Accessory
Protocol Interface Module, defects relating to the electronic
system within the Vehicle, and defects relating to the
mechanics of the body of the Vehicle. (See id.
allege that Defendants knew of the Vehicle's flaws and
“were unable to service or repair the Vehicle to
conform to the applicable express warranties after a
reasonable number of repair attempts.” (Id.
assert five claims for relief: (1)-(3) violations of the
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code
§§ 1790 et seq.; (4) breach of express
written warranty; and (5) breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability (Id. ¶¶ 1-32). Plaintiffs
assert all five claims against both Defendants.
20, 2019, Defendants timely removed the action, invoking the
Court's diversity jurisdiction and asserting that Harrold
Ford was fraudulently joined. (See NoR ¶¶
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
with the Motion, Plaintiffs request that the Court take
judicial notice of an order in Less v. Ford Motor
Company, No. 18-CV-1992-MAA, 2018 WL 4444509, (S.D. Cal.
Sept. 18, 2018), remanding that action back to the San Diego
County Superior Court. (Request for Judicial ...