Jillian Morris v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

Opinion

1 2 JS6 3

4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 10 JILLIAN MORRIS, Case No. 2:25-cv-11665-MAR 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND, DKT. 10 13 MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC,

14 Defendant. 15 16 I. 17 SUMMARY OF ORDER 18 Plaintiff Jillian Morris (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant “lemon law” action in Los 19 Angeles County Superior Court on October 29, 2025. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1-1 20 (“Complaint”). Defendant removed the matter to this Court several months later, on 21 December 8, 2025. Dkt. 1 (“Notice of Removal”). Plaintiff now moves to remand to 22 state court, arguing that Defendant has not established subject matter jurisdiction. 23 Dkt. 10. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED. 24 II. 25 BACKGROUND 26 On October 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint in Los Angeles County 27 Superior Court alleging violations of California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty 1 Plaintiff alleged she leased a Mercedes Benz GLS460 on July 1, 2024, and that the 2 vehicle was covered by Defendant’s warranty. Compl. ¶¶ 4, 8. Plaintiff further 3 alleged that the vehicle suffered from a number of defects, and that multiple repair 4 visits failed to remedy those defects. Id. ¶ 10–11. Although the Complaint’s cover 5 sheet indicated that Plaintiff was demanding an amount that “exceeds $35,000,” the 6 Complaint itself did not state the amount of damages sought, the amount paid for the 7 vehicle, or any other specific monetary figure. The Complaint’s prayer for relief, 8 however, did seek restitution, actual damages, and attorney’s fees, and prayed that 9 “damages be doubled and awarded to plaintiff as a civil penalty.” Compl. at 7–8. 10 On December 8, 2025 Defendant removed the matter to this Court pursuant to 11 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446. Notice of Removal (“NOR”) at 1. Defendant 12 represented that “the amount paid or payable by Plaintiff under the lease for the 13 subject vehicle is $49, 025.00.” NOR at 3:22–23. Although Defendant did not state 14 how it came to this figure, Defendant did attach a Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement 15 indicating $49,025.00 as “The amount you will have paid by the end of the lease.” 16 NOR, Ex. B. Plaintiff now moves to remand to state court, arguing that Defendant 17 has failed to establish the amount in controversy necessary to invoke federal subject 18 matter jurisdiction. Motion to Remand, Dkt. 10 at 8.. 19 III. 20 LEGAL STANDARD 21 District courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions “arising under the 22 laws . . . of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and over “all civil actions where the 23 matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and 24 costs, and is between citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A defendant 25 may remove a case from state court to federal court if the case could have originally 26 been filed in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The case must, however, be 27 remanded to state court if, at any time before final judgment, it appears that the 1 federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Int’l Primate 2 Prot. League v. Adm’rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 500 U.S. 72, 87 (1991). Federal courts 3 “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction,” such that any 4 doubt as to the propriety of removal is resolved in favor of remanding the case to 5 state court. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). A removing 6 defendant bears the burden of proving federal jurisdiction. See Luther v. 7 Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008); Gaus, 8 980 F.2d at 566. 9 IV. 10 DISCUSSION 11 As an initial matter, although the parties appear to be in accord that $49,025.00 12 in actual damages is the proper starting point for any calculation of the amount in 13 controversy (Motion at 8:5; Opposition at 2:12), the Court disagrees. Henderson ex 14 rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011) (“[F]ederal courts have an 15 independent obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the scope of their 16 jurisdiction, and therefore they must raise and decide jurisdictional questions that the 17 parties either overlook or elect not to press.”). 18 Generally, “[a]ctual damages under the Song-Beverly Act are equal to the actual 19 price paid or payable by the buyer, minus the reduction in value directly attributable to 20 use by the buyer.” Lukas v. Gen. Motors, LLC., No. 2:25-CV-08305-WLH-MAA, 21 2025 WL 3456648, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2025) (quoting Cal. Civ. Code § 22 1793.2(d)(2)(B)–(C) (internal quotation marks omitted). “But if a plaintiff leased the 23 subject vehicle rather than purchased it, . . . the calculation of actual damages is 24 slightly different.” Gomez v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 2:24-CV-09020-SVW, 2025 25 WL 26368, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2025). “[D]istrict courts in this circuit consider the 26 amount a plaintiff has actually paid on her lease, rather than the total value of the 27 lease, to determine whether the amount in controversy has been met.” Cuevas v. 1 Ford Motor Co., No. CV221520DMGMAAX, 2022 WL 1487178, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2 May 11, 2022); see also D’Amico v. Ford Motor Co., No. CV 20-2985-CJC (JCX), 3 2020 WL 2614610, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2020) (“Because Plaintiff leased the car, 4 the price paid under the statute is . . . only what Plaintiff has paid under her lease.”) 5 (internal quotation marks omitted). 6 Here, Defendant does not provide any evidence of how much Plaintiff has 7 actually paid under the lease. This failure alone could warrant remand, as it is 8 Defendant’s burden to prove federal jurisdiction. Luther, 533 F.3d at 1034; Gaus, 980 9 F.2d at 566. But even putting that burden aside, it appears to the Court that the 10 amount in controversy here likely falls short of the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold. 11 The lease agreement calls for monthly payments of $1,098.00, the first of which 12 appears to have been included in Plaintiff’s $10,000 down payment. NOR, Ex. B. 13 Plaintiff first requested that Defendant repurchase the defective vehicle in April 2025. 14 Compl. ¶ 16. Even assuming that Plaintiff made all nine lease payments before 15 making that request, she would have paid a total of $19,882.00. 16 That figure, moreover, is subject to various statutory offsets, including for 17 mileage. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2; Solis v. Gen. Motors LLC, No. EDCV 25- 18 02454-KK-SPX, 2025 WL 3268813, at *2 n.4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2025) (describing 19 various offsets under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 871.27; Stewart v. Gen. Motors LLC, No. 20 2:25-CV-07153-SPG-MAA, 2025 WL 2848991, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2025); Larios 21 v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 2:25-CV-05095-AJR, 2025 WL 2402250, at *5 (C.D. Cal. 22 Aug. 16, 2025). Mileage bears on actual damages insofar as it translates to a reduction 23 in a vehicle’s value attributable to a “buyer prior to the time the buyer first delivered 24 the vehicle . . . for correction of the problem that gave rise to the [warranty dispute].” 25 Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(d)(2)(C). By statute, that reduction in value is calculated “by 26 multiplying the actual price of the new motor vehicle . . . by a fraction having as its 27 1 denominator 120,000 and having as its numerator the number of miles traveled.”1 2 2 Id. Thus, the higher the mileage, the higher the reduction in value, and the lower a 3 plaintiff’s actual damages. 4 Here, again, Defendant has provided no evidence of the vehicle’s repair history, 5 let alone attempted to calculate the applicable mileage offset. Although the 6 Complaint does list a series of repair visits and corresponding mileages, it is not 7 apparent from the complaint which defect pertains to which repair visit, rendering it 8 difficult, if not impossible, to determine the mileage at the time Plaintiff first delivered 9 the vehicle for correction of the particular defect (or defects) giving rise to the instant 10 dispute. Resolving any doubt in Plaintiff’s favor, 8,024 miles are attributable to 11 Plaintiff. Compl. ¶ 11. And, according to the Lease Agreement, the agreed upon 12 value of the vehicle was $81,543.97. NOR, Ex. B. Thus, the total lease payment 13 figure is subject to a mileage offset of $5,452.51, for a resulting actual damages total of 14 $14,429.49.3 15 As for civil penalties, Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks up to two times Plaintiff’s 16 actual damages. “The Ninth Circuit routinely considers civil penalties when deciding 17 whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied.” Wang v. FCA 18 US LLC, No. 8:24-CV-02060-JWH-KES, 2025 WL 1218745, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 19

20 1 “The Ninth Circuit has held that 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) requires a defendant to apply a reasonable amount of intelligence in ascertaining removability[,] and that 21 multiplying figures . . . is an aspect of that duty.” Perry v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:24- CV-03197-WLH-MAR, 2024 WL 3879142, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2024) (quoting 22 Kuxhausen, 707 F.3d at 1140) (internal quotation marks omitted). 23 2 Even in lease scenarios, the offset is calculated based on the “full purchase price of the vehicle,” as “120,000 miles . . . presumptively reflects the full life expectancy of a 24 new car,” and “lease payments typically reflect a component for depreciation of the automobile based on its full life expectancy and purchase price.” Brady v. Mercedes- 25 Benz USA, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 1008 (N.D. Cal. 2002). 3 $81,543(8,024 miles/120,000 miles) = $5,452.51. $19,882 - $5,452.51 = $14,429.49. 26 The Court notes further that, notwithstanding that all doubts must be resolved in Plaintiff’s favor, even assuming that she made another six lease payments through 27 October 29, 2025, when she filed the Complaint, her post-offset damages still would 1 | 2025) (collecting cases). That said, some courts have declined to consider penalties in 2 | situations, such as that here, where a plaintiff does not specifically allege willful 3 | violation of the Song-Beverly Act. See, e.g. Gomez, 2025 WL 26368 at *6 (discussing 4 | split among district courts). Here, however, given Plaintiffs actual damages of 5 | $14,429.49, inclusion of the civil penalty would have no impact on the jurisdictional 6 | question, as even an award of the maximum penalty would result in an amount less 7 | than $44,000. Moreover, there is no indication here, and indeed Defendant makes no 8 | attempt to demonstrate, that attorney’s fees would make up the additional $31,000 or 9 | so necessary to reach the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold. 10 Accordingly, Defendant has not met its burden to prove that the $75,.000 11 | amount in controversy requirement is met here, or, thus, that this Court has subject 12 | matter jurisdiction. 13 14 V. 15 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 16 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs Motion to Remand is GRANTED. 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 18 This action is REMANDED to Los Angeles County Superior Court. 19 20 | Dated: April 30, 2026 7 BS 21 HONORABLE MARGO A. ROCCONI 59 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28