Luis Ramirez v. Nissan North America, Inc.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: July 1, 2024
• Docket: 5:24-cv-00946
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LUIS RAMIREZ, Case No. 5:24-cv-00946-FLA (SHKx) 11

Plaintiff, 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTION TO REMAND [DKT. 6] 13

14 NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., et 15 al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28 1 RULING 2 Before the court is Plaintiff Luis Ramirez’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand 3 (“Motion”). Dkt. 6 (“Mot.”). Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. (“Defendant” or 4 “Nissan”) opposes the Motion. Dkt. 11 (“Opp’n”). On May 4, 2023, Plaintiff 5 initiated the action in the Riverside County Superior Court, alleging causes of action 6 for fraud and violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Cal. Civ. Code 7 § 1790, et seq.). Dkt. 1-2 (“Compl.”). On May 3, 2024, Defendant removed the 8 action to this court based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Dkt. 9 1 (“NOR”) ¶ 11. Plaintiff now moves to remand the action to the Riverside County 10 Superior Court, arguing Nissan failed to remove the action timely. See generally Mot. 11 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a district court has original jurisdiction over a civil 12 action where (1) the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, 13 exclusive of interest and costs, and (2) the dispute is between “citizens of different 14 States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) governs the procedure for removal of civil actions and 15 provides two 30-day windows during which a case may be removed. Dietrich v. 16 Boeing Co., 14 F.4th 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2021). Where the basis for removal is clear 17 from the complaint or other initial pleading, a defendant must remove the action 18 within 30 days of receipt of the pleading. Id. However, where “the case stated by the 19 initial pleading is not removable, a notice of removal may be filed within 30 days after 20 receipt of the defendant … of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other 21 paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has 22 become removable.” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3)). Under the second avenue, 23 the thirty-day deadline commences when removability is made “unequivocally clear 24 and certain” by another paper served by plaintiff. Id. at 1091. 25 Here, the Complaint does not make clear on its face whether the amount in 26 controversy satisfied the jurisdictional threshold. The parties’ sole dispute centers on 27 when the issue of removability became clear to Nissan, thus triggering its thirty-day 28 deadline to remove the action under the second avenue for removal. 1 On May 9, 2023, Plaintiff served a copy of the Complaint and Summons (Dkts. 2 6-2, 6-3), and Nissan filed an answer to the Complaint in state court on August 8, 3 2023 (Dkt. 6-4). On October 23, 2023, Plaintiff served a Case Management 4 Conference Statement (“CMCS”), which provided, in relevant part: Plaintiff seeks recission of the purchase contract, 5 restitution of all monies expended for the vehicle, incidental 6 and consequential damages, civil penalties in the amount of 7 Plaintiff’s actual damages, diminution in value, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit, general, 8 special, and actual damages according to proof at trial. 9 Plaintiff’s restitution damages are in excess of $50,000.00 and attorney’s fees and costs are currently in excess of 10 $20,000.00. 11 Dkt. 6-6 at 8; Dkt. 6-1 (“Enav Decl.”) ¶ 9. 12 Plaintiff argues the statement of damages contained in the CMCS made the 13 removability of the action clear and triggered a removal deadline of November 22, 14 2023 (thirty days from October 23, 2023). Mot. at 5. Nissan argues the “boilerplate” 15 language in the CMCS is not a reasonable estimate of Plaintiff’s damages and does 16 not make removability “unequivocally clear and certain.” Opp’n at 14. The court 17 agrees with Plaintiff. 18 Nissan’s counterarguments regarding Plaintiff’s alleged failure to provide a 19 “credible ‘other paper’ from which removability was ‘unequivocally clear and 20 certain’” are unpersuasive as Plaintiff has provided evidence of Nissan relying on 21 virtually identical language from other case management conference statements to 22 remove similar, but unrelated, actions to district courts, and argue the amount in 23 controversy requirement has been satisfied. Dkt. 12-2 (“RJN”), Exs. A–G ¶¶ 10–12.1 24 25 1 Plaintiff submits these documents in connection with a Request for Judicial Notice. Dkt. 12-2. The court is authorized to take judicial notice of “court filings and other 26 matters of public record.” Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 27 746, n. 6 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Auth. v. City of Burbank, 136 F.3d 1360, 1364 (9th Cir. 1998). As all documents are court filings— 28 I Accordingly, the court finds Nissan was, or should have been aware, of the 2 | removability of this action upon receipt of the CMCS and GRANTS Plaintiff's 3 | Motion to Remand. The action is REMANDED to the Riverside County Superior 4 || Court, Case Number CVRI2302343. The Clerk of the Court shall administratively 5 | close the action. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 | Dated: July 1, 2024

1 FERNANDO'L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

namely, Notices of Removal filed by Nissan in other cases—the request is 28 | GRANTED.