Rhodes v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SANDRA RHODES, No. 2:20-cv-01548-JAM-EFB 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND 13 MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter is before the Court on Sandra Rhodes’ 17 (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand. Mot. to Remand (“Mot.”), ECF No. 18 6. Plaintiff filed suit against Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC 19 (“Defendant”) in Placer County Superior Court. See Compl., Ex. A 20 to Mot., ECF No. 6. Defendant removed the case to federal court, 21 invoking this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. Notice of Removal 22 at 4 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332). In response, Plaintiff filed 23 this motion to remand. ECF No. 6. Defendant opposed. Def.’s 24 Opp’n., ECF No. 10. Plaintiff did not file a reply. 25 For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS 26 Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.1 27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28 scheduled for November 10, 2020. 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 In March 2018, Plaintiff leased a 2018 Mercedes GLS450 3 manufactured by Defendant. Compl. at ¶ 3. Plaintiff alleges the 4 GLS450 had various defects that required her to take the car in 5 for service several times. Id. at ¶¶ 18-29. The problems with 6 the car persisted and Plaintiff asked Defendant to replace or 7 repurchase the SUV. Id. at ¶ 26. Defendant refused. Id. at 8 ¶ 29. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Defendant on January 9 10, 2020, in Placer County Superior Court. See Compl. Plaintiff 10 alleges breach of express and implied warranties under both the 11 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., and the 12 Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civil Code § 1790 et 13 seq. Id. at ¶¶ 33-63. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief. Id. at 14 ¶¶ 42, 50, 55, 63. 15 On March 5, 2020, Defendant answered and simultaneously 16 served its first set of written discovery on Plaintiff. See 17 Answer, Ex. B to Mot., ECF No. 6. Plaintiff responded on March 18 25, 2020. See Ex. C to Mot. Relevant to the present motion, 19 Plaintiff stated in her March 25 response to Defendant’s Special 20 Interrogatory No. 1 that she sustained the following damages: 21 “Vehicle Cost: $70,413.98,” “Civil Penalty: As provided by 22 statute,” “Diminished Value . . . not to exceed 50% of the 23 purchase price of the vehicle,” “Aggravation and 24 Inconvenience . . . not to exceed $15,000.00,” “Loss of use,” and 25 “Other Incidental and Consequential Damages . . . not to exceed 26 $15,000.00.” Id. 27 After Plaintiff replied to the first set of discovery, 28 Defendant changed counsel. Mot. at 4. Defendant’s new counsel 1 served Plaintiff with a second set of written discovery on June 2 10, 2020, to which Plaintiff responded on July 10, 2020. Id. 3 Defendant’s new counsel then filed a Notice of Removal on August 4 3, 2020. See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. On September 2, 2020, 5 Plaintiff filed this motion to remand. See Mot. 6 7 I. OPINION 8 A. Motion to Remand 9 1. Legal Standard 10 A defendant may remove a case from state to federal court if 11 the federal court would have had jurisdiction over the matter 12 were it originally filed there. 28 U.S.C. § 1441; Moore-Tomas v. 13 Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1243 (9th Cir. 2009). The 14 defendant then bears the burden of establishing that removal is 15 proper. Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 16 Section 1446(b) creates two thirty-day windows for removing 17 a case from state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1446. When the presence of 18 federal jurisdiction is clear on the face of the complaint, 19 defendants must file a notice of removal within thirty days of 20 receiving the initial pleading. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). When 21 the complaint does not set forth grounds for federal 22 jurisdiction, defendants must file their notice of removal within 23 thirty days of receiving “a copy of an amended pleading, motion, 24 order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that 25 the case . . . is or has become removable.” 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1446(b)(3). The Ninth Circuit has explained: “notice of 27 removability under § 1446(b) is determined through examination of 28 the four corners of the applicable pleadings, not through 1 subjective knowledge or a duty to make further inquiry.” Harris 2 v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 694 (9th Cir. 2005). 3 Thus, if the pleading or other paper is indeterminate as to 4 removability, a defendant has no duty to inquire further. Id. 5 2. Analysis 6 Plaintiff argues the Court should remand this suit to 7 Placer County Superior Court because Defendant’s removal was 8 untimely under either § 1446(b)(1) or § 1446(b)(3).2 See Mot. at 9 4-9. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that both the complaint 10 and her responses to Defendant’s first set of discovery provided 11 Defendant with notice of removability on the basis of diversity 12 jurisdiction. Id. Thus, according to Plaintiff, the thirty-day 13 window for removal passed months before Defendant filed its 14 Notice of Removal, regardless of whether the removal clock 15 started with the filing of the complaint or with Plaintiff’s 16 March 25 discovery responses. Id. 17 Defendant does not argue it lacked notice of the complete 18 diversity of the parties, rather, Defendant contends that until 19 July 10, 2020, the amount in controversy remained indeterminate. 20 See Opp’n. at 5-8. According to Defendant, the grounds for 21 removal, particularly whether the amount in controversy exceeded 22 $75,000, did not become clear until Plaintiff responded to 23 Defendant’s second set of Special Interrogatories on July 10, 24 2020. Id. at 7-8. Specifically, in this second set of 25 26 2 Plaintiff further argues that even if the Court finds removal was timely, the Court still would not have subject matter 27 jurisdiction over the case. See Mot. at 9-19. Because the Court finds that removal was untimely, the Court does not reach the 28 additional arguments. 1 responses, Plaintiff provided the date on which she first 2 brought her Mercedes GLS450 in for service. Id. Absent this 3 date, Defendant could not calculate the mileage use offset for 4 purposes of determining the amount in controversy and 5 consequently could not determine removability. Id. Thus, 6 Defendant argues that when it filed its Notice of Removal on 7 August 3, 2020, it was within the thirty-day window after 8 Plaintiff’s response to the second set of discovery. See Notice 9 of Removal. 10 However, upon review of the “four corners of the applicable 11 pleadings,” the Court finds the grounds for removal on the basis 12 of diversity jurisdiction were clear by at least March 25, 2020, 13 when Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s first set of discovery.3 14 See Harris, 425 F.3d at 694. Particularly, Plaintiff’s response 15 to Defendant’s Special Interrogatory No. 1 (“Please itemize your 16 damages you are seeking against MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC with 17 respect to the Subject Vehicle”) put Defendant on notice that 18 more than $75,000 was in controversy: “Vehicle Cost: 19 $70,413.98,” “Civil Penalty: As provided by statute,” 20 “Diminished Value . . . not to exceed 50% of the purchase price 21 of the vehicle,” “Aggravation and Inconvenience . . . not to 22 exceed $15,000,” “Loss of use,” and “Other Incidental and 23 Consequential Damages . . . not to exceed $15,000.” See Ex. C 24 to Mot. This response clearly provides notice that damages in 25 excess of $75,000 are at issue. Defendant even acknowledges 26 3 Whether the complaint itself put Defendant on notice of more 27 than $75,000 being at stake is less clear, but the Court need not make this determination as the Court finds Plaintiff’s responses 28 to the first set of discovery did provide Defendant with notice. ——e——— mE IIE EOIN III ENE ENE III ONENESS EIS ESE ED EEE 1 that, “based on these clues and its experience with similar 2 | vehicles and litigation . . . more than $75,000 might 3 ultimately prove to be at stake.” Opp’n. at 6. Yet, Defendant 4 insists it was not required to “interpret clues or to do any 5 further investigation” because the law does not require it do 6} so. Id. Defendant 1s correct that the Ninth Circuit has not 7 imposed a duty on defendants to inguire where the initial 8 | pleading or other document is indeterminate with respect to 9 removability. Harris, 425 F.3d at 694. But Plaintiff’s March 10 25, 2020 response was clear. The amount in controversy was not 11 indeterminate and thus the removal clock began to run on March 12 | 25, 2020. 13 As a result, Defendant’s prior counsel missed the thirty- 14 day window between late March and April 2020 to remove this 15 case. Accordingly, by the time Defendant’s new counsel filed □ 16 Notice of Removal on August 3, 2020, it was untimely. 17 18 Il. ORDER 19 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS 20 Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: November 16, 2020 23 kA 24 teiren staves odermacr 7008 25 26 27 28