Valentina Gabrimassihi v. BMW Financial Services NA, LLC ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VALENTINA GABRIMASSIHI and Case No. 8:24-cv-01409-JWH-SK EMIN GABRIMASSIHI, 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER REGARDING 13 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO v. REMAND [ECF No. 13] 14 BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, 15 LLC, IRVINE BMW IRVINE MINI, 16 DAMON JOHN SHELLY, IRVINE EUROCARS, LLC, formerly 17 known as DOE 1, and DOES 2-30, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Before the Court is the motion of Plaintiffs Valentina and Emin 2|| Gabrimassihi to remand this action to Orange County Superior Court.’ 3|| Defendant BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, opposes the Motion,’ and the 4|| matter is fully briefed.* The Court concludes that this matter is appropriate for 5|| resolution without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. For the reasons 6 || described herein, the Court DENIES the Motion. 7 I. BACKGROUND 8 The Gabrimassihis initially filed this action in Orange County Superior 9|| Court in February 2024.* In their Complaint, the Gabrimassihis assert the || following claims for relief: 11 e fraud and deceit; 12 e breach of the implied covenant of food faith and fair dealing; 13 e violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17220 et seg. (the “UCL”’); 14 e violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 1750 et seg. (the “FAL”); and 15 e violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (the 16 “CLRA”).5 17|| Subsequently, while the action was pending in state court, all other Defendants 18 || named in the caption were dismissed upon the request of the Gabrimassihis such 19|| that only BMW remained as a Defendant.® In June 2024, BMW removed the || case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 & 1441, asserting diversity 21 ° Pls.’ Mot. to Remand Case to Orange Sup. Ct. (the “‘Motion”’) [ECF No. 13]. 31 Def.’s Opp’n to Motion (the “Opposition”) [ECF No. 20]. 241 Pls.’ Reply in Supp. of Motion (the “Reply”) [ECF No. 21]. 4 Notice of Removal [ECF No. 1] ] 1; see also Notice of Removal, Ex. A (the “Complaint”’) [ECF 1-1]. ° See generally Complaint. 28|| ° Notice of Removal 4 1. 1 jurisdiction.7 Specifically, BMW asserted that complete diversity exists among 2 the remaining parties because the Gabrimassihis are citizens of California, BMW 3 is a citizen of Delaware and New Jersey, and, in their Complaint, the 4 Gabrimassihis state that they seek damages in the amount of $464,908.43.8 5 II. LEGAL STANDARD 6 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Accordingly, “[t]hey 7 possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. 8 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “The right of removal is 9 entirely a creature of statute and a suit commenced in a state court must remain 10 there until cause is shown for its transfer under some act of Congress.” 11 Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002) (internal quotation 12 marks omitted). Where Congress has acted to create a right of removal, those 13 statutes, unless otherwise stated, are strictly construed against removal 14 jurisdiction. See id. 15 “Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal 16 court may be removed to federal court by the defendant.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 17 Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). To remove an action to federal court under 18 28 U.S.C. § 1441, the removing defendant “must demonstrate that original 19 subject-matter jurisdiction lies in the federal courts.” Syngenta, 537 U.S. at 33. 20 As such, a defendant may remove a civil action in which either (1) a federal 21 question exists; or (2) complete diversity of citizenship between the parties 22 exists and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 23 1332. “Complete diversity” means that “each defendant must be a citizen of a 24 different state from each plaintiff.” In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litigation, 25 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008). 26 27 7 See id. at ¶¶ 3-7. 1 Ill. ANALYSIS 2 The Gabrimassihis filed their instant Motion in July 2024.’ On the same 3|| day, they filed a “Request” to dismiss without prejudice their first claim for 4|| relief for fraud and deceit and to strike from the Complaint their prayer for 5|| punitive damages.’ This Court struck that Request.” 6 In their Motion, the Gabrimassihis rely upon their post-removal Request 7 || to argue that—because they no longer seek punitive damages —their realistic &|| amount of recovery is $46,420.76, and, therefore, BMW cannot adequately 9|| prove that the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000, as is required for removal pursuant to diversity jurisdiction.” 11 But diversity, for the purpose of removal to federal Court, is analyzed at 12|| the time of removal. See, e.g., Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 70 (1996). 13|| Here, BMW adequately proved that the parties were sufficiently diverse and 14|| that the amount in controversy requirement was met at the time of removal." 15 IV. DISPOSITION 16 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that the 17|| Gabrimassihis’ instant Motion to remand [ECF No. 13] is DENIED. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20\| Dated:__October 17, 2024 21 watt SERTES DISTRICT JUDGE 22\| ° See generally Motion. 23\| °° — See generally Req. to Dismiss Cause of Action for Fraud and Deceit 24 without Prejudice and Strike Punitive Damages [ECF No. 12]. u See id.; Notice to Filer of Deficiencies [ECF No. 15]; Resp. by the Ct. to NOD [ECF No. 16]. 26!) 12 See Decl. of Hovanes Margarian in Supp. of the Motion [ECF No. 13-1] YY 13-17. 28|| % — See generally Notice of Removal.