Ma Suarez v. Nissan North America, Inc., et al.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: January 16, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-07178
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 JS-6 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MA SUAREZ, Case No. 2:25-cv-07178-MAA 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO REMAND (ECF No. 12) 14 NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, 15 INC., et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 On May 16, 2025, Plaintiff Ma Suarez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in Los 20 Angeles Superior Court (“Superior Court”) against Defendant Nissan North 21 America, Inc. (“Defendant”) and ten Doe Defendants. (Compl., ECF No. 1-1.) On 22 August 4, 2025, Defendant removed the case to this Court (“Notice of Removal” or 23 “NOR”). (NOR, ECF No. 1.) On August 27, 2025, the case was transferred to the 24 calendar of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 9.) The 25 same day, the parties were notified of their deadline for declining consent to 26 proceed before the assigned United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 10.) No 27 party declined consent. (See ECF No. 13.) 28 /// 1 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (“Motion”), filed on 2 September 3, 2025. (ECF No. 12.) In support of the Motion, Plaintiff filed the 3 Declaration of Nicholas Lee (“Lee Declaration”). (ECF No. 12-1.) Defendant filed 4 an opposition to the Motion on October 30, 2025 (“Opposition”) (ECF No. 21), 5 supported by the Declaration of Sarah Garbuzov (“Garbuzov Declaration”) (ECF 6 No. 21-1). On November 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply in support of the Motion 7 (“Reply”) (ECF No. 22), supported by the Declaration of Roy Enav (“Enav 8 Declaration”) (ECF No. 22-1). Plaintiff also filed a Request for Judicial Notice 9 (“RJN”) in support of the Motion, asking the Court to take judicial notice of eleven 10 decisions by California district courts granting motions to remand, including nine 11 decisions from the Central District and two from the Northern District. (RJN, ECF 12 No. 22-2.) The RJN is GRANTED.1 13 The matter stands submitted. The hearing on the Motion, previously set for 14 October 8, 2025, was vacated on September 12, 2025. (ECF No. 15.) After 15 considering the papers filed in support and in opposition, the Court deems the 16 Motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); 17 C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS 18 Plaintiff’s Motion in its entirety. 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 1 See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (“The court may judicially notice a fact that is not 26 subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined 27 from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”); Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131–32 (9th Cir. 2012) (court may take judicial notice 28 of “documents on file in federal or state courts”). 1 II. BACKGROUND2 2 On or around July 13, 2023, Plaintiff purchased a 2023 Nissan Sentra 3 (“Subject Vehicle”). (Compl. ¶ 8.3) The sales contract reflected that the value of 4 the Subject Vehicle was approximately $59,999.04. (Id.) Defendant warranted the 5 Subject Vehicle. (Id. at ¶ 9.) The Subject Vehicle was delivered to Plaintiff “with 6 serious defects and nonconformities to warranty and developed other serious 7 defects and nonconformities to warranty including, but not limited to, engine, 8 electrical, and transmission system defects.” (Id. at ¶ 10.) Plaintiff presented the 9 Subject Vehicle for repairs on at least four occasions, as follows: (1) in February 10 2024, with approximately 13,722 miles on the odometer; (2) in March 2024, with 11 approximately 15,435 miles on the odometer; (3) in September 2024, with 12 approximately 29,833 miles on the odometer; and (4) in March 2025, with 13 approximately 42,105 miles on the odometer. (Id. at ¶¶ 11–14.) Plaintiff brought 14 suit, alleging three causes of action for violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer 15 Warranty Act, California Civil Code sections 1790 et seq. (Id. at ¶¶ 20–61.) The 16 Complaint was personally served on Defendant on May 22, 2025. (Lee Decl. ¶ 6.) 17 Defendant filed its Answer in Superior Court on July 2, 2025. (Id. at ¶ 7.) 18 Defendant removed the case to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction, 19 alleging that Plaintiff is a citizen of California, Defendant is a citizen of Delaware 20 and Tennessee, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.4 (NOR 2–3.) 21 Defendant asserted that removal was timely because the Complaint was 22 indeterminate as to the amount in controversy. (Id. at 7–8.) Plaintiff moves to 23

24 2 The Court summarizes the allegations and claims in the Complaint. In doing so, 25 the Court neither opines on the veracity or merit of Plaintiff’s allegations and claims nor makes any findings of fact. 26 3 Pinpoint citations of docketed documents refer to paragraphs, or where none, to 27 the page numbers in the ECF-generated headers. 4 The citizenship of the Doe Defendants is disregarded when determining removal 28 jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1). 1 remand on the ground that removal was untimely, as it was clear from the 2 Complaint that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. (Mot. 7–8.) 3 4 III. LEGAL STANDARD 5 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. 6 Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 26 (2025); Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 7 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “They possess only that power authorized by 8 Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. “It is to be presumed that a 9 cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction . . . and the burden of establishing the 10 contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id. 11 “The general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), provides that ‘any civil 12 action’ over which a federal court would have original jurisdiction may be removed 13 to federal court by ‘the defendant or the defendants.’” Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. 14 Jackson, 587 U.S. 435, 437 (2019). “The propriety of removal thus depends on 15 whether the case originally could have been filed in federal court.” City of Chicago 16 v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 163 (1997). “In 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 17 1332(a), Congress granted federal courts jurisdiction over two general types of 18 cases: cases that ‘aris[e] under’ federal law, § 1331, and cases in which the amount 19 in controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is diversity of citizenship among the 20 parties, § 1332(a).” Home Depot U.S.A., 587 U.S. at 437. “These jurisdictional 21 grants are known as ‘federal-question jurisdiction’ and ‘diversity jurisdiction,’ 22 respectively. Each serves a distinct purpose: Federal-question jurisdiction affords 23 parties a federal forum in which ‘to vindicate federal rights,’ whereas diversity 24 jurisdiction provides ‘a neutral forum’ for parties from different States.” Id. at 437– 25 38 (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 26 (2005)). 27 “The right of removal is entirely a creature of statute and ‘a suit commenced 28 in a state court must remain there until cause is shown for its transfer under some 1 act of Congress.’” Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002) 2 (quoting Great N. Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 280 (1918)). Generally, the 3 “statutory procedures for removal are to be strictly construed.” Id. Remand may be 4 ordered either for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for any defect in removal 5 procedure. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 6 The removal procedure for civil actions is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1446 7 (“Section 1446”). “Section 1446(b) provides the rules governing the timeliness of 8 removal. The default rule is that the party seeking removal must remove ‘within 30 9 days after the receipt . . . of a copy of the initial pleading.’” Blumberger v. Tilley, 10 115 F.4th 1113, 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Section 1446(b)(1)), cert. denied, 11 145 S. Ct. 2818 (2025). However, “[t]he 30-day clock under § 1446(b)(1) begins to 12 run ‘only when that pleading affirmatively reveals on its face the facts necessary for 13 federal court jurisdiction.’” Id. (quoting Rea v. Michaels Stores Inc., 742 F.3d 14 1234, 1238 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (emphasis in original)). “[N]otice of 15 removability under § 1446(b) is determined through examination of the four corners 16 of the applicable pleadings, not through subjective knowledge or a duty to make 17 further inquiry.” Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 694 (9th Cir. 18 2005). Thus, a complaint that is “indeterminate” regarding the essential 19 jurisdictional facts is not enough to trigger Section 1446(b)(1)’s thirty-day removal 20 period; “the ground for removal must be revealed affirmatively in the initial 21 pleading in order for the first thirty-day clock under § 1446(b) to begin.” Id. at 695. 22 If the case as “‘stated by the initial pleading is not removable,’ a party may 23 remove a case within 30 days ‘[after receipt] of a copy of an amended pleading, 24 motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is 25 one which is or has become removable.’” Blumberger, 115 F.4th at 1122 (quoting 26 Section 1446(b)(3)). Here, even greater clarity is required: the Ninth Circuit has 27 held “that ‘an amended pleading, motion, order, or other paper must make a ground 28 for removal unequivocally clear and certain’ to trigger § 1446(b)(3)’s temporal 1 limitation.” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting Dietrich v. Boeing Co., 14 F.4th 1089, 2 1095 (9th Cir. 2021)). Further, while such an “other paper” served by a plaintiff 3 will trigger the thirty-day deadline, a defendant’s subjective knowledge will not. 4 Roth v. CHA Hollywood Med. Ctr., L.P., 720 F.3d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 2013). 5 Thus, Sections “1441 and 1446, read together, permit a defendant to remove outside 6 the two thirty-day periods on the basis of its own information, provided that it has 7 not run afoul of either of the thirty-day deadlines” found in Section 1446(b)(1) and 8 (3) or, in a diversity case, of the one-year deadline imposed by Section 1446(c)(1). 9 Roth, 720 F.3d at 1125–26. 10 For removals based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), both 11 the diversity of the parties and the amount in controversy must appear determinate 12 on the face of the complaint or “other paper” at issue in order to trigger one of these 13 thirty-day deadlines. See Harris, 425 F.3d at 695 (finding that removal more than 14 thirty days after service of complaint was timely when complaint, on its face, “did 15 not affirmatively reveal information to trigger removal based on diversity 16 jurisdiction because the initial pleading only stated [co-defendant’s] 1972 17 residency, not his citizenship, and certainly not his citizenship as of the filing of the 18 complaint” in 2003); Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 885 (9th 19 Cir. 2010) (“Because the face of the initial pleading—[the plaintiff’s] superior court 20 complaint—lacked any indication of the amount in controversy, it did not 21 trigger . . . thirty-day removal period.”). 22 The Ninth Circuit has explained that the amount in controversy is the 23 “amount at stake in the underlying litigation.” Gonzales v. CarMax Auto 24 Superstores, LLC, 840 F.3d 644, 648 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Theis Rsch., Inc. v. 25 Brown & Bain, 400 F.3d 659, 662 (9th Cir. 2005)). “[T]his includes any result of 26 the litigation, excluding interests and costs, that ‘entail[s] a payment’ by the 27 defendant.” Id. (quoting Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 701 28 (9th Cir. 2007)). Among other items, the amount in controversy includes damages 1 (compensatory, punitive, or otherwise), the costs of complying with an injunction, 2 and attorneys’ fees awarded under fee-shifting statutes or contract. See id. at 648– 3 59 (citing Chabner v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 1042, 1046 n.3 (9th 4 Cir. 2000)); see also Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2005) 5 (citing Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1155–56 (9th Cir. 1998)). 6 A “defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation 7 that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart 8 Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). “Evidence 9 establishing the amount is required by § 1446(c)(2)(B) only when the plaintiff 10 contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s allegation.” Id.; see also Arias v. 11 Residence Inn by Marriott, 936 F.3d 920, 924–25 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding notice of 12 removal sufficient when it “alleged that the amount-in-controversy requirement was 13 satisfied,” “discussed each of the claims alleged in the complaint[,] and explained 14 the components of [the defendant’s] estimate of the amount in controversy,” thus 15 providing “a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal”). This is true 16 even in cases not invoking federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act 17 of 2005 (“CAFA”). See Acad. of Country Music v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 991 F.3d 1059, 18 1060–61 (9th Cir. 2021) (vacating district court’s sua sponte remand of case in 19 which notice of removal alleged that amount in controversy exceeded $75,000); 20 California by & through Harrison v. Express Scripts, Inc., 154 F.4th 1069, 1080 21 (9th Cir. 2025) (noting, in case removed on the basis of federal officer jurisdiction, 22 that only “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal” required in notice 23 of removal). Though the removal statutes are more strictly construed in non-CAFA 24 cases, “the fact that the party removing a case to a federal district court has the 25 burden of proving that the district court has jurisdiction does not mean that the 26 notice of removal must in and of itself meet this burden.” Academy of Country 27 Music, 991 F.3d at 1068. 28 /// 1 For removals based on federal question jurisdiction, “the determination of 2 jurisdiction is based only on the allegations in the plaintiff’s ‘well-pleaded 3 complaint’—not on any issue the defendant may raise.” Royal Canin U.S.A., 604 4 U.S. at 26. “That longstanding rule makes the complaint—the plaintiff’s own 5 claims and allegations—the key . . . .” Id. 6 Whatever type of jurisdiction is asserted, the notice of removal must allege 7 facts to support it, not simply legal conclusions. Harrison, 154 F.4th at 1080. 8 “Because [the] ‘short and plain statement’ requirement of the removal statute 9 ‘tracks the general pleading requirement stated in Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of 10 Civil Procedure,’ the same pleading standards applicable to complaints under Rule 11 8 also apply to the jurisdictional allegations in a notice of removal.” Id. (quoting 12 Dart Cherokee, 574 U.S. at 87). Similarly, a “remand motion challenging removal 13 jurisdiction is evaluated the same as a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) 14 motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.” DeFiore v. SOC LLC, 85 15 F.4th 546, 552 (9th Cir. 2023). Thus, “where the moving party does not contest the 16 removal notice’s factual allegations but instead asserts that those allegations are 17 facially insufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction,” those allegations are accepted as 18 true, and all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the remover. Id. In 19 contrast, when a “motion to remand raises a factual challenge by ‘contest[ing] the 20 truth of the [remover’s] factual allegations . . . the remover ‘must support her 21 jurisdictional allegations with ‘‘competent proof.”’” Id. at 552–53 (quoting Leite v. 22 Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014)). At that point, “[t]he remover 23 ‘bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that each of the 24 requirements for subject-matter jurisdiction has been met.’” Id. at 553 (quoting 25 Leite, 749 F.3d at 1121). A “plaintiff can contest the amount in controversy by 26 making either a ‘facial’ or ‘factual’ attack on the defendant’s jurisdictional 27 allegations. Harris v. KM Indus., Inc., 980 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir. 2020). 28 /// 1 IV. DISCUSSION 2 A. The Removal Was Not Timely 3 In the Notice of Removal, Defendant contends that this Court has subject 4 matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as there is complete diversity of 5 the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (NOR 2–3.) 6 Specifically, Defendant calculates the amount in controversy to include, at a 7 minimum, actual damages of $52,999.04 (equal to the purchase price of the Subject 8 Vehicle—$59,999.04—minus offsets in the amount of $7,000.00), plus civil 9 penalties in the amount of two times actual damages, or $105,998.08, for an amount 10 in controversy of at least $158,997.12. (NOR 4.) This, without more, is sufficient 11 to exceed the $75,000 amount-in-controversy floor for diversity jurisdiction. 12 However, Defendant bolsters its jurisdictional argument by adding $5,000 in 13 attorneys’ fees to the amount in controversy (NOR 5), as the Complaint seeks 14 attorneys’ fees (Compl. 11 (Prayer for Relief ¶ 7)). Thus, the Notice of Removal 15 includes “a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the 16 jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee, 574 U.S. at 89. 17 In seeking remand, Plaintiff does not contend that the facts of this case do not 18 support the existence of diversity jurisdiction. Rather, Plaintiff argues that those 19 facts were evident from the face of the Complaint, making Defendant’s removal 20 more than thirty days after service of the Complaint untimely. ( See Mot. 4.) 21 If a complaint “affirmatively reveals on its face the facts necessary for federal 22 court jurisdiction,” then removal must indeed be effected within thirty days of 23 service. Harris, 425 F.3d at 691 (internal quotations omitted). If not, then removal 24 during that first thirty days is not required—even if the case is, in fact, removable, 25 and the additional information necessary to demonstrate its removability is already 26 within the defendant’s possession. Dietrich, 14 F.4th at 1094 (drawing distinction 27 between “facts sufficient to allow removal [and] facts sufficient to require removal 28 within thirty days” and noting “that a defendant may remove before it must do so” 1 (emphasis in original)). A defendant does not have any obligation to conduct an 2 investigation of its own files within thirty days to determine if it might have 3 information that could reveal that the case is removable. Harris, 425 F.3d at 693 4 (rejecting contention that “the burden lies with the defendant to investigate the 5 necessary jurisdictional facts within the first thirty days of receiving an 6 indeterminate complaint”). In the instant case, therefore, Defendant argues that the 7 Complaint does not reveal on its face sufficient information to determine if the 8 amount in controversy satisfied the jurisdictional minimum, claiming that “[i]t was 9 Nissan’s own factual investigation regarding Plaintiff’s likely actual damages— 10 including the requisite set-offs—not the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint that led 11 Nissan to conclude the amount in controversy is met and that federal subject matter 12 jurisdiction exists.” (Opp’n 10.) Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that “the 13 removability of the matter was clearly ascertainable from Plaintiff’s Complaint.” 14 (Mot. 8.) 15 So, did the Complaint, “on its face,” within its “four corners,” reveal facts 16 that would satisfy the amount in controversy minimum? Blumberger, 115 F.4th at 17 1122; Harris, 425 F.3d at 694. The Court is aware that this is far from the first case 18 in this district in which a motion to remand has challenged the timeliness of 19 removal by a car manufacturer of a complaint with virtually identical allegations 20 and causes of action. The Court is also aware that it is difficult to harmonize the 21 resulting decisions, which have reached opposite outcomes on virtually identical 22 facts. Compare, e.g., Larios v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 2:25-CV-05095-AJR, 2025 23 WL 2402250, at *5–7 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2025); Calderon v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 24 No. CV 25-05137-AS, 2025 WL 2267923, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2025); and 25 Rosiles v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 2:25-CV-02680-AB-AGR, 2025 WL 1782538, 26 at *2–3 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2025) with Ayad v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 2:25-CV- 27 4152-RAO, 2025 WL 2490849, at *2–4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2025); Crescencio v. 28 Ford Motor Co., No. CV 24-10946-MWF (BFMX), 2025 WL 1122096, at *2–4 1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2025); and Covarrubias v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:25-CV-00328- 2 JLS-MAA, 2025 WL 907544, at *2–3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2025). 3 The Court therefore returns to the statute, which reads in relevant part as 4 follows: 5 If removal of a civil action is sought on the basis of the jurisdiction conferred by section 1332(a), the sum demanded in good faith in the 6 initial pleading shall be deemed to be the amount in controversy, 7 except that-- (A) the notice of removal may assert the amount in controversy 8 if the initial pleading seeks-- 9 (i) nonmonetary relief; or 10 (ii) a money judgment, but the State practice either does not permit demand for a specific sum or permits recovery 11 of damages in excess of the amount demanded; and 12 (B) removal of the action is proper on the basis of an amount in controversy asserted under subparagraph (A) if the district court 13 finds, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in 14 controversy exceeds the amount specified in section 1332(a). 15 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2). Thus, if a removing defendant relies on the amount alleged 16 in good faith by the plaintiff, that “shall be deemed to be the amount in 17 controversy.” Id. If, on the other hand, the defendant does not rely on the 18 complaint’s allegations regarding the amount demanded, but rather asserts a 19 different sum as the amount in controversy, the defendant may have to prove, by a 20 preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the 21 minimum amount. Id. In other words, the plain language of the statute suggests 22 that, if a removing defendant relies on the plaintiff’s own good faith allegations 23 regarding how much money is at stake, the defendant does not bear the burden of 24 proving those allegations, but may simply rely on them. 25 Here, the Complaint alleges that the value of the Subject Vehicle was 26 approximately $59,999.04 and asserts that Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, “actual 27 damages,” “rescission of the purchase contract and restitution of all monies 28 expended,” and “civil penalt[ies] in the amount of two times Plaintiff’s actual 1 damages.” (Compl. ¶ 8, 11 (Prayer for Relief ¶¶ 1–2, 5).) Thus, even without a 2 calculator, and certainly without reference to any information outside the 3 Complaint, “the sum demanded in good faith in the initial pleading” is self- 4 evidently at least three times $59,999.04, or very nearly $180,000.00. And 5 “[m]ultiplying figures clearly stated in a complaint” falls within the duty that 6 “requires a defendant to apply a reasonable amount of intelligence in ascertaining 7 removability.” Kuxhausen v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA LLC, 707 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th 8 Cir. 2013) (internal quotations omitted). According to the plain language of 28 9 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2), therefore, this “shall be deemed to be the amount in 10 controversy.” 11 The Complaint here is not so vague as to require Defendant to consult its own 12 files or to conduct an investigation in order to see that Plaintiff is demanding a sum 13 far in excess of the jurisdictional minimum. On its face, without reference to any 14 other document, the Complaint clearly alleges an amount in controversy of, at a 15 minimum, $179,997.12. Thus, the Complaint “affirmatively reveals on its face the 16 facts necessary for federal court jurisdiction,” requiring removal to be effected 17 within thirty days of service. Harris, 425 F.3d at 691. The thirty-day removal 18 clock therefore began to run when Defendant was served on May 22, 2025, making 19 removal on August 4, 2025 untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). 20 Defendant argues that the thirty-day clock was not triggered by the 21 Complaint because the amount in controversy was “indeterminate,” as the true 22 amount of Plaintiff’s actual damages would by law require reductions, or offsets, 23 against the purchase price of the Subject Vehicle.5 (Opp’n 11–17.) As the Ninth 24 Circuit has stated, however, “[t]he general rule is that the amount in controversy 25 represents ‘an estimate of the total amount in dispute, not a prospective assessment 26 27 5 As listed by Defendant, these offsets include a mileage offset, negative equity, manufacturer’s rebate, third-party optional equipment, and unpaid financing. (Opp’n 28 12.) 1 of defendant’s liability.’” Kuxhausen, 707 F.3d at 1140 n.2 (quoting Lewis v. 2 Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 400 (9th Cir.2010)). Arguing about the 3 details of what Plaintiff’s actual damages might eventually turn out to be obscures 4 what is, in fact, the rather simple command of the removal statute: if a defendant 5 can, simply by looking at the complaint, see that a state court case is alleged to 6 involve a dispute between the citizens of different states regarding a sum of money 7 greater than $75,000, that defendant needs to move quickly if it wants to remove the 8 case to federal court. As this was exactly the situation presented by the instant 9 Complaint, Defendant should have moved faster, and filed its Notice of Removal 10 within thirty days of receiving the Complaint. “For good reason, § 1446(b)(1) and 11 (b)(3) place strict limits on a defendant who is put on notice of removability by a 12 plaintiff. A defendant should not be able to ignore pleadings or other documents 13 from which removability may be ascertained . . . .” Roth, 729 F.3d at 1125. 14 The Court is sympathetic to Defendant’s concern that it needs to conduct an 15 investigation into all possible offsets prior to removal because it may be called upon 16 to defend that removal, once in federal court, before judges who have widely varied 17 opinions regarding the appropriateness of removal of these cases. (See Opp’n 10, 18 15.) But the possibility of a removed case being assigned to a judge who will 19 immediately set an Order to Show Cause that the jurisdictional requirements are 20 satisfied, see, e.g., Valdez v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 2:25-CV-00775-RGK-SHK, 21 2025 WL 1843323, at *1–2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2025), cannot exempt a defendant 22 from complying with the statutory requirement that cases removable on the face of 23 the complaint must be removed within thirty days of service. 24 Plaintiff here has included a demand for the value of the Subject Vehicle, 25 $59,999.04, plus twice that in civil penalties. (Compl. ¶ 8, 11 (Prayer for Relief 26 ¶¶ 1–2, 5).) “[T]he sum demanded in good faith in the initial pleading shall be 27 deemed to be the amount in controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2). Defendant 28 should therefore be able to rely on this amount to remove a case—which means that 1 Defendant should have relied on it here to remove within thirty days of receiving 2 the Complaint. If Plaintiff were arguing that the amount now in controversy is 3 actually below $75,000, or if the Court had any reason to suspect that the amount 4 alleged in the Complaint had not been alleged in good faith, or that it was legally 5 impossible for the Plaintiff to obtain enough of the claimed sum to satisfy the 6 amount in controversy requirement, thus raising doubts about the Court’s subject 7 matter jurisdiction, more would be required. But Plaintiff most definitely has not 8 claimed that the relief sought is less than $75,000, and the Court has not been 9 presented with any basis for suspecting that it might be legally impossible for 10 Plaintiff to obtain enough of the relief to which a claim is asserted in the Complaint 11 to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. See Morris v. Hotel Riviera, Inc., 12 704 F.2d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1983) (finding that state law limiting plaintiffs’ 13 recovery to $750 prevented plaintiffs from showing that $10,000 amount-in- 14 controversy minimum for diversity jurisdiction had been met, thus requiring 15 dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). 16 The sheer number of similar cases in this district in which this issue has been 17 litigated serves to complicate what should be a relatively simple question. The 18 parties and the Court here all agree that diversity jurisdiction exists, and that the 19 amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. The fact that diversity 20 jurisdiction exists was evident from the Complaint, as it clearly demands a sum in 21 excess of the jurisdictional minimum. The removal statute therefore requires that a 22 notice of removal must be filed within thirty days of Defendant’s receipt of the 23 complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). 24 Because facts sufficient to support diversity jurisdiction, including the 25 amount in controversy, were alleged in the Complaint, Defendant was required to 26 remove within thirty days of being served with it. And because Defendant did not 27 file its Notice of Removal within that thirty-day period, the removal was untimely. 28 /// 1 B. Plaintiff Did Not Waive the Right to Seek Remand 2 While the issue discussed above has been raised in many similar cases in this 3 district, Defendant raises another argument that may be unique to this case. It 4 appears that Plaintiff contacted two different plaintiffs’ law firms that often 5 represent plaintiffs with similar vehicle-related claims—and each of those firms 6 filed a case in Superior Court raising similar claims concerning the same Subject 7 Vehicle, both of which were then removed to this Court. Compare Ma Suarez v. 8 Nissan North America, Inc., et al., 2:25-cv-06103-MAA (C.D. Cal.) (the “6103 9 Case”). After the duplicative cases were discovered, the parties stipulated to 10 dismiss the 6103 Case. Suarez, 2:25-cv-06103-MAA (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2025), 11 ECF No. 17. 12 Defendant now argues that, since no motion to remand was filed in the 6103 13 Case, Plaintiff has waived the right to seek remand in the instant case, arguing that 14 “it would go against fundamental principles of fairness to allow Plaintiff to engage 15 in affirmative conduct reflecting assent to federal jurisdiction on the one hand, and 16 then move to remand in another, identical, hand.” (Opp’n 8.) This “affirmative 17 conduct” is asserted to be Plaintiff’s failure to submit a statement declining to 18 consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction in the 6103 Case, while also discussing 19 settlement. (Id. at 7–8.) As to the first, Plaintiff did not, in fact, take “affirmative 20 action in [the 6103 Case] by consenting to magistrate jurisdiction,” since the 21 Court’s Magistrate Judge Direct Assignment Program is an opt-out program (see 22 ECF No. 10), and Plaintiff’s consent was registered by a lack of action, not by any 23 affirmative step on Plaintiff’s part. See Suarez, 2:25-cv-06103-MAA (C.D. Cal. 24 July 16, 2025), ECF No. 8. As to the second, whether the parties may be discussing 25 settlement has no bearing on whether the statutory requirements for removal have 26 been satisfied or whether a defect in the removal procedure might give Plaintiff 27 grounds for a remand motion. 28 /// 1 The two cases Defendant cites in support of this argument do not support a 2 contrary finding. Defendant first cites Smith v. Mylan Inc., 761 F.3d 1042, 1045 3 (9th Cir. 2014), for the proposition that a plaintiff can waive a procedural 4 irregularity in removal by not filing a motion to remand. (Opp’n 7.) In Smith, 5 however, the plaintiff never filed a motion for remand—the district court had 6 remanded the case sua sponte on the grounds that removal was untimely, and the 7 Circuit reversed, holding that the timeliness of removal was not jurisdictional, and 8 thus could be waived by a plaintiff who chose not to file a motion to remand. 9 Smith, 761 F.3d at 1045. Here, of course, Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand 10 (ECF No. 12), which was timely filed within thirty days of the filing of the notice of 11 removal, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The other case Defendant cites is a case from this 12 district that is more than 50 years old. Transp. Indem. Co. v. Fin. Tr. Co., 339 F. 13 Supp. 405, 408 (C.D. Cal. 1972).6 The Transport Indemnity court, while noting 14 that “certain conduct on the part of the Plaintiff, which conduct is sometimes 15 referred to as ‘waiver’ and sometimes referred to as ‘estoppel’, does preclude the 16 Plaintiff from objecting to a late removal petition,” held that the plaintiff in that 17 case had not engaged in such conduct. Id. at 408–09. This holding was based 18 largely on the finding that “defense counsel” had not “reasonably relied to his 19 detriment on the representations of his opponent.” Id. at 409. Nor has the instant 20 Defendant pointed to any action of Plaintiff on which Defendant, or Defendant’s 21 counsel, “reasonably relied to his detriment,” such that Plaintiff should now be 22 estopped from seeking remand of this case Id. 23 Accordingly, the Court does not find that Plaintiff waived the right to seek 24 remand of this case. 25

26 6 The main holding of this case, for which Defendant does not cite it—that the 27 second of two defendants served at different times could not remove a case if the first defendant had not done so within thirty days after being served with the 28 complaint—is no longer good law. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(B)-(C). 1] Vv. CONCLUSION 2 On the basis of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion. This 3 || action is REMANDED to the Los Angeles County Superior Court. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. :

|| DATED. _ 1/16/2026 g HONORABLE MARIA A. AUDERO 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 17