Trujillo v. The Renalt-Thomas Corp.
| Docket Number | 21-1072 MV/CG |
| Decision Date | 21 March 2022 |
| Parties | WILLIAM TRUJILLO, as Personal Representative of THE ESTATE OF DANIEL MATTHEW TRUJILLO, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. THE REINALT-THOMAS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion for Remand (the "Motion"), (Doc. 4), filed by Plaintiff William Trujillo on December 6, 2021; the Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Remand [Doc 4], (the "Response"), (Doc. 7), filed by Defendant The Reinalt-Thomas Corporation and Defendant Discount Tire Co., Inc. on December 20, 2021; Plaintiffs Reply in Support of Motion for Remand (the "Reply"), (Doc. 10), filed January 3, 2022 Defendants' Surreply to Plaintiff's Reply on his Motion for Remand [Doc. 10] (the "Surreply") (Doc. 15), filed February 2, 2022; and Plaintiffs Response to Defendants' Surreply to Plaintiff's Reply to Motion to Remand (the "Reply to Surreply"), (Doc. 16), filed February 9 2022.[1]
On January 26, 2022, United States District Judge Martha Vazquez referred the Motion to the undersigned to perform legal analysis and recommend an ultimate disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (Doc. 14). The Court, having considered the parties' briefing, the record, and the relevant law, RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, (Doc. 4), be GRANTED, and that Plaintiffs request for attorney fees raised in the Reply in Support of Motion for Remand, (Doc. 10), be DENIED.
On June 9, 2018, Daniel Trujillo was killed in an automobile rollover accident. (Doc. 1-3 at 1). At the time, he was driving a 1981 Jeep CJ7, which, approximately eight years prior, had been equipped with four 35x12.50 R15 tires purchased from Defendant Discount Tire Co., Inc. ("Discount Tire"), a subsidiary of Defendant The Reinalt-Thomas Company ("RTC"). Id. at 5; (Doc. 4 at 1). Plaintiff, who is the personal representative of the estate of Daniel Trujillo, attributes the accident to the "oversized" nature of the tires "for the particular model size Jeep." (Doc. 4 at 1).
On June 7, 2021, approximately three years after the accident, Plaintiff filed his Complaint for Personal Injury (the "Complaint"), (Doc. 1-3), in the Fourth Judicial District Court in San Miguel County, New Mexico, raising claims of negligence against RTC, Discount Tire, and "Tommy Herberger." In particular, the Complaint alleges that Discount Tire, and RTC as agent for Discount Tire, were negligent in selling and installing the oversized tires that were on Daniel Trujillo's Jeep at the time of the accident. Id. at 5. The Complaint alleges Defendant Herberger was negligent in "allowing the vehicle to be driven with oversized tires." Id. at 6.
With regard to jurisdiction, the Complaint alleges Plaintiff resides in Pecos, New Mexico, that RTC has its "principal place of business" in "Scottsdale, Arizona," that Discount Tire is "domiciled in Arizona[, ]" and that Defendant Herberger can be served with process at 409 Camino Don Miguel, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505." Id. at 1-2, 4. The Complaint further alleges that RTC and Discount Tire "collectively operate approximately 29 retail tire stores in New Mexico," that Discount Tire has a regional office in New Mexico, and that RTC "controls what each employee at the various Discount Tire stores does and how they do it." Id. at 3. The Complaint states that "there is no diversity of citizenship" because Daniel Trujillo, the decedent, and Defendant Herberger are both citizens of New Mexico. Id. at 4.
The same day Plaintiff filed his Complaint, summonses were issued to RTC and Discount Tire, (Doc. 1-5); (Doc. 1-6), and on June 17, 2021, both were returned as served, (Doc. 1-7); (Doc. 1-8). An amended summons was issued to Discount Tire on June 28, 2021, and it was returned as served on July 30, 2021. (Doc. 1 -9). On July 19, 2021, RTC and Discount Tire filed their Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint and Jury Demand ("the Answer"), (Doc. 1 -12).
On November 5, 2021, RTC and Discount Tire filed a Notice of Removal to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico (the "Notice of Removal"), (Doc. 1), on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, removing this action from state court to federal court. (Doc. 4-1). Specifically, as the basis for diversity jurisdiction, the Notice alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000, and that Plaintiff is a citizen of New Mexico while RTC and Discount Tire are not. Id. at 3-4. The Notice further alleges that RTC and Discount Tire first learned of the existence of diversity jurisdiction after RTC and Discount Tire received Plaintiffs settlement demand, which "entirely omitted any discussion of [Defendant] Herberger's liability for the death of Plaintiffs decedent[.]" Id. at 4. The Notice alleges that that fact, coupled with Plaintiffs "lack of service" on Defendant Herberger, revealed that "Plaintiff named [Defendant] Herberger in the Complaint in order to defeat diversity jurisdiction." Id. at 6. That same day, a summons was issued to Defendant Herberger.
On December 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, seeking remand of this case back to state court. (Doc. 4). First, Plaintiff contends federal jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship is lacking because Defendant Herberger is a citizen of New Mexico, he "has not been dismissed from the case[, ]" and Plaintiff "is actively working" on serving him with the summons. Id. at 3. Second, Plaintiff argues that RTC and Discount Tire failed to timely file their Notice of Removal. Id. at 4-6. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks attorney fees in connection with the removal of this action. (Doc. 10 at 7).
An action initially filed in state court may be removed to federal district court if there exists either a federal question or diversity of citizenship among the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)-(b). However, "[t]here is a presumption against removal jurisdiction," Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir. 1995), and the party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal court jurisdiction "by a preponderance of the evidence." McPhail v. Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947, 953 (10th Cir. 2008). "All doubts are to be resolved against removal[.]" Fajen v. Found. Reserve Ins., 683 F.2d 331, 333 (10th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted).
If a defendant has removed a matter to federal court, the plaintiff may object to the removal by filing a motion to remand the case back to state court. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 69 (1996). A plaintiff's objection to removal may be based upon procedural or jurisdictional grounds. See Huffman v. Saul Holdings LLC, 194 F.3d 1072, 1076 (10th Cir. 1999) () (citation omitted).
First, Plaintiff argues for remand of this matter back to state court on the grounds that RTC and Discount Tire (collectively "Discount Tire Defendants") failed to timely file the Notice of Removal. (Doc. 4 at 4). Plaintiff contends Discount Tire Defendants failed to file the Notice of Removal within 30 days of the date Plaintiff filed the Complaint, and instead filed it approximately 150 days after Plaintiff filed the Complaint. Id. at 5-6.
Discount Tire Defendants contend they did not learn the matter was removable to federal court-i.e., that Defendant Herberger was fraudulently joined in the case to defeat diversity jurisdiction-until they received Plaintiffs "October 7, 2021 settlement negotiation correspondence." (Doc. 7 at 4-5, 14). In particular, Discount Tire Defendants state the existence of fraudulent joinder became evident when, coupled with the service issues, Plaintiffs settlement letter "excluded [Defendant] Herberger as a liable party," but analyzed the liability of Discount Tire Defendants, of Daniel Trujillo, and of the person who supplied alcohol to Daniel Trujillo on the night of the accident. Id. at 14. Discount Tire Defendants contend they filed the Notice of Removal "within 30 days of receipt of Plaintiffs settlement letter, making it timely." Id. at 14.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), a party seeking removal of a matter to federal court must file a notice of removal in the district and division where the state action is pending, "containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, together with all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant or defendants in such action." The notice of removal must be filed "within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). But "if the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, a notice of removal may be filed within 30 days after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). A defendant's "failure to comply with these express statutory requirements for removal can fairly be said to render the removal defective' and justify a remand." Huffman, 194 F.3d at 1077 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Here Plaintiff filed his Complaint on June 6, 2021, in which he alleged "there is no diversity of citizenship" because Daniel Trujillo, the decedent, and Defendant Herberger are...
To continue reading
Request your trial