Voyne v. Longs Drug Stores California L.L.C.

Background

Anna Voyne filed a premises-liability action in Monterey County Superior Court against Longs Drug Stores California, LLC; CVC Pharmacy, Inc.; and Martha Ortiz. Voyne alleged that she was severely injured in a slip-and-fall at a Longs Drug Stores pharmacy on June 20, 2023, after an employee or agent directed her to an area of the store where a dangerous condition existed.

Voyne asserted state-law claims for negligent ownership, management, construction, inspection, supervision, or control of the premises; negligent hiring, training, supervision, management, or employment; and premises liability based on negligence and failure to warn.

Longs Drug Stores and CVS removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. They argued that Ortiz, whom the opinion identifies as an in-state defendant, had been fraudulently joined. Fraudulent joinder is the claimed improper addition of a defendant to defeat federal diversity jurisdiction. The defendants also moved to dismiss claims against CVS and Ortiz. Voyne moved to remand the case to state court.

Jurisdiction and Fraudulent Joinder

The parties agreed that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, that Voyne and the two corporate defendants were citizens of different states, and that Ortiz’s presence would destroy complete diversity. The issue was whether Ortiz was properly named as a defendant.

The court explained that defendants asserting fraudulent joinder bear a heavy burden. They must show that the plaintiff cannot possibly establish a claim against the in-state defendant. If there is a possibility that a state court would find that the complaint states a claim against that defendant, the joinder is proper and the case must be remanded.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that Ortiz was improperly joined because she was not a required party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. That rule addresses who must be joined, not who may properly be joined.

The court also rejected the argument that Ortiz could not be liable because she was not present at the store when Voyne was injured. The court stated that Voyne’s negligence claims alleged that all defendants owed her a duty of care and breached it by creating dangerous conditions or negligently supervising others. The court concluded that California law did not shield an agent from liability for the agent’s own negligence merely because the alleged conduct involved a failure to act.

Finally, the court rejected the defendants’ argument that only the corporate defendants could be liable for negligent hiring or supervision. It explained that the cited authority concerned direct liability for negligent hiring or supervision, not a rule immunizing a manager from liability for the manager’s own negligent supervision.

Rulings

The court concluded that Ortiz was not fraudulently joined. Because her presence destroyed complete diversity, the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court therefore granted Voyne’s motion to remand.

The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court did not award attorney’s fees and costs at this stage. Instead, it ordered the defendants to show cause by March 31, 2026, why attorney’s fees and costs should not be awarded against them under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).