In a ruling that could reshape the liability landscape for delivery platforms, a federal judge has allowed DoorDash to be added as a defendant in a wrongful death lawsuit stemming from the sale and delivery of aerosol electronics duster. The decision, issued on August 3, 2026, by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, also remands the case to the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara.
The lawsuit, Oscar Garcia et al. v. Walmart Inc. et al. (Case No. 5:26-cv-04175-PCP), was filed by Mitchell & Danoff Law Firm, Inc. on behalf of Venus Benabides and Oscar Garcia, individually and as personal representatives of 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 plaintiffs describe as obvious signs of inhalant abuse.
After Walmart removed the case from state court to federal court, Jesse Danoff, Managing Partner at Mitchell & Danoff, moved to add DoorDash as a defendant. The amended complaint asserts that DoorDash facilitated repeated deliveries of the duster, had sophisticated algorithms capable of flagging problematic purchasing patterns, yet continued processing orders under circumstances that made product misuse foreseeable. Adding DoorDash, a California-based company, destroyed diversity jurisdiction, paving the way for the case to return to state court.
“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,” Danoff said. “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 grants federal courts discretion to permit or deny joinder when a new defendant 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 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 products they help distribute. The case will now proceed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, where the plaintiffs will pursue claims against Walmart and DoorDash.
