Cox v. FCA US LLC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAVID COX, Case No. 20-cv-03808-WHO 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE MOTION TO REMAND v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 13 10 FCA US LLC, Defendant. 11 12 Plaintiff David Cox seeks to remand this case to state court, asserting that defendant FCA 13 US LLC (“FCA”) has not satisfied the jurisdictional requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In 14 opposition, Cox did not reply. FCA provided satisfactory evidence to meet its burden that the 15 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. I DENY Cox’s motion.1 16 BACKGROUND 17 Cox filed this action in San Mateo Superior Court on May 7, 2020. Dkt. No. 1-2 18 (“Compl.”). He asserts three causes of action pursuant to California law: breach of implied 19 warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly”), breach of 20 express warranty under Song-Beverly, and fraudulent inducement – concealment. Id. Cox’s 21 “lemon law” claims relate to defects in a new 2013 Jeep Wrangler that he purchased in March of 22 2013. Id. ¶¶ 4-5. 23 FCA removed the case on June 10, 2020, asserting that this Court has diversity jurisdiction 24 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441(b). Dkt. No. 1. On July 20, 2020, Cox moved to remand 25 the case to state court, asserting that the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 26 was not satisfied. Dkt. No. 13 (“Mot.”). FCA opposed on August 3, 2020. Dkt. No. 16 27 1 (“Oppo.”). Cox did not file a reply. 2 LEGAL STANDARD 3 A defendant may remove an action from state to federal court by filing a notice of removal 4 that lays out the grounds for removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). The district court must remand the 5 case to state court if it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). A federal court has 6 jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 if the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive 7 of interest and costs, and if there is diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 8 The Ninth Circuit applies “the longstanding rule that the party seeking federal jurisdiction 9 on removal bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction.” Abrego Abrego v. The Dow 10 Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 686 (9th Cir. 2006). “[W]hen a complaint filed in state court alleges 11 on its face an amount in controversy sufficient to meet the federal jurisdictional threshold, such 12 requirement is presumptively satisfied unless it appears to a ‘legal certainty’ that the plaintiff 13 cannot actually recover that amount.” Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th 14 Cir. 2007). Where the complaint is unclear or ambiguous on its face, the party challenging 15 remand must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds 16 $75,000. Id. 17 DISCUSSION 18 The parties do not dispute that there is complete diversity in this matter. See Oppo. 2-3. 19 Rather, they disagree as to whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 20 The Complaint states that “[t]he amount in controversy exceeds TWENTY-FIVE 21 THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs . . . together with equitable 22 relief.” Compl. ¶ 13. “In addition, Plaintiff seeks damages from Defendants, and each of them, 23 for incidental, consequential, exemplary, and actual damages including interest, costs, and actual 24 attorneys’ fees.” Id. In his Prayer for Relief, Cox requests a civil penalty as provided by Song- 25 Beverly, in an amount not to exceed two times the amount of actual damages. Id. at 26. He also 26 seeks punitive damages and attorneys’ fees, among other damages. Id. In its Notice of Removal, 27 FCA stated that Cox’s requested damages exceeded $75,000 based on this allegation and the civil 1 In his motion to remand, Cox asserts that the potential recovery amounts relied upon by 2 FCA are too speculative to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement. Mot. 6. He argues that 3 Song-Beverly provides that the maximum civil penalty is two times actual damages and that the 4 amount of actual damages is too speculative to establish that the amount in controversy is over 5 $75,000. Id. 6 Cox is correct that the Complaint does not clearly provide an amount in controversy that 7 exceeds $75,000. The Complaint states merely that the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000 8 “exclusive of interest and costs.” Although the prayer for relief lists various requests for damages, 9 it is not clear whether Cox’s amount-in-controversy allegation includes these other damages, such 10 as civil penalties or punitive damages. Numerous courts have found similar allegations to be 11 ambiguous. See Feichtmann v. FCA US LLC, No. 5:20-CV-01790-EJD, 2020 WL 3277479, at 12 *3-4 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2020); Steeg v. Ford Motor Co., No. 19-CV-05833-LHK, 2020 WL 13 2121508, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2020); Schneider v. Ford Motor Co., 441 F. Supp. 3d 909, 913 14 (N.D. Cal. 2020). 15 Therefore, I address whether FCA has established that the amount in controversy exceeds 16 $75,000 by a preponderance of the evidence. I conclude that it has. FCA provided evidence that 17 Cox’s vehicle had a dealer invoice price of $33,976.00.2 Oppo. 2; Dkt. No. 16-3. It asserts that 18 there was a mileage offset of $3,397.60 and thus “after the offset, the alleged repurchase amount is 19 at least $30,578.40.” Oppo. 8 (emphasis in original). Adding the civil penalties to this amount 20 results in $91,735.20 in controversy. Id. This amount does not include attorneys’ fees or punitive 21 damages, which FCA asserts would further increase the amount in controversy. Id. FCA also 22 provided a declaration of its attorney, Michael Sachs, who states he has tried three Song-Beverly 23 cases on behalf of FCA in which the plaintiff sought fees in excess of $150,000. Dkt. No. 16-1 ¶ 24 10. Cox did not file a reply and has not challenged the truth of these assertions. 25 Because FCA has provided unrebutted evidence that the alleged repurchase amount is at 26 least $30,578.20, it has established that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 27 1 Schneider, 441 F. Supp. 3d at 915 (granting motion to remand where, after performing above 2 || calculation based upon purchase price of vehicle and mileage offset, amount in controversy was 3 less than $75,000); Neville v. W. Recreational Vehicles, Inc., No. C-07-3757MMC, 2007 WL 4 || 4197414, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2007) (denying motion to remand where purchase price of the 5 vehicle was $34,438.00); see also Verastegui v. Ford Motor Co., No. 19-CV-04806-BLF, 2020 6 || WL 598516, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020) (recognizing split in authority regarding whether 7 maximum civil penalty should be considered as part of the amount in controversy and stating that 8 || “the Court is persuaded by the decisions in which courts have considered the maximum 9 || recoverable civil penalties because that is what Plaintiff put in controversy”). In addition, Cox 10 || seeks punitive damages and attorneys’ fees, which may be considered in the amount in 11 controversy. See id. at *3-4 (punitive damages and attorneys’ fees may be included in amount in 12 || controversy). Thus, jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 8 1332. 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the above reasons, Cox’s Motion is DENIED. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: a 16 August 24, 2020 2 17 . 18 ® Hiam H. Orrick 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28