Arredondo v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
3:25-cv-00292
S.D. Cal.Aug 15, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Leah Sophia Arredondo filed a negligence and premises liability suit after a slip-and-fall at a Costco in Chula Vista, California.
- The case was originally filed in California state court; defendant Costco Wholesale Corp. (Wholesale) removed it to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction.
- Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that complete diversity was lacking because one defendant, Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc. (Membership), is a California resident.
- Wholesale argued that Membership was fraudulently joined as a sham defendant solely to defeat federal jurisdiction.
- The court disregarded new arguments and evidence Plaintiff raised for the first time in her reply brief, finding the conduct improper.
- The central issue was whether Membership could possibly be liable under Plaintiff's claims, thus impacting federal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diversity jurisdiction due to Membership's citizenship | Membership is a California resident, destroying complete diversity | Membership is a sham defendant, fraudulently joined to defeat jurisdiction | Membership's citizenship is disregarded; complete diversity exists |
| Plaintiff's ability to state a claim against Membership | Plaintiff alleges negligence and premises liability against all defendants | Membership has no control over warehouse operations or the premises | No possible claim against Membership under California law |
| Timeliness/Leave to amend (reply brief arguments) | Sought leave to add a new non-diverse defendant in reply | Raised new arguments in reply is improper; no fair chance to respond | Court disregards new reply arguments and related evidence |
| Motion to remand | Court should remand for lack of diversity | Removal proper as Membership was fraudulently joined | Motion to remand denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (removal is proper despite non-diverse defendant if that party is fraudulently joined)
- Hansen v. Grp. Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051 (removing party bears burden to show jurisdiction)
- Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 (standards for fraudulent joinder)
- Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co., 139 F.3d 1313 (fraudulent joinder when no claim can be stated against non-diverse defendant)
- Annocki v. Peterson Enterprises, LLC, 180 Cal. Rptr. 3d 474 (explains duty element for premises liability under California law)