I. BACKGROUND

17 Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against Ford Motor Company in Case No. 37- 18 2023-00052007-CU-BCCTL of the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. 19 Plaintiff filed its state action asserting state causes of action for violation of California’s 20 Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly Act”), and breaches of express 21 and implied warranty. The causes of action are based on Plaintiff’s $82,249 purchase of 22 a new 2020 Ford F-150 (VIN:1FTFWIRG6LFB34737) and alleged substantial defects 23 discovered therein. Ford Motor Company then removed the case to this Court, pursuant 24 to 28 U.S.C. §§§ 1332, 1441, and 1446, based on diversity of citizenship and an amount 25 in controversy exceeding $75,000. 26 Plaintiff now seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint to join as an 27 indispensable party defendant Chula Vista Ford, a citizen of California, as well as a cause 28 1 of action for negligent repair against Chula Vista Ford. See Motion, Dkt. 8 at 1. Plaintiff 2 argues that joinder of Chula Vista Ford under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) is proper because 3 efforts to repair the allegedly defective F-150 truck were attempted by Chula Vista Ford 4 and that therefore it is needed for just adjudication of this matter (e.g., the causes of 5 action against Ford Motor Company and Chula Vista Ford involve the same nucleus of 6 operative facts, the same legal theories, the same vehicle, and the same alleged defects). 7 Plaintiff also argues that resolution of the causes of action would require many of the 8 same documents and witnesses and will turn on many of the same legal and factual 9 questions. Plaintiff says its proposed amendment is timely and the cause of action 10 against Chula Vista Ford is facially legitimate. Finally, Plaintiff asserts that denial of 11 joinder will prejudice Plaintiff. See Motion Dkt 8-1 at 1. Moreover, as Chula Vista Ford 12 would be a a non-diverse defendant, Plaintiff seeks to remand this action to the San 13 Diego County Superior Court for lack of subject federal matter jurisdiction. Defendant 14 objects that joinder of Chula Vista Ford is improperly sought for the purposes of 15 destroying diversity jurisdiction. 16 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 17 A defendant in state court may remove a civil action to federal court so long as that 18 case could originally have been filed in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(1); City of 19 Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 163 (1997). However, a district court 20 must remand a case back to state court “if at any time before the final judgment it appears 21 that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Generally, 22 leave to amend a complaint is to be freely given as justice requires under FRCP Rule 23 15(a)(2). At the same time, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), “if after removal the plaintiff 24 seeks to join additional defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter 25 jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or permit joinder and remand the action to the 26 State court.” Forward-Rossi v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, No. 16-00949, 27 2016 WL 3396925, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2016) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e)). 28 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his Complaint to add a non-diverse defendant, i.e., 3 the local Chula Vista Ford dealership that attempted repairs on the allegedly defective F- 4 150 truck manufactured by Defendant Ford Motor Company. Defendant does not argue 5 that the proposed amendment is improper in and of itself, other than to suggest that the 6 claim against the dealership ultimately lacks merit. Plausibility is normally the test for 7 judging a proposed amended claim for relief. The ultimate merit of the proposed claim is 8 tested later. Here, Plaintiff proposes to amend its Complaint with a clearly plausible 9 claim for relief. 10 Leave for such an amendment is normally given under the federal courts’ liberal 11 approach of favoring deciding cases on the merits. See F.R.C.P. Rule 15(a)(2). “Rule 12 15(a) declares that leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires’; this 13 mandate is to be heeded. If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a 14 plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test 15 his claim on the merits.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (citation omitted). 16 “Leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires, and this policy is to be 17 applied with extreme liberality.” Bacon v. Woodward, 104 F.4th 744, 753 (9th Cir. 2024) 18 (quoting Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2014)). 19 The thrust of Defendant’s opposition is that the proposed amendment is improper 20 because the addition of a California citizen defendant would destroy diversity 21 jurisdiction. Defendant relies on 28 U.S.C. §1447(e). There is a current split of opinion 22 among trial courts regarding whether to apply Rule 15(a) or Section 1447(e) in these 23 circumstances. The split has not yet been addressed by the Ninth Circuit. See McGrath 24 v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 298 F.R.D. 601, 606 (S.D. Cal. 2014) (Curiel, J.) (noting split 25 of opinion and applying § 1447(e) to timely post-removal amendment). 26 Defendant Ford Motor Company has made its argument before, but the arguments 27 have not been persuasive. See Blowers v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. CV 17–8224–JFW 28 (KSx), 2018 WL 654415 at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2018) (granting leave to amend to 1 ||add non-diverse defendant dealership and remanding); Malijen v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2 || 20-cv-1217-JBG-KKX, 2020 WL 5934298 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2020) (granting 3 || leave to amend to add non-diverse defendant under §1447(e) and remanding); Lee v. 4 || Ford Motor Corp., No. 19-cv-10170-AB-FFM, 2020 WL 2835748 at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 5 || 29, 2020) (“Plaintiff's joinder of the Dealer was procedurally proper and not subject to 6 || the scrutiny of a §1447(e) analysis.”). Blowers decided that “despite Ford Motor Co.’s 7 arguments, there is nothing inherently unfair in allowing Plaintiffs to join Santa Maria 8 || Ford ‘as a matter of course’ to obtain remand. As other courts have recognized, removal 9 || to federal court is itself a type of forum shopping, and there is nothing inherently wrong 10 || with a party using procedural rules to secure a remand to the forum of their choice.” □□□ 11 *3. This Court agrees with Blowers, Malijen, and Lee, and finds that leave should be 12 || granted Plaintiff to amend its Complaint to add a non-diverse dealership. 13 In light of the conclusion that Plaintiff's amendment naming Chula Vista Ford as a 14 || defendant will be granted, diversity jurisdiction no longer exists. Title 28 U.S.C. 15 §1447(c) clearly provides that where subject matter jurisdiction does not exist, the Court 16 remand the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it 17 || appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be 18 ||remanded.”); Nat’l Ass’n. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 664, 661— 19 || 62 (2007) (statute admits of no discretion). Accordingly, the Court concludes that 20 remand is required. 21 IV. CONCLUSION 22 Plaintiff's motion to amend is granted, the proposed amended complaint is deemed 23 || filed, and the case is remanded back to the Superior Court of California, San Diego 24 County, Case No. 37-2023-00052007-CU-BCCTL. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: August 7, 2024 27 HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ 3g United States District Judge