Golnaz Afgo Ahmadi v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedAugust 12, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-06007
StatusUnknown

This text of Golnaz Afgo Ahmadi v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (Golnaz Afgo Ahmadi v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Golnaz Afgo Ahmadi v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:24-cv-06007-JLS-JPR Date: August 12, 2024 Title: Golnaz Afgo Ahmadi v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al

Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Charles Rojas N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendant:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO STATE COURT

Plaintiff filed this lemon-law action in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging that Defendant violated the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song- Beverly Act”) and other state laws. (Compl., Doc. 1-2 ¶¶ 18–47.) Defendant timely removed this action, invoking this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1441(a), 1446(b)(1); (NOR, Doc. 1 ¶ 32.)

To fall within this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, an action must (1) be between “citizens of different States,” and (2) have an amount in controversy that “exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). “A defendant’s notice of removal to federal court must ‘contain[] a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal,” including the amount in controversy. Moe v. GEICO Indem. Co., 73 F.4th 757, 761 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 87, (2014)). Where the plaintiff’s state-court complaint includes a damages demand, that amount, if made in good faith, “shall be deemed to be the amount in controversy.” Id. § 1446(c)(2). Where the plaintiff’s complaint “does not specify the damages sought, the defendant ordinarily may satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement by making a plausible assertion of the amount at issue in its notice of removal.” Moe, 73 F.4th at 761. ______________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 2:24-cv-06007-JLS-JPR Date: August 12, 2024 Title: Golnaz Afgo Ahmadi v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al

“[T]he defendant’s amount-in-controversy allegation should be accepted when not contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the court.” Id. (quoting Dart, 574 U.S. at 87).

The Song-Beverly Act provides a variety of remedies including actual damages, a civil penalty “not [to] exceed two times the amount of actual damages,” and attorney fees. Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(a)–(d).

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought, so Defendant was obligated to plausibly allege the amount in controversy. (See generally Compl.; see NOR ¶ 14.) Plaintiff alleges that, on August 28, 2022, he leased the subject vehicle. (Compl. ¶ 4 (emphasis added).) But in removing this action, Defendant contends that Plaintiff “purchased” the subject vehicle (NOR ¶ 16 (emphasis added)) and bases its amount-in-controversy estimate solely on the subject vehicle’s MSRP (id. ¶¶ 17, 21). The MSRP of a vehicle does not indicate the amount of actual damages Plaintiff has incurred—i.e., the amount of money paid or payable under the lease agreement.

Therefore, the Court sua sponte questions whether the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied here. See Moe, 73 F.4th at 761–62. Defendant bears “the burden to show that the amount-in-controversy requirement is met by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 762 (emphasis added). Defendant is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than seven (7) days from the date of this Order, why the Court should not remand this action to Los Angeles County Superior Court. Plaintiff has seven (7) days thereafter to submit any response. No further briefing is permitted. Following submission of the parties’ briefing, which shall not exceed five (5) pages, the matter will be deemed under submission and the Court will thereafter issue an order.

Initials of Deputy Clerk: cr

______________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Brandon Moe v. Geico Indemnity Company
73 F.4th 757 (Ninth Circuit, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Golnaz Afgo Ahmadi v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golnaz-afgo-ahmadi-v-mercedes-benz-usa-llc-cacd-2024.