Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Matthew Jordan sued Ford Motor Company, Raceway Ford Inc., and Doe defendants in San Bernardino County Superior Court (Case No. CIVRS2400973). The order does not describe the underlying claims. Ford removed the action to the Eastern District of California, invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. On September 28, 2026, the court ordered Ford to show cause why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Ford filed a response and the plaintiff replied.
Ford's position, as the order describes it, was that the plaintiff had fraudulently joined Raceway Ford, which shares the plaintiff's California citizenship. The record also included an order assigning a coordination trial judge in a Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding, which raised the question of which state court should receive the case if it was remanded. Senior District Judge William B. Shubb issued the short remand order after considering the show-cause briefing.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. A defendant may remove only actions over which the district courts have original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), and when original jurisdiction is absent the court must remedy the improvident removal by remanding, citing Lockyer v. Dynegy. The only asserted basis for jurisdiction was diversity, which under Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis requires complete diversity, meaning no adverse parties may be citizens of the same state. The court cited the Notice of Removal for the point that the plaintiff and Raceway Ford, Inc. are both California citizens, and concluded: no diversity, no jurisdiction.
The court rejected Ford's fraudulent-joinder theory by reference to its own earlier rulings. It stated that it had rejected the theory in three practically identical cases, Benton v. Ford Motor Co. (September 3, 2026), Mendoza Lombera v. Ford Motor Co. (October 15, 2026) and Paris v. Ford Motor Co. (October 15, 2026), and that the theory failed here for the same reasons. The order does not restate the fraudulent-joinder analysis, so its details lie in those other orders, which are not part of this record.
The disposition was a remand to the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, Case No. CIVRS2400973. A footnote explains why the case did not go to the coordination proceeding: the order assigning the coordination trial judge was not a transfer order, so the case was removed from the San Bernardino court and must be returned there under 28 U.S.C. § 1447. The docket reflects that a certified copy was sent to the state court and the federal case was closed.
Key Takeaways
- Section 1332 requires complete diversity, so a California plaintiff and a California defendant defeat diversity jurisdiction regardless of the other defendants' citizenship.
- A removing defendant that relies on fraudulent joinder gets no help from the label alone; here the court rejected the theory by pointing to three practically identical earlier rulings in the same district.
- The order sends the case back to the state court from which it was removed, not to a coordination proceeding, because the coordination-judge assignment was not a transfer order.
- This is a remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, not a ruling on the merits, so the plaintiff's claims remain pending in San Bernardino County Superior Court.
- The order is unreported and relies on other unreported district orders, so it has limited precedential weight beyond its persuasive value.
Why It Matters
This is a short, unreported order by a single district judge, so it creates no binding precedent. Its value is practical. It shows how the Eastern District of California is handling a recurring pattern of Ford removals in which a California-citizen co-defendant named Raceway Ford is alleged to be fraudulently joined. Judge Shubb has now reached the same result in at least four cases between September and October 2026.
Much remains open. The order does not decide whether the claims against Raceway Ford are viable, does not address the merits of any claim, and does not discuss attorney fees or other relief. Those questions, and the underlying dispute, now return to the state court. Parties facing similar removals would need to consult the three cited orders for the actual fraudulent-joinder reasoning.