Judith Mendoza v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Judith Mendoza’s second renewed motion to remand her premises-liability action to state court. The court held that Russell Follmer was not a properly joined defendant because Mendoza had not obtained leave to amend after entry of the scheduling order, and therefore his citizenship did not defeat diversity jurisdiction. The court also rejected Mendoza’s equitable-estoppel and attorney’s-fee arguments.

Holdings

1. Only properly joined defendants may be considered in determining whether complete diversity exists. Because Plaintiff did not obtain leave of court to amend the Complaint after entry of the scheduling order, Follmer was not a defendant in the action and his citizenship did not defeat diversity jurisdiction.
2. Even if construed as a motion for reconsideration, the second renewed motion failed because Plaintiff did not identify newly discovered material facts, an intervening change in law, clear error, or a manifest failure to consider material facts.
3. Defendant's isolated email statement did not equitably estop Defendant from opposing remand and did not constitute a binding agreement to remand the action.
4. Plaintiff was not entitled to attorney's fees or costs because § 1447(c) authorizes such an award when a court grants a motion to remand, and the court denied Plaintiff's motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff's second renewed motion to remand should be granted based on the alleged addition of Russell Follmer as a nondiverse defendant.
2. Whether the court should reconsider the district judge's prior rulings concerning Follmer's joinder and diversity jurisdiction.
3. Whether Defendant's email referring to remand equitably estopped Defendant from opposing remand.
4. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to attorney's fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) despite denial of the motion to remand.

Disposition

other