Court Adds DoorDash to Aerosol Duster Wrongful Death Suit, Remands Case to State Court

In a ruling that could have significant implications for delivery platforms, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has granted a motion to add DoorDash, Inc. as a defendant in a wrongful death lawsuit stemming from the sale and delivery of aerosol electronics duster. The court also remanded the case to the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, after determining that the addition of DoorDash, a California-based company, destroyed federal diversity jurisdiction.

The case, Oscar Garcia et al. v. Walmart Inc. et al. (Case No. 5:26-cv-04175-PCP), was filed on behalf of Venus Benabides and Oscar Garcia, individually and as personal representatives for the estate of Rudy Rey Garcia. The complaint alleges that Mr. Garcia died on July 21, 2025, after inhaling aerosol electronics duster that was sold and delivered in unusually large quantities despite what the complaint describes as obvious signs of inhalant abuse.

After Walmart removed the case from state court to federal court, Mitchell & Danoff Law Firm, Inc. filed a motion to add DoorDash as a defendant. The amended complaint alleges that DoorDash facilitated repeated deliveries of electronics duster to the decedent, had sophisticated algorithms with the capability to flag problematic purchasing patterns, yet continued processing those orders under circumstances that made product misuse foreseeable.

Jesse Danoff, Managing Partner at Mitchell & Danoff Law Firm, Inc., emphasized the importance of holding all parties accountable. "Every company that played a role in this tragedy should be held accountable, regardless of how large that company is or what it calls itself in its terms of service," said Danoff. "Delivery platforms cannot simply distance themselves from the transactions they facilitate. Our clients lost a member of their family, and we intend to hold every responsible party to account as this case moves forward."

Judge P. Casey Pitts evaluated the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), which gives federal courts discretion to permit or deny joinder when a new defendant's presence would destroy diversity jurisdiction. The court found that the plaintiffs stated a facially valid negligence claim against DoorDash under California Civil Code § 1714(a) and that DoorDash was not merely tangentially related to the action. The court noted that the claims against both defendants arise from a common set of facts and that California's comparative fault framework makes a single proceeding important for proper allocation of responsibility.

This ruling reflects a developing area of personal injury law concerning the accountability of delivery platforms for harms associated with the products they help distribute. The case will now proceed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, where the plaintiffs will have the opportunity to pursue claims against both Walmart and DoorDash.