Delilah Merfalen Gutierrez v. Glen Earl Whitley, 2:20-cv-08542

On July 10, 2018, Daniel Ramon Gutierrez was killed when a multi-vehicle chain collision on SR‑60 involved his motorcycle, a Toyota (driven by a non‑party), an older red Freightliner, and a 2016 white tractor‑trailer operated by Whitley and owned by Praxair.
Plaintiffs (decedent’s spouse and children) are California residents; Hernandez (driver of the red Freightliner) is a California resident; Whitley is an Arizona resident; Praxair is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Connecticut.
Plaintiffs sued in Los Angeles County Superior Court for wrongful death (negligence) against Hernandez, Whitley, and Praxair; defendants removed to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction and that Hernandez was fraudulently joined.
The controlling question was whether Hernandez (a non‑diverse defendant) was fraudulently joined such that his citizenship can be ignored for diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
The California Highway Patrol Traffic Collision Report (TCR) identified an older red Freightliner leaving the scene and notes that Hernandez (driving a similar red Freightliner) witnessed the incident and was stopped near the same exit; defendants point to discrepancies in vehicle description and damage.
The district court evaluated whether, under Ninth Circuit fraudulent‑joinder standards, defendants met their heavy burden to show there is no possibility plaintiffs could establish liability against Hernandez.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fraudulent joinder of Hernandez	Plaintiffs allege Hernandez merged unsafely, struck the Toyota, and his negligence was a substantial factor in the chain collision; TCR facts (witness description, location, Hernandez witnessed incident) make liability possible	Defendants argue TCR disproves involvement (vehicle differences, damage mismatch, Hernandez’s denial), therefore Hernandez is a sham and removal is proper	Court: Defendants failed to prove fraudulent joinder by clear and convincing evidence; there is a possibility plaintiffs can state a claim against Hernandez; remand required
Burden/standard for removal	Remand urged because complete diversity lacking while Hernandez remains a viable defendant	Removal proponents bear the burden to establish federal jurisdiction and must show no possibility of a claim against the non‑diverse defendant	Court: reiterates heavy burden on removing defendants; doubts resolved for remand; denied defendants’ removal and remanded case

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (removal statutes strictly construed; removing party must show federal jurisdiction)
Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir.) (burden on removing defendant to establish removal is proper)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir.) (strong presumption against removal; defendant bears burden)
McCabe v. Gen. Foods Corp., 811 F.2d 1336 (9th Cir.) (explaining fraudulent joinder doctrine)
Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir.) (fraudulent joinder is term of art and test for obvious failure under state law)
Hamilton Materials, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Corp., 494 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir.) (fraudulent joinder must be proved by clear and convincing evidence)
Good v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 5 F. Supp. 2d 804 (N.D. Cal.) (removal improper unless no possibility plaintiffs could state claim against non‑diverse defendant)
Dodson v. Spiliada Mar. Corp., 951 F.2d 40 (5th Cir.) (discussing standard that no possibility must exist to support fraudulent joinder defense)
Hayes v. County of San Diego, 736 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir.) (wrongful death negligence requires duty, breach, and causation)