Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Michael Harvick filed this action in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (Case No. 24CV441939), naming Ford Motor Company and Jim Burke Ford as defendants. Ford Motor Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The notice of removal acknowledged that both Harvick and Jim Burke Ford are citizens of California, but argued that Jim Burke Ford had been fraudulently joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction.
On September 28, 2026, the court ordered Ford Motor Company to show cause why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Ford responded in opposition to remand, maintaining its fraudulent joinder argument. The court considered the response and plaintiff's reply before issuing its ruling. The court noted that the case was removed from the Superior Court of Santa Clara County and, because a prior coordination motion did not transfer the case, remand must be to that same court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because complete diversity of citizenship is absent. Both plaintiff Harvick and defendant Jim Burke Ford are California citizens, as confirmed by the notice of removal's own exhibits. Under Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996), diversity jurisdiction requires that no adverse parties share citizenship of the same state. This defect bars federal jurisdiction and requires remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
The court rejected Ford's fraudulent joinder argument, finding it foreclosed by three prior decisions from the same court involving practically identical factual and legal circumstances: Benton v. Ford Motor Co., No. 26-cv-2096 WBS SCR (E.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2026); Mendoza Lombera v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:26-CV-02064 WBS SCR (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2026); and Paris v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:26-cv-02056 WBS SCR (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2026). For the same reasons articulated in those cases, the fraudulent joinder theory fails here. The court ordered the action remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Santa Clara, Case No. 24CV441939.
Key Takeaways
- Complete diversity is a mandatory prerequisite for diversity jurisdiction; the presence of a single non-diverse defendant destroys jurisdiction unless that defendant was fraudulently joined.
- The court applied a consistent precedent from three recent, nearly identical cases to reject Ford's fraudulent joinder argument without re-litigating the issue.
- When a case is removed from state court and a coordination motion did not effect a transfer, the remand must be to the original state court from which it was removed.
- The court's show-cause order procedure efficiently resolved the jurisdictional defect early in the litigation.
- Ford's repeated use of the same fraudulent joinder theory across multiple cases has been uniformly rejected in this district.
Why It Matters
This remand order reinforces the strict requirement of complete diversity in removal cases and demonstrates the Eastern District of California's willingness to police fraudulent joinder arguments through precedent from companion cases. The decision is part of a pattern of rulings rejecting Ford Motor Company's attempt to manufacture federal jurisdiction by challenging the joinder of California dealership defendants in consumer actions. The court's reliance on its own recent decisions in Benton, Mendoza Lombera, and Paris signals that similar removal attempts will face an uphill battle in this district. The ruling also clarifies that when coordination proceedings do not formally transfer a case, the proper remand destination remains the original state court.