Lucila Martinez Langarica v. Ford Motor Company

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: September 29, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-08630
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Case No. 2:25-cv-08630-MCS-PVC Date September 29, 2025 Title Martinez Langarica v. Ford Motor Co.

Present: The Honorable Mark C. Scarsi, United States District Judge

Stephen Montes Kerr —_———NotReported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION

The complaint in this case alleges a violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Defendant removed the action from state court, invoking diversity jurisdiction. The Court questions its jurisdiction over the action. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012) (obliging courts to examine subject-matter jurisdiction issues sua sponte). Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction, having subject-matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A defendant may remove a civil action in state court to federal court if the federal court has original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). There is a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction, and the removing party bears the burden of proving that removal is proper. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). To invoke diversity jurisdiction, a party must demonstrate that there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U'S.C. § 1332(a). “[W]here it is unclear or ambiguous from the face of a state-court Page 1 of 2 CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk SMO

complaint whether the requisite amount in controversy is pled,” the removing defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy “more likely than not” exceeds $75,000. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007); Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996).

The amount in controversy is not clear from the face of the complaint. Given the complaint’s invocation of the superior court’s unlimited jurisdiction, the Court surmises that Plaintiff asserts the amount in controversy exceeds $35,000. See Cal. Civ. Code §§ 85(a), 88. But nothing in the Complaint indicates whether the total amount Plaintiff seeks exceeds $75,000. Cf. Schneider v. Ford Motor Co., 441 F. Supp. 3d 909, 913 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (“[T]he Complaint alleges that Plaintiff suffered damages in a sum to be proven at trial in an amount that is not less than $25,001.00. Hence, while Plaintiff seeks restitution for the value of the car, civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs, it is unclear whether all these damages are subsumed within the request for $25,001.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). The Court questions Defendant’s representations concerning the amount in controversy presented in the notice of removal.

The Court orders Defendant to show cause why the case should not be remanded for lack of jurisdiction. Defendant shall file a written response within 14 days either acknowledging the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction or establishing by a preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy “more likely than not” exceeds $75,000. Guglielmino, 506 F.3d at 699; see also Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014) (requiring “[e]vidence establishing the amount . . . when . . . the court questions[] the defendant’s allegation” of the amount in controversy). Plaintiff may respond to Defendant’s response within seven days of its filing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.