Removal to Federal Court Lifted

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.June 11, 2019

iLE. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT 0F CALIFORNIA DEC 2 4 2019 ' 280 South Ist Street H San Jose, CA 95] I3 9‘? .erko‘Wu www.cand.uscourts.gov Susan Y.‘ Soong . General Cou ~ umber Clerk of Coun .408-535-5363 December l7, 20] 9 Santa Clara County Superior Court ~ 191 N. First Street San Jose, CA 951 13 RE: Julia Magana, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, et al. I9-cv-04347-BLF Your C_ase Number: l9cv349624 ”Dear Clerk, Pursuant to an order remanding the above captioned case to your court, transmitted herewith are: ' 7 ‘ E r Certified original and one copy 0fthis letter X Certified copy ofdocket entries > E Certified copy of Remand Order D Other - Please acknowledge receipt ofthe above doéuments on the attached copy ofthis letter. Sincerely, Susan Y. Soong, Clerk by: Susie F. Barrera Case Systems Administrator 408-535-5382 472.. Eu“ “J :4: F: J “-1“,, jg “J3 g w. r1 fit run" mtg v) > «Jr? I ‘ I'v ’5. h: ~71 910$ 3: 8‘ 33C; g? nuoO 9m to )hsii) ”513 lame romum AL) 2:. mm mum”?- " wag Y8 $3.11 . .2, -\ United States District Court Northern District of California O\ooo\)0\ 1] l3 l4 15 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 2! 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:19-cv-04347-BLF Document 23 Filed 12/16/19 .Page 1 Of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT 0F CALIFORNIA _ SAN JOSE DIVISION JULIA MAGANA, et a|., Case 'No. l9-cv-O4347-BLF Plaintiffs, _. ‘ - ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ V~ MOTION FOR REMAND FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et aL, [Rez ECF l7] Defendants. Before the Court is a motion to ren.1and by Plaintiffs Julia Magana and Tony Magana (the “Maganas”). Mot. to Reménd, ECF l7. The Court finds that the matter is suitable‘for disposition without oral argument'and VACATES the hearing set on March 5, 2020. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. I. BACKGROUND In or about August 201 I, the Maganas purchased a 201 l Ford Edge (the “Vehicle”) from Defendant Silva Ford Madera (“Silva Ford”). See Not. of Removal, Ex. B (“CompL”) 1H] 5, 8, ECF 1-2. The purchase came with two express written warranties: (l) a 3-year/36,000-mile bumper-to-bumper Warranty, and (2) a 5-year/60,000-mile powertrain warranty. Compl. 1] 9. The warrafitiesprovidcd that in the event a defect developed. during the warranty period, a representative of Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”j would repair the Vehicle. Compl. 1] 9. During the warranty period, the Vehicl-e either contained or developed numerous defects that substantially impaired its use, value, or safety. Compl. 1] 10. For example, the Vehicle contained or developed defects relating to the Vehicle’s lights, brakes, electrical compéments, doors, latch assembly, and door switches. Compl. 1] 10. The Maganas allege that neither Ford nor its representatives in the state have Been able to repair the vehicle to conform with the warranties. Compl. 1} ll. Still, Ford neither replaced the Vehicle nor compensated the Maganas for their United States District Court Northern District 0f California O\OOOVO\ H 12 l3 l4 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:19-cv-04347-BLF Document 23 Filed 12/16/19 Page 2 of 9 troubles: Compl. 1] 1'1. On June 7, 2019, the Maganas filed this complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court against Silva Ford and Ford (together, “Defendants”). See generally Compl. Based on the above actions, the Maganas assert six causes 0f action against Ford alone for violating the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and fraud by omission, and one cause of action against Silva Ford alone for. negligent refiair.‘ Compl. 1H} 8-54. The Maganas’ 501$ claim against S-ilva Ford alleges that the Méganas brought the Vehicle t0 Silva Ford for substantial repair 0n at least one occasion, Silva Ford owed the Maganas a duty to usé ordinary care and skill to repair the vehicle in accordance with industry standards, and Silva Ford breached this duty by failing to properly store, prepare, and repair the Vehicle in acéordance with industry standards. Compl. 1H] 36-37. The Maganas allege the Silvva Ford’s negligent breach of its duty proximately caused their damages. Compl. 11 38. i On july 29, 2019, Defendants filed a notice of removal. See Not. of Removal, ECF l. Defendants acknowledge that the Mag'anés-are citizens of California, Ford is a citizen of Delaware and Michigan, and Silva Ford is a citizen of California. Not. of Removal 1m 18-1 9, 40. Defendants, however, claim that the criteria onS U.S.C. § 1332 is met because Silva Ford, the only nori-diverse party, was fraudulentlyjoined because the Maganas cannot establish'a cause of action against Silva Ford based on negligent repair and because Silva Ford is a dispensable party under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 2]. Not. of Removal 1H] 20-40. On November 5, 2019, the Maganas moved to remand this action back to state court ECF 17. The Maganas argue that Defendants failed to meet their heavy burden ofshowing that Silva Fora is an indispensable party and demohstrating that the Maganas are California citizens. Mot. to Remand 2-10. Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that it is untimely and Silva Ford is fraudulentlyjoined. 2 Opp. thot. t0 Remand (“Opp”), ECF l8. l The causes of action brought against Ford alone are not at issue. These causes of action are: (1) violation of Cal. Civ. Code§ I793 2(d); (2) violation ofCal Civ. Code § 1793.2(b); (3) violation ofCal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(a)(3); (4) violation of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1791 .,2(a) 1794, (5) violation ofCal. Civ. Code §§ 179l. l, 1794, and 1795. 5; and (6) fraud by omission. 2 The Court notes that it stopped reading Defendant’ s Opposition to Plaintiff‘s Motion to Remand at page 10 and does not consider any of Dcfendants’ arguments beyond page 10, because the 2 United States District Court Northern District of California l0 l] l2 l3 14 IS l6 17 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:19-cv-04347-B‘LF Document 23 Filed 12/16/19 Page 3 of 9 II. L(EGAL §TANDARD “[A]ny civil action brought in a State court 0f which the district courts ofthe United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States fpr the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § |441(a). “A defendant may remove an aétion to federal court based on federal question jurisdittion or divergityjurisdictién.” Hunter v. ‘Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § I441). District courts have diversityjurisdiction over all civil actions bereen Fitizens offlifferent states where the amouqt in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive ofinterles/t and costs. 28 U. S.C. § 1332. H r v ' M I V, l4 H ’ “Although an actibn may be removed to federal court only where there is complete diversity'ofcitizenship, ‘one exception to the requirement for complete diversity is where a non- diverse defendant has been ‘fraudulentlyjoined.”’ Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1043 (quoting Morris v. Princess Cruises, Ina, 236 F.3d 106i, 1067 (9th Cir. 200l)) (internal citation omitted); see also Rilchey v. Upjohn Drug C0,, 139 F.3d 1313, 1318-19 (9th Cir. I998). “Ifa plaintifffails to state a cause of action against a resident defendant, and the failure is obvious according to the settled rules ofthe state, the joinder ofthe resident defendant is fraudulent.” McCabe v. Gen. Foods Corp, 8H F.2d I336, I339 (9th Cir. 1987). That said, there is a “general presumption against fraudulentjoinder,” and defendants who assert that a party is fraudulentlly joined carry a “heavy burden.” Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1046.. Defendants must “shqw that the individualsjoingq inuthe qgtion capnot b; liable on any theory,” Rilchey, I39 F.3d at l3 I 8, and that “there is no possibility that the plaintiff will be able to establish a cause ofaction in Stéte court against the alleged sham defendant.” Good v. Prudential Ins, Co. ofAm., 5 F. Supp. 2d 804, 807 (ND. Cal. Apr. l6, 1998). That is, “[r]emand must be granted unless the defendant shows that the plaintiff ‘would not be afforded leave to amend his complaint to cure [the] purported deficiency.” Padilla v. AT& TCorp., 697 F. Supp. 2d 1' l 56, l 159 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (quoting Burris v. AT& T Wireless, Ina, No: 06-CV-02904-JSW, 2006 opposition exceeds the lO-page limit for opposition briefs set out in this Court’s Standing Order Re Civil Cases. Standing Order Re Civ. Cases § IV.A.4. 3 United States District Court Northem District ofCalifomia 10 ll 12 l3 l4 15 16 17 18 l9 20 2| 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:19-cv-04347-BLF Document 23 Filed 12/16/19 Page 4 of 9 ,WL 2038040, at *2 (N. D. Cal. July 19, 2006)). As such, a court’s “doubts concerning the sufficiency ofa cause ofaction because of inartful, ambiguous or technically defective pleading must be resolved in favor of remand.” Plute v. Roadway Package Sys., Ina, 141 F. Supp. 2d l005, IOOS (ND. Cal. Apr. l8, 200]) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted): “Where fraudulentjoinder is an issue . . . [t]he defendant seeking removal to the federal court is entitled to present the facts shoWing thejoinder to be fraudulent.” Ritcheyfll 39 F.3d at l3 l 8 (internal quotation marks omitted). lffactual issues are in dispute, ihe Coun must resolve all disputed-questionsof fact in favor ofthe plaintiff. -See Kalawé v. KFC Nat. Mgmt. C0,, Civ. No. 90-007799, l99| WL 338566, at f2 (D. Haw. July 16, I991) (citing Kruso v. 1n! ’1 Tel. & Tel. Corp, 872 F.2d l4l6, 1426 (9th Cir. 1989)); see also Mohammed v. Watson Pharm., Ina, No. SA CV09-0079, 2009 WL 8575 l 7, at*6 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2009) (“A party is only deemed to have been joined ffraudulently’ ifafter all disputed questions of fact and all ambiguities in the controlling state law are resolved in the plaintiff’s favor, the plaintiff could not possibly recover against the pafiy whosejoinder is questioned.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted». lfthe district court ultimately determines that it lacksjurisdiction, the action must be remanded back to the state court. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp, 546 U.S. 132, I34 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 14,47). The Ninth Circuit recognizes a “strong presumption against removal.” Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1042 (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Ina, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. I992) (per Au curiam)). Thus, the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper,’ and . . . the coun resolve's all ambiguity in favor of remand to state coUrt.” Id. (’quoting Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566). ' ' III. DISCUSSION The Maganas argue that this case should be remanded to state court because Defendants have not met their heavy burden of showing fraudulentjoinder, meaning that complete diversity of citizenship between the opposing parties is lacking under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.3 Mot. to Remand 2-8. 3 The Maganas also argue that Defendants fail to show that they are citizens of California. Mot. to Remand 9-] 0. Because this Court agrees that Silva Ford was not fraudulentlyjoined, it does not address these othey arguments. 4 United States District Court Northern District of California IO ll 12 13 14 15 16 17' 18 l9 ,20 21 22 23 ‘24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:19-cv-04347-BLF Document 23 Filed 12/16/19 Page 5 of 9 Defendants oppése the rfiotion, arguing that the Maganas’ motion is untimely; Silva Ford is fraudulentlyjoined because the economic loss rule and statute of limitations bar the Maganas’ negligent repair claim; and, alternatively, the Court should drop Silva Ford as an unnecessary party under Federal Rule 0f Civil Procedure 2 l. Opp. 4-] 0. A. The Maganas’ Motion to Remand is Not Untimely Defendants argue that the Maganas’ motion is untimely because it was not madelwithin 30 days ofthe filing ofthe notice of removal. Opp. 4 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). A motibn to rem‘and’a cas'e Based on “‘a‘ny defect other than lack ’ofs'ubjé’ct Matter'jurisdi'clibn m'ust'be’made within 30 days after the filing of the notice ofremoval under section 1446(a).” 28 U.S.C. I § l447(c) (emphasis added). “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the diétrict court lacks subject matterjurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 1d. (emphasis added). Because the Maganas move to remand based on the Court’s lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction, the motion is timely. B. Silva Ford Was Not Fraudulently Joined Defendants argue that Silva Ford was fraudulentlyjoined because the economic loss rule and the statute of limitatibns bar the Maganas from stating a claim as a matter of law. Opp. 4-9. The Court disagrees and address éach argument in tum. I i. Economic lossgrule does not bar the Maganas’ claim Defendants argue that the Maganaé cannot state a valid claim for negligent repair against Silvé Ford because such'a claim is barred by the economic loss rule. Opp. 5-7. Economic loss “refers f0 damages that are solely monetary, as‘opposed to damages involving physical harm to person or property,” and “[t]he economic loss doctrine provides tfiat certain economic lesses are properly remediable only in contract.” UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Glob. Eagle Entm’t, In‘c., 1 l7 F. Supp. 3d 1092, l |03 (C.D. Cal. 20l5) (internal quotation marks omitted) (“[The doctrine] has roots in common law limitations on recovery ofdamages in negligence actions in the absenée of physical harm to persoh or property.” (internal quotation marks omitted». Under {he economic loss rule, a plaintiff may recover “in tort when a product defect causes damage to ‘othcr property,’ that is, property other than the product itself” Jimenez v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. 4th 473, 483 5 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 l4 15 16 l7 18 19 20 2| 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:19-cv-04347-BLF Document 23 Filed 12/16/19 Page 6 of 9 (2002). The economic loss rule, howéver, “does not necessarily bar 'recovery in tort for'damage that a defective product (e.g., a window) causes to other portions ofa larger product (e.g., a house) into which the former has been incorporated.” 1d. Here, the Maganas allege defects to various components and subcomponents of'the Vehicle. For example, the Complaint alleges defects in the brakes and electrical system. Compl. 1| 10. The economic loss rule does nbt bar recovery in tort for damage that these components and subcomponents cause to the Vehicle in which these components and subcomponents have been ‘incorpOi‘a'tedl “Thus; Defendants Have failed to prove that'the Maganas could not possibly recover against a dealership for negligent repair. See, e.g., Sabicer v. Ford Motor Co., 362 F. Supp. 3d 837, 841 (CD. Cal. 20l9) (finding that economic loss rule does not preclude negligent repair claim against dealership because problems with components could have caused damage to engine or vehicle in which components were incorporated); Lytle v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:1 8-CV-l 62$ WBS EFB, 20 l 8 WL 4793800, at *2 (ED. Cal. Oct. 2, 20 l 8) (“California law is not so settled_that a plaintiff could not possibly recover against a dealership for negligent repair ofa vehicle.”). Therefore, because the Maganas could state a claim against Silva Ford, Defendants’ argument that the economic loss rule bars the Maganas’ negligent repair claim fails. See Grancare, LLC v. Th'rower ex rel. Mills, 889 F.3d 543, 547 (9th Cir. 201 8) (“[F]raudu|entjoinder should not be found ifthere is ‘any possibility’ that a plaintiffcould state a claim against the defendafit,‘ even if the complaint actually fails to state a claim”). ii. Statute of limitation's does not bar the Maganas’ claim Next, Defendants argue that the' Maganas cannot state a claim for negligent repair because such a claim is barred by the three-year statute of limitations applicable to negligent repair claims. Opp. 7-9 (citing Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338(c)(1)). . The Maganas argue that their claims are not barred because the statute of limitations was either tolled under {He doctrine of fraudulgnt concealment 0r because the delayed discovery rule applies. Mét. to Remand 8-9; see Compl. 1l 7. Defendants, on the other hand, argue that equitable >tol|ing does not apply because the Maganas have not pursued an alternative rcmedy, the Maganas do not plead facts giving rise to a fraudulent concealment claim, and delayed discovery does not 6 United States District Court Northern District of California \l n 12 13 14 15 I6 '7 18 19 20 21' 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:19-cv-O4347-BLF Document23 Filed 12/16/19 Page? of9 apply because th'e Maganas disposed ofthe Vehicle in November 201 5. Opp. 8-9. While Defendants’ arguments may be right, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to meet their heavy bu'rden ofshowing that the Maganas cannot ‘possibly amend their Complaint to satisfactorily invoke a viable tolling theory. Here, the Complaint alleges, among other things, that the fraudulent concealment and the delayed discovery rules apply.. Comp]. 1] 7. Although the Complaint is not specific as to how the rules apply to the Maganas’ negligent repair claim, the question at this stage is only whether it ispossible that the Maganas can state a claim against Silva Ford‘- not whether the‘Maganas do in fact state a cl'aim: McAdamsv. Fdrd'Motor Col; No. l8- CV-07485-LHK, 20|9 WL 2378397, at *5 (ND. Cal. June 5, 2019) (“The question at this stage is . . . only whether there is a ‘possibility’ that Plaintiffs’ complaint stétes a claim against g [d]efendant”). Indeed, Defendants have éited no authority that the delayed discovery rule cannot apply, and several district courts have remanded cases with negligent repair claims where the defendant failed to show that the delayed discovery rule did not apply. See, e.g.», Sabicer, 362 F. Supp. 3d at 842 (remanding case where “defendants failed to prove that there is no possibility that [p]laintiffs could invoke the delayed discovery rule to assert a negligent repair claim”);-McAdams, 20l 9 WL 2378397, at *6 (finding defendant not fraudulentlyjoined where defendant failed to show that plaintiff could not possibly invoke delayed discovery rule); see also Buck v. Ford Motor C0,, No, 5:]9-cv-02985-BLF, at *6 (ND. Cal. Sept. 1], 20l9), ECF l4 (finding defendant failed to meet burden 0f showing that plaintiff could not possibly amend complaint t0 invoke a viable tolling thegry). ‘ ln Jimenez v. Ford Motor C0., No. CV 18-3558-JFW(ASX), 20! 8 WL 2734848, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 5, 2018), the court remanded on the similar question as the one presented here because the coun could not conclude that it was impossible for the plaintiffto state a claim despite the defendant’s argument that the statute of limitations barred any claim. The court elaborated that such time-bar arguments are better raised in a demurrer, mofion to dismiss, or motion for summary judgment rather than in a notice of removal. Id. This Court agregs. Accordingly, because the Maganas could invoke the delayed discovery rule, Defendahts’ argument that the statute of limitations bars the Maganas’ negligent repair claim fails. See 7 United States District Court Northern District of California Case 5:19-cv-04347-BLF Document 23 Filed 12/16/19 Page 8 of 9 Grancare, LLC, 889 F.3d at 548 (“[l]fthere is a possibility that a sté'té court‘would find that the complaint states a cause ofaction against any 0fthe resident defendants, the federal court must find that the joinder was proper and remand the case to thé state court.” (internal quotation marks omitted»; Less v. Fbrd Motor Co., No. |8CV1992-MMA (AGS), 20l 8 WL 4444509, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 20] 8) (“The standard for demonstrating fraudulentjoipder is high, and the relevant question is whether it is possible for Plaintiffto state a claim . . . , not whether it has been sufficiently pleaded.” (emphasis added)). r , . » ‘ : i . a: as 4: In gum, Defendants have failed 10 carry their heavy bprden of showing that Silva Ford was fraudulentlyjoined. The panics, therefore, are not complefely diverse as required under 28 U.S.C. § I332, and this Court lacks subject matterjurisdiction. ' C. This Court Will Not Drop Silva Ford Under Rule 21 Alternatively, Defendants ask this court to exercisejts broad discretion to drop Silva Ford as a defendant. Opp. 9-] 0. The Court declines yo d‘o sp. A federal court may drbp a party to perfect its diversityjurisdiction, but only ifthag party is not indispensable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. l9; Fed. R. Civ. P. 2] ; Sams v. BeachAircrafl Corp, 625 F.2d 273, 277 (9th Cir. 1980). Several ‘ California district courts have found that a dealership may be necessary for adjudication ofa dispute whose claims against both the manufacturer and dealership arise from the same transactions 0r occurrences - as is the case here. See McAdams, 2019 WL 2378397, at *6 (declining t0 sever dealership as dispensable party because'claims againEt Folrd and dealership arose “from the same series of transactions or occurrences”); Sabicer, 362 F. Supp. 3d at 842 (declining to sever dealership as dispensable party because claims against Ford ahd the dealership were “sufficiently intertwine-d, factually and legally, that-severance would be inconvenient and inefficient”). The Court does not find that Silva Ford is a dispensable party; therefore, this Court will not exercise its discretion to drop Silva Ford from the .dispute. //'/ /// /// United States District Court Northem District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27' 28 ‘ Dated: December l6, 2019 Case 5:19-cv-04347-BLF Document 23 Filed 12/16/19 Page 9 of 9 IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to remand and x . REMANDS the instant case to Califomia Superior Court for the County 0f Santa Clara. All other matters are TERMINATED and VACATED, and the Clerk shall close this file. mmfléflw ' ‘ ‘ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge IT Is so ORDERED. ‘u Dept'wcbdgx ‘ 12/17/2619“ CAND-E'CF lofS https://ecf.cand.circ9.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.>pl?6 | IS68773446589-L_1_0-| ADRMOP,CLOSED . U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Jose) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:19-cv-04347-BLF . Internal Use Only Magana et al v. Ford Motor Company et al Assigned to: Judge Beth Labson Freeman Referred to: Judge Nathanael M. Cousins Case in other court: Santa Clara County Superior Court, l9CV349624 Causez'2811332 Diversity-Petition for Removal , Plain tiff Julia Magana Plaintiff Tony Magana represented by represented by Date Filed: 07/29/2019 Date Terminated: 12/16/20l9 Jury Demand: Both , Nature 0f Suit: I95 Contract Product Liability ‘ Jurisdiction: Diversity Tionna Grace Dolin Startegic Legal Practices, APC I840 Century Park East Suite 430 . Los Angeles, CA 90067 (310) 929-4900 Email: TDOLIN@SLPATTORNEY.COM LEAD ATTORNEY ' ATTORNEY T0 BE NOTICED Anh X Nguyen Strategic Legal Practices, APC 1840 Century Park East Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90067 3 l 0-929-4900 Fax: 310-943-3838 Email: adxnguyen@gmail.com ATTORNEY T0 BE NOTICED Jacob William Cutler Strategic Legal Practices, APC I840 Century Park East Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90067 3 1 0-929-4900 Email: jcutler@slpattorney.com ATTORNEY T0 BE NOTICED Tionna Grace Dolin _ (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY 12/17/2019,10217AM CAND-ECF V. Defendant . Ford Motor Company Defendant Silva Auto Group, Inc. doing business as represented by represerited by httpsz/lecficand.circ9.dcn/cgi-bin/DklRpt.pl?61 1568773446589¥L_1_”0-l ‘ AHORNEY T0 BE NOTICED ‘Anh X Nguyen (See above for address) ATTORNEY T0 BE NOTICED Jacob William Cutler ' (See above for address) ATTORNEY T0 BE NOTICED Richard James May -Schnader Harrison Sega] L‘ewis LLP 650 California Street 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 415-364-6700 Email: rmay@schnader.com _ LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY T0 BE NOTICED Stephen H. Dye Schnader Harrison Sega! &' Lewis LLP ' One Montgomery Street, Suite 2200 San Francisco, ‘CA 94104-550] 41 5-364-67001 ’ ’ Fax; 415-364-6785 Email: sdye@séhnader.com ATTORNEYTO BE NOTICED Richard jayes May (See above‘for address) Madera Ford LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY T0 BENOTICED Stephen H. Dye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Date Filed # Docket Text 07/29/2019 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Santa Clara Superior Court. Their case number is 19CV349624. (Filing fee $400 receipt number 097143562597). Filed bySilva Auto Group, Inc. d/b/a Madera Ford, Ford Motor Company. (Attachments: # l Exhibit A - Service of Process, # Z Exhibit B - Complaint, # g Exhibit C - State Court Pleadings, # g Exhibit D - Excerpts, # Q Declaration of Richard J. May, # Q 20f5 12/17/2019, 10:17AM CAND-EGF hnps://ecf.cand.circ9.dcn/cgi-bin/Dktkpt_pl?61 1563773446589-L_1_0-1 Civil Cover Sheet)(May, Richard) (Filed on 7/29/2019) (Entered: 07/29/2019) 07/29/2019 l Answer to Removal Complaint l See Removal Complaint Exhibit C by Ford Motor Cdmpany, Silva Auto Group, Inc. (sbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2019) (Entered: 07/30/2019) ‘ 07/30/2019 2 Case assigned to Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Counsel for plaintifl‘or the removing patty is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assignedjudge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing partie's. For information, visit E-FilingA New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening. ‘ 1 Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at , www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy ofthe ‘ uinitiating’ do'cum‘ents pursuant to L.R. 5-](e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice ofElectronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 8/13/2019. (smS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2019) (Entered: “ 07/30/201 9) ‘ 07/30/2019 [DJ Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 10/23/2019. Initial Case Management Conference set fo‘r 10/30/2019 10:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 5, 4th Floor. (sbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2019) (Entered: 07/30/2019) NOTICE of Appearance by Anh X Nguyenfor Plaintiffs (Nguyen, Anh) (Filed on 7/30/2019) (Entered: 07/30/2019) CONS'ENT/DECLTNATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Ford Motor Company, Silva Auto Group, Inc... (May, Richard) (Filed on 8/1/2019) . (Entered: 08/01/2019) . 08/01/2019 6 CLERK'S NOTICE’OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now randomly reassign this case to a District Judge because a party has not consented to thejurisdiction ofa Magistrate Judge. You will be informed by separate notice ofthe districtjudge to whom this case is reassigned. 07/30/2019 Ih 08/01/20 1 9 IUI ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED.. > This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this n'otice. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2019) (Entered: 08/01/2019) ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned using a proportionate, random, and blind system pursuant to General Order No. 44 t0 JudgeBeth Labson Freeman for all further proceedings; Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and httpz/lcand.uscourts.gov/cameras. Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins remains ‘as referral judge assigned t0 case. Reassignment Order signed by Clerk 0n 8/2/2019. (Attachments: # l Notice of Eligibility_for Video Recording)(wa, COURT STAFF) (Filed 0n 8/2/2019) (Entered: 08/02/2019) Ix)08/02/20] 9 3of5 ' 12/]7/2019,10:I7AM CAND-ECF httpsz/lecficand.circ9.dcn/cgi-bin/DklRpt.pl?61 1568773446589-L_l_051 08/05/2019 8 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AFTER REASSIGN'M ENT. Case Management Statement due by 10/3 1/2019. lnitialCase Management Conference set for 11/7/2019 11 .00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor. (This is a text- 0nly entry generated by the court. There is n0 document associated with thts entry). (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2019) (Entered: 08/05/20] 9) 08/05/2019 2 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY VENUE IS PROPER IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 19, 2019. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/5/2019. (blflc2_S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2019) (Entered: 08/05/2019) 08/19/20] 9 19 Declaration ofAnh Nguyen in Support 'of2 Order filed byJulia Magana, Tony Magana. (Attachments: # l Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 24) (Nguyen, Anh) w .(Filed on 8/19/2019) (Entered:-.08/19/2019) . 08/20/2019 I | ORDER DISCHARGING 2 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/20/2019. (beICZS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2019) (Entered: 08/20/2019) 09/] 3/201 9 12 Certificate oflnterested Entities by Silva Auto Group, Inc. identifying Corporate Parent Lakhwinder Brar for Silva Auto Group, lnc.. re I Notice of Removal, (May, Richard) (Filed on 9/1 3/20] 9) (Entered: 09/1 3/2019) 10/21/2019 V 13 ADR Certification (ADR L R 3-5 b) ofdiscussion ofADR options (Nguyen, Anh)- (Filed on 10/21/2019) (Entered. 10/21/2019) 10/30/2019 fl NOTICE oprpearance by Jacob William Cutler (Cutler, Jacob) (Filed 0n - ' 10/30/2019) (Entered: 10/30/2019) 10/3 1/2019 15 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 8 Clerk's Notice,, Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings, [JOINT STIPULATION T0 CONTINUE CASE AMNAGEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 7, 2019 AT 1]. 00A.M]:filed by Ford Motor Company, Silva Auto Group, lnc. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(May, Richard) (Filed on 10/31/2019) (Entered: 10/31/2019) l 1/04/2019 16 ORDER GRANTING E JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 11/4/2019. (blflc28, COURT STAFF) (Filed 0n 11/4/2019) (Entered: 11/04/2019) 11/05/201 9 Reset Case Management Conference re 1_6 Order on Stipulation: Initial Case Management Conference set for 12/5/2019 11:00 AM in San Jose, Coumoom 3, 5th Floor. Case Management Statement due by l 1/28/2019. (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2019) (Entered: 11/05/2019) 11/05/201 9 17 MOTION t0 Remand case to Santa Clara Superior Court filed by Julia Magana, ‘ Tony Magana. Motion Hearing set for 3/5/2020 09:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor before Judge Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 11/I9/2019. Replies due by 11/26/2019. (Attachments: # l Memorandum 0f Points and Authorities, # Z Declaration ofAnh Nguyen, # 3 Exhibit 1, # fl Proposed'Order) (Nguyen, Anh) (Filed 0n 11/5/2019) (Entered: 11/05/2019) 4of5 _ 12/17/20]9,l0:17AM CKND-ECF https://ecf.cand.circ9.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?6 I 1568773446589-L_1_0-l 11/19/20] 9 18 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (refl MOTION to Remand case to Santa Clara Supérior Court ) [DEFENDANTS FORD MOTOR COMPANYAND SIL VA A UTO GROUP, INC. D/B/A MADERA FORDS OPPOSITION T0 PLAHVTIFFS MOTION T0 REMAND] filed byFord Motor Company, Silva Auto Group, lnc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Richard]. May, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F)(May, Richard) (Filed on ll/l 9/2019) (Entered: ll/l9/2019) fl] 1/22/2019 I9 ORDER CONTINUING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. ' Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 11/22/2019. (blfchS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2019) (Entered: 11/22/2019) ' ll/25/2OI9 2O CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. ‘ Case Management Statement due by l/6/2020. Initial Case Management Conference set for l/13/2020 11 :00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor. (This is a (ext-only entry generated bthe 'court There is no document associated - M with this entry.) (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2019) (Entered: 11/25/2019) | 1/25/2019 2_l REPLY (re _l_’Z MOTION to Remand case t0 Santa Clara Superior Cour! ) filed byJulia Magana, Tony Magana. (Nguyen, Anh) (Filed on 11/25/2019) (Entered: 11/25/201 9) 12/09/2019. 22 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Case Management Statement due by 1/9/2020. Initial Case Management Conference seifor l/l 6/2020 11:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this enlry.)(tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2019) (Entered: 12/09/2019) 12/16/2019 23 ORDER GRANTING _l_7 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 12/16/2019. (blfchS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2019) (Entered: 12/16/2019) 12/16/2019 kg, (Court only) “*Ciyil Case Terminated. (sbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2019) (Entered: l2/17/2019) 50f5 ' 12/l7/20]9,|0:]7AM