1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN CARLOS BORROEL, Case No. 2:22-cv-02706-FLA (JPRx) 12 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

13 v. DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 14 MOTION TO REMAND AND FOR

LEAVE TO FILE SECOND

15 HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., et al., AMENDED COMPLAINT [DKT. 14] 16 Defendants.

17

18 19 RULING 20 Before the court is Plaintiff Juan Carlos Borroel’s (“Plaintiff” or “Borroel”) 21 Motion to Remand and for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (“Motion”). 22 Dkt. 14.1 Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (“Defendant” or “Home Depot”) filed 23 an Opposition. Dkt. 19 (“Opp’n”). Plaintiff filed a Reply. Dkt. 22. On June 10, 24 2022, the court found this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument and 25 vacated the hearing set for June 17, 2022. Dkt. 24; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Local 26 Rule 7-15. 27

28 1 Plaintiff’s duplicative filing on May 26, 2022, Dkt. 18, is STRICKEN. 1 For the reasons stated herein, the court GRANTS in PART the Motion, and 2 REMANDS the action to the Los Angeles Superior Court. Plaintiff’s request for 3 leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is DENIED as MOOT. 4 BACKGROUND 5 On November 22, 2021, Plaintiff, a California resident, filed his Complaint in 6 the Los Angeles Superior Court against Home Depot and Does 1-100. Dkt. 1-1 7 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff alleges he slipped and fell on black ice in a Home Depot parking 8 lot in Lancaster, California. See generally id. 9 On April 22, 2022, Home Depot removed the action to this court, invoking 10 diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Dkt. 1 (“NOR”). On April 26, 11 2022, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint as a matter of course pursuant to 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), adding a non-diverse defendant and California corporation, PCS 13 Building Maintenance, Inc. (“PCS”). Dkt. 8 (“FAC”) ¶ 10. Plaintiff alleges a single 14 cause of negligence based on premises liability against both Home Depot and PCS. 15 See generally id. 16 On May 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed the underlying Motion to file a Second 17 Amended Complaint—adding additional non-diverse defendants and California 18 residents Gabe Garcia, Elizabeth Rodriguez, and Deanna Buhrer—and remand to Los 19 Angeles Superior Court. See generally Mot. Plaintiff alleges these three individuals 20 were managers or supervisors at the Home Depot location where he slipped and fell. 21 Id. at 6.2 22 DISCUSSION 23 I. Legal Standard 24 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power 25 authorized by Constitution and statute.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) 26

27 2 The court cites documents by the page numbers added by the CM/ECF system, 28 rather than any page numbers listed within the documents. 1 (quotations omitted). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove a 2 civil action filed in state court to federal court only where the district court would 3 have original jurisdiction. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). 4 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a district court has original jurisdiction over a civil action 5 where (1) the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive 6 of interest and costs, and (2) the dispute is between “citizens of different States.” 7 “Removal statutes are to be ‘strictly construed’ against removal jurisdiction.” 8 Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2012). “If at any time 9 before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, 10 the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 11 II. Analysis 12 As stated, Home Depot removed this action invoking this court’s diversity 13 jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See generally NOR. The parties do not 14 dispute that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, or that complete diversity 15 existed at the time of removal. Mot. at 8. Similarly, the parties do not dispute that 16 Plaintiff’s addition of defendant PCS in the First Amended Complaint destroys 17 diversity.3 Id.; Opp’n at 2. 18 Home Depot asserts remand should be denied because PCS is an improper 19 defendant named in the First Amended Complaint, and because Plaintiff’s proposed 20 Second Amended Complaint attempts to add “sham” defendants constituting 21 fraudulent joinder. See generally Opp’n. The court is not persuaded. 22 Despite generally asserting PCS is an improper defendant, Home Depot does 23 not present any evidence or legal authority. Home Depot states PCS “does not have 24

25 3 Plaintiff is a citizen of California. FAC ¶ 3; Mot. at 8. Home Depot is a citizen of 26 Delaware and Georgia. NOR ¶ 6; Mot. at 8; see Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 27 80 (2010) (For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, “a corporation [is] deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and the State where it has its 28 principal place of business.”). PCS is a citizen of California. Mot. at 8. | | any business relationship with Home Depot or the store where plaintiff's incident 2 || occurred” and that “plaintiff is likely confusing the relationship with PC Maintenance, 3 | LLC.” Jd. at 2, 5-6, 19. The supporting declaration is signed by counsel Tracy 4 | Hughes, without any documentation or statement by Home Depot. /d. at 19. 5 Accordingly, the court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the parties’ 6 | dispute and the action must be remanded to the Los Angeles Superior Court. The 7 || court need not reach Plaintiff's request for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. 8 CONCLUSION 9 For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS in PART Plaintiff's Motion, 10 | Dkt. 14, and REMANDS the action to the Los Angeles Superior Court, Case Number 11 | 21AVCV00979. Plaintiffs request for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is 12 | DENIED as MOOT. Plaintiff's duplicative motion at Dkt. 18 is STRICKEN. The 13 | Clerk of the Court shall administratively close the action. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 | Dated: March 31, 2023 18 apf) 19 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28