1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No. 2:25-cv-07636-HDV-SSC 11 CONSUELO REDDOOR, et al.,
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 13 v. MOTION TO REMAND AND FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES [14] 14
15 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, et al. 16 Defendants. 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 This lemon law action arises out of Plaintiffs Consuelo Reddoor and Samantha Josefina Rosa 3 Lopez Moreno’s purchase of a 2024 Chevrolet Malibu from Victorville Chevrolet. Plaintiffs allege 4 that their vehicle experienced “infotainment and electrical system defects” during the warranty 5 period. 6 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (“Motion”) [Dkt. 14], which asserts that the 7 removal of this case on August 15, 2025 was untimely. Plaintiffs maintain that removability was 8 clear from the face of the Complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court [Dkt. 1-1], or, in the 9 alternative, as early as July 15, 2025, when Plaintiffs made initial disclosures including the sales 10 contract and repair records. 11 For the reasons discussed thoroughly in Chavarin v. General Motors LLC, No. 2:25-cv- 12 06852-HDV-MBK (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2025) [Dkt. 28] (“Chavarin Order”), the Court concludes that 13 neither the initial Complaint nor the initial disclosures provided sufficient grounds for triggering the 14 30-day removal clocks under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Because the removal was therefore timely, the 15 Motion is denied.1 16 II. BACKGROUND 17 Plaintiffs purchased a new 2024 Chevrolet Malibu (the “Vehicle”) in March 2024. 18 Complaint ¶¶ 6, 9. Plaintiffs allege the vehicle was defective and Defendant General Motors failed 19 to fulfill its warranty obligations. Id. ¶¶ 12, 14. 20 Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court on March 26, 2025, alleging 21 claims under the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly”) and the federal 22 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”). Id. ¶¶ 8–44. The Complaint identifies Plaintiffs as 23 residents of Barstow, California, but provides no further information about domicile or citizenship. 24 Id. ¶¶ 1–2. Defendant filed its Answer on May 16, 2025. Declaration of Michelle Yang in Support 25 of Motion (“Yang Decl.”) [Dkt. 14-1] ¶ 6. 26 On July 15, 2025, Plaintiffs’ counsel served Defendant’s counsel with its initial disclosures 27 1 Because the Motion to Remand is denied, Plaintiff’s attendant motion for attorney’s fees is also 28 denied. 1 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26. See Declaration of Simran K. Thiara 2 in Support of Defendant’s Opposition (“Thiara Decl.”) [Dkt. 16-1] ¶ 2, Ex. A (“Initial Disclosures”) 3 [Dkt. 16-2]; Yang Decl. ¶ 7. The initial disclosures identified the Vehicle’s then-current mileage 4 (51,653 miles) and the location of the Vehicle (an address in Barstow, California). Initial 5 Disclosures at 2. As part of those July 15 initial disclosures, Plaintiffs’ counsel also provided a copy 6 of the Vehicle’s sales contract. Yang Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 2 (“Sales Contract”). The Sales Contract 7 (signed on March 30, 2024) identified Plaintiffs’ specific address in Barstow, California. Sales 8 Contract at 1, 6. Finally, the initial disclosures contained various repair records for the Vehicle. 9 Thiara Decl. ¶ 2. 10 Defendant removed the case on August 15, 2025, alleging that this Court has diversity 11 jurisdiction. Notice of Removal at 2–5 [Dkt. 1]. Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion on September 5, 12 2025. After full briefing, see Opposition [Dkt. 16]; Reply [Dkt. 17], the Court deemed the matter 13 appropriate for resolution without oral argument and took it under submission. [Dkt. 18]. 14 III. LEGAL STANDARD 15 Generally, a civil action filed in state court may properly be removed if there is federal 16 subject-matter jurisdiction at the time of removal, which exists when the suit arises under federal law 17 or when the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy is over $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. 18 §§ 1441 (removal), 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), 1332 (diversity jurisdiction). 19 A notice of removal must be filed within 30 days of the initial pleading or summons if, using 20 a “reasonable amount of intelligence,” the grounds for removability can be ascertained from such 21 pleading or summons. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1); Kuxhausen v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA, 707 F.3d 1136, 22 1139–40 (9th Cir. 2013). Should the initial pleading not reveal grounds for removal, the notice of 23 removal must be filed within 30 days of the defendant receiving an “amended pleading, motion, 24 order or other paper” which displays removability on its face. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) (emphasis 25 added); Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 694 (9th Cir. 2005). Moreover, the “other 26 paper” under this section must establish that removability is “unequivocally clear and certain.” 27 Dietrich v. Boeing Co., 14 F.4th 1089, 1094 (9th Cir. 2021) (“We believe the ‘unequivocally clear 28 and certain’ test hews to the text of § 1446(b)(3).”). These 30-day time limits, although procedural 1 in nature, are mandatory, and a successful challenge to removal based on a late notice requires 2 remand. Smith v. Mylan Inc., 761 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2014). 3 IV. DISCUSSION 4 Plaintiffs make several interdependent arguments in support of remand. Plaintiffs’ counsel 5 has raised almost exactly the same arguments in a number of other lemon law cases against General 6 Motors in recent months. This Court first considered and decided the relevant issues in Chavarin v. 7 General Motors LLC, No. 2:25-cv-06852-HDV-MBK (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2025) [Dkt. 28] 8 (“Chavarin Order”). Plaintiffs’ Motion here fails for the same reasons as in Chavarin. 9 First, Plaintiffs argue that removability was apparent from the initial Complaint based on 10 federal question jurisdiction (given the MMWA claim) and separately on the basis of diversity 11 jurisdiction. Motion at ii, 1, 4-9. Plaintiffs’ argument that removal was apparent from the face of 12 the Complaint given the inclusion of the federal MMWA claim fails because there is federal 13 question jurisdiction under that statute only if the amount in controversy on the MMWA claims is at 14 least $50,000, and Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not include any allegations as to values that would give 15 Defendant notice that their claims were worth more than this. Chavarin Order at 4–5 & n.2. 16 Plaintiffs’ diversity-related argument also fails at the Complaint stage, both because there are 17 no facts suggesting that the $75,000 amount in controversy was met, and because the allegations of 18 Plaintiffs’ California residency do not set forth Plaintiffs’ domicile or citizenship. Id. at 5–6 & n.3. 19 In the alternative, Plaintiffs aver that the initial disclosures provided on July 15, 2025 20 qualified as an “other paper” under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) and triggered the second 30-day removal 21 period, rendering Defendants’ removal untimely. Motion at 9; Reply at 3–4. These disclosures 22 included the Vehicle’s sales contract, several repair orders, and a written disclosure of the current 23 mileage. Thiara Decl.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No. 2:25-cv-07636-HDV-SSC 11 CONSUELO REDDOOR, et al.,
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 13 v. MOTION TO REMAND AND FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES [14] 14
15 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, et al. 16 Defendants. 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 This lemon law action arises out of Plaintiffs Consuelo Reddoor and Samantha Josefina Rosa 3 Lopez Moreno’s purchase of a 2024 Chevrolet Malibu from Victorville Chevrolet. Plaintiffs allege 4 that their vehicle experienced “infotainment and electrical system defects” during the warranty 5 period. 6 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (“Motion”) [Dkt. 14], which asserts that the 7 removal of this case on August 15, 2025 was untimely. Plaintiffs maintain that removability was 8 clear from the face of the Complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court [Dkt. 1-1], or, in the 9 alternative, as early as July 15, 2025, when Plaintiffs made initial disclosures including the sales 10 contract and repair records. 11 For the reasons discussed thoroughly in Chavarin v. General Motors LLC, No. 2:25-cv- 12 06852-HDV-MBK (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2025) [Dkt. 28] (“Chavarin Order”), the Court concludes that 13 neither the initial Complaint nor the initial disclosures provided sufficient grounds for triggering the 14 30-day removal clocks under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Because the removal was therefore timely, the 15 Motion is denied.1 16 II. BACKGROUND 17 Plaintiffs purchased a new 2024 Chevrolet Malibu (the “Vehicle”) in March 2024. 18 Complaint ¶¶ 6, 9. Plaintiffs allege the vehicle was defective and Defendant General Motors failed 19 to fulfill its warranty obligations. Id. ¶¶ 12, 14. 20 Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court on March 26, 2025, alleging 21 claims under the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly”) and the federal 22 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”). Id. ¶¶ 8–44. The Complaint identifies Plaintiffs as 23 residents of Barstow, California, but provides no further information about domicile or citizenship. 24 Id. ¶¶ 1–2. Defendant filed its Answer on May 16, 2025. Declaration of Michelle Yang in Support 25 of Motion (“Yang Decl.”) [Dkt. 14-1] ¶ 6. 26 On July 15, 2025, Plaintiffs’ counsel served Defendant’s counsel with its initial disclosures 27 1 Because the Motion to Remand is denied, Plaintiff’s attendant motion for attorney’s fees is also 28 denied. 1 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26. See Declaration of Simran K. Thiara 2 in Support of Defendant’s Opposition (“Thiara Decl.”) [Dkt. 16-1] ¶ 2, Ex. A (“Initial Disclosures”) 3 [Dkt. 16-2]; Yang Decl. ¶ 7. The initial disclosures identified the Vehicle’s then-current mileage 4 (51,653 miles) and the location of the Vehicle (an address in Barstow, California). Initial 5 Disclosures at 2. As part of those July 15 initial disclosures, Plaintiffs’ counsel also provided a copy 6 of the Vehicle’s sales contract. Yang Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 2 (“Sales Contract”). The Sales Contract 7 (signed on March 30, 2024) identified Plaintiffs’ specific address in Barstow, California. Sales 8 Contract at 1, 6. Finally, the initial disclosures contained various repair records for the Vehicle. 9 Thiara Decl. ¶ 2. 10 Defendant removed the case on August 15, 2025, alleging that this Court has diversity 11 jurisdiction. Notice of Removal at 2–5 [Dkt. 1]. Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion on September 5, 12 2025. After full briefing, see Opposition [Dkt. 16]; Reply [Dkt. 17], the Court deemed the matter 13 appropriate for resolution without oral argument and took it under submission. [Dkt. 18]. 14 III. LEGAL STANDARD 15 Generally, a civil action filed in state court may properly be removed if there is federal 16 subject-matter jurisdiction at the time of removal, which exists when the suit arises under federal law 17 or when the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy is over $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. 18 §§ 1441 (removal), 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), 1332 (diversity jurisdiction). 19 A notice of removal must be filed within 30 days of the initial pleading or summons if, using 20 a “reasonable amount of intelligence,” the grounds for removability can be ascertained from such 21 pleading or summons. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1); Kuxhausen v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA, 707 F.3d 1136, 22 1139–40 (9th Cir. 2013). Should the initial pleading not reveal grounds for removal, the notice of 23 removal must be filed within 30 days of the defendant receiving an “amended pleading, motion, 24 order or other paper” which displays removability on its face. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) (emphasis 25 added); Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 694 (9th Cir. 2005). Moreover, the “other 26 paper” under this section must establish that removability is “unequivocally clear and certain.” 27 Dietrich v. Boeing Co., 14 F.4th 1089, 1094 (9th Cir. 2021) (“We believe the ‘unequivocally clear 28 and certain’ test hews to the text of § 1446(b)(3).”). These 30-day time limits, although procedural 1 in nature, are mandatory, and a successful challenge to removal based on a late notice requires 2 remand. Smith v. Mylan Inc., 761 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2014). 3 IV. DISCUSSION 4 Plaintiffs make several interdependent arguments in support of remand. Plaintiffs’ counsel 5 has raised almost exactly the same arguments in a number of other lemon law cases against General 6 Motors in recent months. This Court first considered and decided the relevant issues in Chavarin v. 7 General Motors LLC, No. 2:25-cv-06852-HDV-MBK (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2025) [Dkt. 28] 8 (“Chavarin Order”). Plaintiffs’ Motion here fails for the same reasons as in Chavarin. 9 First, Plaintiffs argue that removability was apparent from the initial Complaint based on 10 federal question jurisdiction (given the MMWA claim) and separately on the basis of diversity 11 jurisdiction. Motion at ii, 1, 4-9. Plaintiffs’ argument that removal was apparent from the face of 12 the Complaint given the inclusion of the federal MMWA claim fails because there is federal 13 question jurisdiction under that statute only if the amount in controversy on the MMWA claims is at 14 least $50,000, and Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not include any allegations as to values that would give 15 Defendant notice that their claims were worth more than this. Chavarin Order at 4–5 & n.2. 16 Plaintiffs’ diversity-related argument also fails at the Complaint stage, both because there are 17 no facts suggesting that the $75,000 amount in controversy was met, and because the allegations of 18 Plaintiffs’ California residency do not set forth Plaintiffs’ domicile or citizenship. Id. at 5–6 & n.3. 19 In the alternative, Plaintiffs aver that the initial disclosures provided on July 15, 2025 20 qualified as an “other paper” under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) and triggered the second 30-day removal 21 period, rendering Defendants’ removal untimely. Motion at 9; Reply at 3–4. These disclosures 22 included the Vehicle’s sales contract, several repair orders, and a written disclosure of the current 23 mileage. Thiara Decl. ¶ 2; Initial Disclosures at 2. The sales contract revealed that the cash price of 24 the Vehicle and accessories was $27,885. Sales Contract at 2. It also showed that the total cash 25 price (including collateral charges, sales tax, service contracts, and a debt cancellation agreement or 26 guaranteed asset protection waiver) was $34,950; that Plaintiffs made a down payment of $3,500; 27 and that they financed $31,905, incurring financing charges of $30,506—for a total cost of $65,911. 28 1 | Id? 2 As to the MMWA claim, these initial disclosures did not provide enough information to 3 || calculate the market value of the car at the time of the defect, a value that is necessary to calculate 4 || diminished value damages under California Commercial Code section 2713. Chavarin Order at 7. 5 And as to diversity jurisdiction, the July 15 disclosures offered almost nothing bearing on the 6 || central issue of Plaintiffs’ intention to remain in California, and so do not establish Plaintiffs’ 7 || domicile or citizenship for purposes of making removability “unequivocally clear and certain” under 8 || section 1446(b)(3). Chavarin Order at 8-9 & n.5. 9 | V. CONCLUSION 10 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s removal was timely and Plaintiffs’ Motion is denied. 1] 12 Dated: November 5, 2025 13 United States District udge a 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 oo ? These numbers are rounded to the nearest dollar, which explains why the arithmetic may appear off 28 by a dollar or so.