1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No. 2:25-cv-07022-HDV-MAA 11 JUSTINE VANESSA MIRANDA TORRES,
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO REMAND AND FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES [15] 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 Plaintiff Justine Vanessa Miranda Torres’s purchase of a 3 2020 Chevrolet Colorado from Covina Hills Chevrolet. Plaintiff alleges that his vehicle experienced 4 “cooling system defects” during the warranty period. 5 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (“Motion”) [Dkt. 15], which asserts that the 6 removal of this case on July 30, 2025 was untimely. Plaintiff maintains that removability was clear 7 from the face of the Complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court [Dkt. 1-1], or, in the alternative, 8 as early as June 23, 2025, when Plaintiff made initial disclosures including the sales contract and 9 repair records. 10 For the reasons discussed thoroughly in Chavarin v. General Motors LLC, No. 2:25-cv- 11 06852-HDV-MBK, 2025 WL 3030875 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2025) (“Chavarin Order”), the Court 12 concludes that neither the initial Complaint nor the initial disclosures provided sufficient grounds for 13 triggering the 30-day removal clocks under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Because the removal was therefore 14 timely, the Motion is denied.1 15 II. BACKGROUND 16 Plaintiff purchased a 2020 Chevrolet Colorado (the “Vehicle”) in January 2020. Complaint 17 ¶¶ 6, 9. Plaintiff alleges the vehicle was defective and that Defendant General Motors failed to 18 fulfill its warranty obligations. Id. ¶¶ 11, 12, 14. 19 Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court on March 6, 2025, alleging claims 20 under the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly”) and the federal 21 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”). Id. ¶¶ 8–44. The Complaint identifies Plaintiff as a 22 resident of Baldwin Park, California, but provides no further information about domicile or 23 citizenship. Id. ¶ 2. Defendant filed its Answer on April 24, 2025. Declaration of Michelle Yang in 24 Support of Motion (“Yang Decl.”) [Dkt. 15-1] ¶ 6. 25 On June 23, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel served Defendant’s counsel with its initial disclosures 26 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26. See Declaration of Brady O’Bryan 27 1 Because the Motion to Remand is denied, Plaintiff’s attendant motion for attorney’s fees is also 28 denied. 1 in Support of Defendant’s Opposition (“ O’Bryan Decl.”) [Dkt. 17-1] ¶ 2, Ex. A (“Initial 2 Disclosures”) [Dkt. 17-2]; Yang Decl. ¶ 7. The initial disclosures identified the Vehicle’s then- 3 current mileage (63,161 miles) and the location of the Vehicle (an address in Baldwin Park , 4 California). Initial Disclosures at 2. As part of those June 23 initial disclosures, Plaintiff’s counsel 5 also provided a copy of the Vehicle’s sales contract. Yang Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 2 (“Sales Contract”). The 6 Sales Contract identified Plaintiff’s specific address in Baldwin Park , California. Sales Contract at 7 1. Finally, the initial disclosures contained various repair records for the Vehicle. O’Bryan Decl. 8 ¶ 2. 9 Defendant removed the case on July 30, 2025, alleging that this Court has diversity 10 jurisdiction. Notice of Removal at 2–10 [Dkt. 1]. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on August 22, 11 2025. After full briefing, see Opposition [Dkt. 17]; Reply [Dkt. 18], the Court deemed the matter 12 appropriate for resolution without oral argument and took it under submission. [Dkt. 19]. 13 III. LEGAL STANDARD 14 Generally, a civil action filed in state court may properly be removed if there is federal 15 subject-matter jurisdiction at the time of removal, which exists when the suit arises under federal law 16 or when the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy is over $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. 17 §§ 1441 (removal), 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), 1332 (diversity jurisdiction). 18 A notice of removal must be filed within 30 days of the initial pleading or summons if, using 19 a “reasonable amount of intelligence,” the grounds for removability can be ascertained from such 20 pleading or summons. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1); Kuxhausen v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA, 707 F.3d 1136, 21 1139–40 (9th Cir. 2013). Should the initial pleading not reveal grounds for removal, the notice of 22 removal must be filed within 30 days of the defendant receiving an “amended pleading, motion, 23 order or other paper” which displays removability on its face. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) (emphasis 24 added); Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 694 (9th Cir. 2005). Moreover, the “other 25 paper” under this section must establish that removability is “unequivocally clear and certain.” 26 Dietrich v. Boeing Co., 14 F.4th 1089, 1094 (9th Cir. 2021) (“We believe the ‘unequivocally clear 27 and certain’ test hews to the text of § 1446(b)(3).”). These 30-day time limits, although procedural 28 in nature, are mandatory, and a successful challenge to removal based on a late notice requires 1 remand. Smith v. Mylan Inc., 761 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2014). 2 IV. DISCUSSION 3 Plaintiff makes several interdependent arguments in support of remand. Plaintiff’s counsel 4 has raised almost exactly the same arguments in a number of other lemon law cases against General 5 Motors in recent months. This Court first considered and decided the relevant issues in Chavarin v. 6 General Motors LLC, No. 2:25-cv-06852-HDV-MBK, 2025 WL 3030875 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2025) 7 (“Chavarin Order”). Plaintiff’s Motion here fails for the same reasons as in Chavarin. 8 First, Plaintiff argues that removability was apparent from the initial Complaint based on 9 federal question jurisdiction (given the MMWA claim) and separately on the basis of diversity 10 jurisdiction. See generally, Motion. But federal question jurisdiction under that statute only applies 11 if the amount in controversy on the MMWA claims is at least $50,000. 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3)(B). 12 And Plaintiff’s Complaint does not include any allegations as to values that would give Defendant 13 notice that his claims were worth more than this. Chavarin Order at 4–5 & n.2. 14 Plaintiff’s diversity-related argument also fails at the Complaint stage, both because there are 15 no facts suggesting that the $75,000 amount in controversy was met, and because the allegations of 16 Plaintiff’s California residency do not set forth Plaintiff’s domicile or citizenship. Id. at 5–6 & n.3. 17 In the alternative, Plaintiff avers that the initial disclosures provided on June 23, 2025 18 qualified as an “other paper” under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) and triggered the second 30-day removal 19 period, rendering Defendants’ removal untimely. Motion at 7–8; Reply at 3–4. These disclosures 20 included the Vehicle’s sales contract, repair orders, and a written disclosure of the current mileage.
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-07022-HDV-MAA 11 JUSTINE VANESSA MIRANDA TORRES,
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO REMAND AND FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES [15] 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 Plaintiff Justine Vanessa Miranda Torres’s purchase of a 3 2020 Chevrolet Colorado from Covina Hills Chevrolet. Plaintiff alleges that his vehicle experienced 4 “cooling system defects” during the warranty period. 5 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (“Motion”) [Dkt. 15], which asserts that the 6 removal of this case on July 30, 2025 was untimely. Plaintiff maintains that removability was clear 7 from the face of the Complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court [Dkt. 1-1], or, in the alternative, 8 as early as June 23, 2025, when Plaintiff made initial disclosures including the sales contract and 9 repair records. 10 For the reasons discussed thoroughly in Chavarin v. General Motors LLC, No. 2:25-cv- 11 06852-HDV-MBK, 2025 WL 3030875 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2025) (“Chavarin Order”), the Court 12 concludes that neither the initial Complaint nor the initial disclosures provided sufficient grounds for 13 triggering the 30-day removal clocks under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Because the removal was therefore 14 timely, the Motion is denied.1 15 II. BACKGROUND 16 Plaintiff purchased a 2020 Chevrolet Colorado (the “Vehicle”) in January 2020. Complaint 17 ¶¶ 6, 9. Plaintiff alleges the vehicle was defective and that Defendant General Motors failed to 18 fulfill its warranty obligations. Id. ¶¶ 11, 12, 14. 19 Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court on March 6, 2025, alleging claims 20 under the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly”) and the federal 21 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”). Id. ¶¶ 8–44. The Complaint identifies Plaintiff as a 22 resident of Baldwin Park, California, but provides no further information about domicile or 23 citizenship. Id. ¶ 2. Defendant filed its Answer on April 24, 2025. Declaration of Michelle Yang in 24 Support of Motion (“Yang Decl.”) [Dkt. 15-1] ¶ 6. 25 On June 23, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel served Defendant’s counsel with its initial disclosures 26 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26. See Declaration of Brady O’Bryan 27 1 Because the Motion to Remand is denied, Plaintiff’s attendant motion for attorney’s fees is also 28 denied. 1 in Support of Defendant’s Opposition (“ O’Bryan Decl.”) [Dkt. 17-1] ¶ 2, Ex. A (“Initial 2 Disclosures”) [Dkt. 17-2]; Yang Decl. ¶ 7. The initial disclosures identified the Vehicle’s then- 3 current mileage (63,161 miles) and the location of the Vehicle (an address in Baldwin Park , 4 California). Initial Disclosures at 2. As part of those June 23 initial disclosures, Plaintiff’s counsel 5 also provided a copy of the Vehicle’s sales contract. Yang Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 2 (“Sales Contract”). The 6 Sales Contract identified Plaintiff’s specific address in Baldwin Park , California. Sales Contract at 7 1. Finally, the initial disclosures contained various repair records for the Vehicle. O’Bryan Decl. 8 ¶ 2. 9 Defendant removed the case on July 30, 2025, alleging that this Court has diversity 10 jurisdiction. Notice of Removal at 2–10 [Dkt. 1]. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on August 22, 11 2025. After full briefing, see Opposition [Dkt. 17]; Reply [Dkt. 18], the Court deemed the matter 12 appropriate for resolution without oral argument and took it under submission. [Dkt. 19]. 13 III. LEGAL STANDARD 14 Generally, a civil action filed in state court may properly be removed if there is federal 15 subject-matter jurisdiction at the time of removal, which exists when the suit arises under federal law 16 or when the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy is over $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. 17 §§ 1441 (removal), 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), 1332 (diversity jurisdiction). 18 A notice of removal must be filed within 30 days of the initial pleading or summons if, using 19 a “reasonable amount of intelligence,” the grounds for removability can be ascertained from such 20 pleading or summons. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1); Kuxhausen v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA, 707 F.3d 1136, 21 1139–40 (9th Cir. 2013). Should the initial pleading not reveal grounds for removal, the notice of 22 removal must be filed within 30 days of the defendant receiving an “amended pleading, motion, 23 order or other paper” which displays removability on its face. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) (emphasis 24 added); Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 694 (9th Cir. 2005). Moreover, the “other 25 paper” under this section must establish that removability is “unequivocally clear and certain.” 26 Dietrich v. Boeing Co., 14 F.4th 1089, 1094 (9th Cir. 2021) (“We believe the ‘unequivocally clear 27 and certain’ test hews to the text of § 1446(b)(3).”). These 30-day time limits, although procedural 28 in nature, are mandatory, and a successful challenge to removal based on a late notice requires 1 remand. Smith v. Mylan Inc., 761 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2014). 2 IV. DISCUSSION 3 Plaintiff makes several interdependent arguments in support of remand. Plaintiff’s counsel 4 has raised almost exactly the same arguments in a number of other lemon law cases against General 5 Motors in recent months. This Court first considered and decided the relevant issues in Chavarin v. 6 General Motors LLC, No. 2:25-cv-06852-HDV-MBK, 2025 WL 3030875 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2025) 7 (“Chavarin Order”). Plaintiff’s Motion here fails for the same reasons as in Chavarin. 8 First, Plaintiff argues that removability was apparent from the initial Complaint based on 9 federal question jurisdiction (given the MMWA claim) and separately on the basis of diversity 10 jurisdiction. See generally, Motion. But federal question jurisdiction under that statute only applies 11 if the amount in controversy on the MMWA claims is at least $50,000. 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3)(B). 12 And Plaintiff’s Complaint does not include any allegations as to values that would give Defendant 13 notice that his claims were worth more than this. Chavarin Order at 4–5 & n.2. 14 Plaintiff’s diversity-related argument also fails at the Complaint stage, both because there are 15 no facts suggesting that the $75,000 amount in controversy was met, and because the allegations of 16 Plaintiff’s California residency do not set forth Plaintiff’s domicile or citizenship. Id. at 5–6 & n.3. 17 In the alternative, Plaintiff avers that the initial disclosures provided on June 23, 2025 18 qualified as an “other paper” under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) and triggered the second 30-day removal 19 period, rendering Defendants’ removal untimely. Motion at 7–8; Reply at 3–4. These disclosures 20 included the Vehicle’s sales contract, repair orders, and a written disclosure of the current mileage. 21 O’Bryan Decl. ¶ 2; Initial Disclosures at 2. The sales contract revealed that the cash price of the 22 Vehicle and accessories was $40,936.19. Sales Contract at 2. It also showed that the total cash price 23 (including collateral charges) was $40,936; that Plaintiff made a down payment of $0; and that she 24 financed $40,936, incurring financing charges of $9,433—for a total cost of $50,369. Id. at 1-2.2 25 As to the MMWA claim, however, these initial disclosures did not provide enough 26 information to calculate the market value of the car at the time of the defect, a value that is necessary 27 2 These numbers are rounded to the nearest dollar, which explains why the arithmetic may appear off 28 by a dollar or so. 1 to calculate diminished value damages under California Commercial Code section 2713. Chavarin 2 Order at 7. Federal question jurisdiction was therefore not facially apparent at that time. 3 And as to diversity jurisdiction, the disclosures offered almost nothing bearing on the central 4 issue of Plaintiff’s intention to remain in California—key facts necessary to establish Plaintiff’s 5 domicile or citizenship for purposes of making removability “unequivocally clear and certain” under 6 section 1446(b)(3). Chavarin Order at 8–9 & n.5. 7 V. CONCLUSION 8 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s removal was timely and Plaintiff’s Motion is denied. 9 10 Dated: November 14, 2025 11 _______________________________________ 12 Hernán D. Vera United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28