United States District Court, C.D. California
Present: The Honorable STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND 
Introduction and Background
2, 2019, Plaintiff Hermila Perez (“Plaintiff”)
filed this lawsuit against Defendants Ford Motor Company
(“Ford Motor”) and Fremont Ford (“Fremont
Ford”). Dkt. 1-2. Plaintiff asserts claims against Ford
Motor for: (1) violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(d);
(2) violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(b); (3)
violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(a)(3); (4) breach
of an express written warranty; and (5) breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability. Id.
August 7, 2019, Defendants removed the action to this Court.
Dkt. 1. The alleged basis for removal was diversity of
citizenship. Id. Plaintiff now moves to remand the
action to state court on the ground that Defendants have not
met their burden to establish diversity jurisdiction. Dkt.
Summary of Allegations
Allegations of the Complaint
crux of Plaintiff's allegations is that in August 2013,
Plaintiff purchased a 2013 Ford F-150 manufactured by Ford
Motor which developed a variety of defects during the
warranty period, including defective airbags and problems
with the engine, battery, coolant gauge, and transmission.
Dkt. 1-2 ¶¶ 8-9. Plaintiff alleges that Ford Motor
was unable to service or repair the vehicle to conform to the
applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of
opportunities. Id. ¶ 10.
Allegations Related to Removal
allege removal jurisdiction based on complete diversity of
the parties. Ford Motor is a citizen of Delaware and
Michigan. Dkt. 1 ¶ 22. Ford Motor removed the action
alleging that Plaintiff is a citizen of California.
Id. ¶ 21. Fremont Ford is also alleged to be a
citizen of California. Id. ¶ 23. However, Ford
Motor alleges that Fremont Ford has been fraudulently joined
only to defeat diversity jurisdiction. Id. ¶
States federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.
Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013).
Consequently, a “federal court is presumed to lack
jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary
affirmatively appears.” Stock West, Inc. v.
Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir.
1989). Due to this presumption, federal courts must exercise
“prudence and restraint” when considering the
propriety of removal. Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v.
Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 810 (1986). Thus, “[i]f a
district court determines at any time that less than a
preponderance of the evidence supports the right of removal,
it must remand the action to the state court.”
Hansen v. Grp. Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057
(9th Cir. 2018). “The removing defendant bears the
burden of overcoming the ‘strong presumption against
removal jurisdiction.'” Id. (quoting
Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel.
Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010)).
Motor contends in its Notice of Removal and Opposition that
because Fremont Ford was fraudulently joined, none of the
causes of action asserted in this lawsuit state a claim
against Fremont Ford. Dkt. 1 ¶ 25-30. Therefore Ford
Motor asserts that diversity jurisdiction exists under 28
U.S.C. § 1332 when Fremont Ford's ...