Mamchits v. Ford Motor Co ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NICKOLAY MAMCHITS, No. 2:23-cv-00805-DAD-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND THIS ACTION TO 14 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 9) 16 17 This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion to remand this action to the 18 Sacramento County Superior Court. (Doc. No. 9.) On June 30, 2023, plaintiff’s motion was 19 taken under submission to be decided on the papers. (Doc. No. 12.) For the reasons set forth 20 below, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion to remand. 21 BACKGROUND 22 On February 28, 2023, plaintiff Nickolay Mamchits filed a complaint initiating this action 23 against defendant Ford Motor Company and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, in the Sacramento 24 County Superior Court. (Doc. Nos. 1 at 2; 1-2 at 2.) Therein, plaintiff asserts three claims under 25 California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act for breach of express and implied warranties 26 and for failure to repair the new 2022 Ford F-150 that plaintiff had purchased in June 2022 (“the 27 subject vehicle”). (Doc. No. 1-2 at 2–6.) In his complaint, plaintiff does not specific the amount 28 of money that he paid to purchase the vehicle, nor specify an amount certain of damages sought 1 by way of his complaint. In his prayer for relief, plaintiff seeks restitution, incidental and 2 consequential damages, actual and statutory damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and 3 costs, and a civil penalty of two times his actual damages. (Id. at 6.) 4 On April 28, 2023, defendant removed this action to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 5 §§ 1332 and 1441(b) on the grounds that diversity jurisdiction exists because plaintiff and 6 defendant are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Doc. 7 No. 1.) Defendant attached as an exhibit to the notice of removal a copy of the sale contract 8 between the dealership and plaintiff, which reflects $103,234.34 as the total amount paid by 9 plaintiff (the purchase price) for the subject vehicle. (Doc. Nos. 1-1 at 4; 1-4.) 10 On May 26, 2023, plaintiff moved to remand this action to the Sacramento County 11 Superior Court—not because diversity jurisdiction is lacking—but merely because “[t]here is a 12 strong presumption against removal jurisdiction” and “[t]his California Lemon Law case should 13 not be litigated in Federal Court.” (Doc. No. 9 at 8.) On June 9, 2023, defendant filed an 14 opposition to the pending motion, expressing its understandable confusion as to the basis for 15 plaintiff’s motion and reiterating that its removal of this case is proper. (Doc. No. 10.) On June 16 16, 2023, plaintiff filed a reply in support of the pending motion. (Doc. No. 11.) 17 LEGAL STANDARD 18 A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court would have 19 had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Removal is proper when a case 20 originally filed in state court presents a federal question or where there is diversity of citizenship 21 among the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). 22 If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 23 jurisdiction over the removed action, “the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The 24 removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing 25 federal jurisdiction falls to the party invoking the statute.” Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 26 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 27 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The defendant bears the burden of establishing that 28 removal is proper.”). As such, a federal court must reject jurisdiction and remand the case to state 1 court if there is any doubt as to the right of removal. Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 2 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1118 3 (9th Cir. 2004). 4 A party’s notice of removal must contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for 5 removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). “By design, § 1446(a) tracks the general pleading requirement 6 stated in Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” and a “statement ‘short and plain’ 7 need not contain evidentiary submissions.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 8 574 U.S. 81, 84, 87 (2014). 9 ANALYSIS 10 Here, plaintiff’s motion to remand fails to articulate any basis whatsoever to support 11 remanding this action to the Sacramento County Superior Court. Notably, in his motion to 12 remand, plaintiff does not contest that the parties are completely diverse in their citizenship or 13 that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 threshold. Rather, plaintiff’s short motion 14 provides several paragraphs of purported legal standard (Doc. No. 9), but he provides no analysis 15 or argument that defendant has failed to satisfy the legal standard for removal in this case. This 16 lackluster effort is plainly insufficient, and the filing of a such a motion leads to a waste of the 17 court’s limited resources. 18 In its opposition to the pending motion, defendant reiterates the propriety of its removal of 19 this action based on diversity jurisdiction, as stated in its notice of removal. (Doc. No. 10.) 20 Indeed, as defendant provided in its notice of removal, defendant again provides in its opposition 21 brief a thorough and reasoned analysis of the amount in controversy calculations it relies upon, 22 including addressing the mileage offsets that apply in Song Beverly Act claims and how those 23 offsets impact the calculations in this case. (Id. at 7–9.) Defendant also reiterated that it is a 24 citizen of Michigan and Delaware, whereas plaintiff is a citizen of California (id. at 9–10)— 25 citizenship allegations that were included in the notice of removal and yet were not acknowledged 26 by plaintiff, let alone contested, in plaintiff’s pending motion to remand this action. 27 In his reply, plaintiff asserts—for the first time, and in conclusory fashion—that defendant 28 failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy requirement has 1 | been satisfied. (Doc. No. 11.) Given that defendant’s notice of removal thoroughly explained the 2 | basis for its amount-in-controversy calculations, including by providing a copy of the sales 3 | contract for plaintiff's purchase of the subject vehicle, as well as an analysis of the mileage 4 | offsets, plaintiff had ample opportunity to contest defendant’s assertions of diversity jurisdiction 5 | in his motion to remand, yet he did not raise any such argument until his reply brief. In any 6 | event, plaintiff does not meaningfully refute defendant’s amount-in-controversy allegations and 7 | calculations, as set forth in the notice of removal and in defendant’s opposition to the pending 8 | motion, and which suffice to satisfy the requirements for removal of this action. 9 CONCLUSION 10 For the reasons explained above, plaintiff's motion to remand (Doc. No. 9) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. * | Dated: _ October 3, 2023 Da A. 2, ye 13 DALE A. DROZD 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28