A federal court has ruled that DoorDash, Inc. can be added as a defendant in a wrongful death lawsuit stemming from the sale and delivery of aerosol electronics duster, a decision that could have broad implications for delivery platforms. The ruling, issued on August 3, 2026, by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, also sends the case back to state court in Santa Clara County, where it will proceed against both Walmart and DoorDash.
The lawsuit, filed by Venus Benabides and Oscar Garcia as personal representatives of the estate of Rudy Rey Garcia, alleges that Garcia died on July 21, 2025, after inhaling aerosol electronics duster that was sold and delivered in unusually large quantities. The complaint contends that Walmart sold the product and DoorDash facilitated its repeated delivery, despite what the plaintiffs describe as obvious signs of inhalant abuse. According to the plaintiffs, DoorDash's sophisticated algorithms had the capability to flag problematic purchasing patterns, yet the company continued processing the orders, making product misuse foreseeable.
After Walmart removed the case from California state court to federal court, Mitchell & Danoff Law Firm, Inc., representing the plaintiffs, filed a motion to add DoorDash as a defendant. The firm argued that DoorDash, as a California-based company, should be held accountable for its role in the deliveries. Adding DoorDash destroyed the diversity of citizenship that had allowed the case to be heard in federal court, prompting the plaintiffs to seek remand to state court.
Judge P. Casey Pitts evaluated the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), which grants 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 judge 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.
Jesse Danoff, Managing Partner at Mitchell & Danoff Law Firm, Inc., emphasized the significance of the ruling: "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. 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."
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. As online ordering and delivery services become increasingly integral to commerce, courts are beginning to scrutinize the extent to which these platforms can be held liable for the consequences of the products they deliver. The decision could set a precedent for future cases involving delivery companies and third-party sellers, potentially expanding liability beyond traditional retailers and manufacturers.
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 in a single proceeding. The outcome of this litigation could have far-reaching implications for the gig economy and the responsibilities of tech companies that facilitate transactions.
