1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Ingrid C. Massey, 1:21-cv-01392-NODJ-CDB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 v. 14) FCA US LLC et. al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Ingrid Massey moves to remand this case to Kern County Superior Court. Ms. 18 | Massey argues the defendant, FCA US LLC, has not shown more than $75,000 is in controversy, 19 | which if so would mean this court lacks jurisdiction. As explained in this order, the court finds 20 | FCA US LLC has established it is more likely than not the amount in controversy exceeds 21 | $75,000. The court denies the motion to remand. ! 22 | I. BACKGROUND 23 In 2013, Ms. Massey bought a Chrysler minivan manufactured by FCA. See Compl. § 7. 24 | She received various warranties to cover potential problems with the car. /d. § 8. She then 25 | experienced a variety of problems with the car. /d. 9. After several attempts to fix these 'Tn the interests of justice and addressing the heavy civil caseloads in the Fresno courthouse, the undersigned resolves only the pending motion to remand, ECF No. 7. Upon resolution of this motion, unless or until otherwise ordered by the court, the case will remain as currently assigned and will retain case number 1:21-cv-01392-NODJ-CDB.
1 problems, she requested FCA repurchase the minivan. Id. ¶ 21. FCA refused. Id. Ms. Massey 2 also believes FCA concealed its knowledge of a particular defect. Id. ¶ 59. 3 Ms. Massey originally filed this action in state court. Her complaint includes six claims: 4 violations under the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (claims one, two, and 5 three), breach of express and implied warranties under the California-Song Beverly Act (claims 6 four and five), and fraudulent inducement (claim six). See generally id. Ms. Massey does not 7 allege a specific amount in damages; she alleges she “suffered damages in a sum to be proven at 8 trial in an amount that is not less than $25,001.00.” Id. ¶ 10. She also seeks restitution, civil 9 penalties in the amount of two times plaintiff’s actual damages under Civil Code section 1794 (c) 10 or (e), consequential damages, incidental damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, restitution of all 11 monies expended, rescission of purchase contract under California Civil Code section 1692, 12 prejudgment interest, punitive damages, and any other relief the court may deem proper. See id. 13 at 25 (prayer). 14 FCA removed this action to this court based on the parties’ diversity and the amount in 15 controversy. Not. Removal, ECF No. 1. Ms. Massey moves to remand, contending FCA has not 16 carried its burden to show damages exceed $75,000. See generally Mot. Remand. FCA opposes 17 the motion, see generally Opp’n, ECF No. 11, and Ms. Massey has replied, see generally Reply, 18 ECF No. 13. 19 Ms. Massey requests judicial notice of various remand orders in other cases. Request for 20 Judicial Notice (RJN), ECF No. 8. FCA opposes that request because it believes the cited orders 21 are irrelevant, but in the alternative, it asks the court to take judicial notice of various other 22 remand orders. Opp’n, Request for Judicial Notice, ECF No. 12. The court will consider other 23 district court decisions the parties cite, but judicial notice of them is not necessary. See, e.g., 24 United States v. Pac. Health Corp., No. 12-960, 2014 WL 12859893, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 25 2014) (collecting authority to show it is unnecessary to take judicial notice of publicly available 26 court decisions). Ms. Massey’s request for judicial notice is denied. 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 When a federal district court would have original jurisdiction over an action originally 3 filed in state court, the action may be removed to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal 4 courts have original jurisdiction over civil cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds 5 $75,000 and the case is diverse, meaning it is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. 6 § 1332. The amount in controversy is an “estimate of the total amount in dispute.” Lewis v. 7 Verizon Communications, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 400 (9th Cir. 2010). When the amount of damages 8 is unspecified, the removing party must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount 9 in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 971 F.3d 10 845, 849 (9th Cir. 2020). To determine if the amount in controversy is met, district courts 11 consider the complaint, allegations in the petition for removal, and “summary-judgment-type 12 evidence relevant to the amount in controversy.” Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976, 980 13 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). 14 III. ANALYSIS 15 The parties dispute only whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. As noted 16 above, Ms. Massey seeks actual, consequential, incidental, and punitive damages. She also seeks 17 restitution, civil penalties, reasonable attorneys’ fees, rescission of the purchase price, 18 prejudgment interest, and any other relief the court may deem proper. 19 The court begins with the request for actual damages. As noted, Ms. Massey alleges she 20 “suffered damages” of at least $25,001.00. Compl. ¶ 10. In isolation, that allegation could 21 suggest her actual damages were $25,001 and that any penalties, fees, and other relief were 22 additional. In her motion to remand, however, Massey clarifies she uses the word “damages” to 23 refer to not only her actual damages but also to all penalties, attorneys’ fees, and punitive 24 damages she is now seeking. Mot. Remand at 6. For that reason, her allegation about damages of 25 at least $25,001 does not in itself suggest more than $75,000 is in controversy in this case. 26 In its notice of removal, FCA uses the vehicle’s purchase price, i.e., $39,887.92, as an 27 estimate of Ms. Massey’s potential damages. See Not. Removal at 6–7; Opp’n at 5. FCA also 28 calculates Ms. Massey’s potential restitution under the Song-Beverly Act as the purchase price 1 minus a reduction of $5,857.38, based on the minivan’s mileage of 26,512 at the time Ms. Massey 2 first brought the minivan in for repairs, for a total of $34,030.54. See Not. Removal at 6–7 & n.1; 3 Compl. ¶ 14. That calculation is specified in the California Civil Code under provisions 4 permitting manufacturers to make restitution rather than replacing a defective vehicle. See Cal. 5 Civ. Code § 1793.2(d)(2). Ms. Massey argues FCA has not justified its decision to use 26,512 6 miles to calculate the mileage offset. See Mot. Remand at 9. If instead a larger mileage figure 7 were used, such as the figures recorded at her later repair visits, see Compl. ¶¶ 15–19, then the 8 mileage offset would be higher, and her actual damages would be smaller. See Mot. Remand at 9. 9 It is not necessary to resolve this dispute here, however. Ms. Massey does not rely solely on the 10 Song-Beverly Act in her complaint. She also asserts a claim for fraud. See Compl. ¶¶ 143–61. It 11 is reasonable to use the purchase price as a measurement of actual damages for her fraud claim, 12 given that where the defendant provides the purchase price, as here, there is no need to speculate 13 as to the measurement of damages. Cf. Amavizca v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 22-02256, 2023 WL 14 3020489, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2023) 15 For these reasons, FCA has shown that at least $39,887.92 in actual damages is in 16 controversy.
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 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Ingrid C. Massey, 1:21-cv-01392-NODJ-CDB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 v. 14) FCA US LLC et. al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Ingrid Massey moves to remand this case to Kern County Superior Court. Ms. 18 | Massey argues the defendant, FCA US LLC, has not shown more than $75,000 is in controversy, 19 | which if so would mean this court lacks jurisdiction. As explained in this order, the court finds 20 | FCA US LLC has established it is more likely than not the amount in controversy exceeds 21 | $75,000. The court denies the motion to remand. ! 22 | I. BACKGROUND 23 In 2013, Ms. Massey bought a Chrysler minivan manufactured by FCA. See Compl. § 7. 24 | She received various warranties to cover potential problems with the car. /d. § 8. She then 25 | experienced a variety of problems with the car. /d. 9. After several attempts to fix these 'Tn the interests of justice and addressing the heavy civil caseloads in the Fresno courthouse, the undersigned resolves only the pending motion to remand, ECF No. 7. Upon resolution of this motion, unless or until otherwise ordered by the court, the case will remain as currently assigned and will retain case number 1:21-cv-01392-NODJ-CDB.
1 problems, she requested FCA repurchase the minivan. Id. ¶ 21. FCA refused. Id. Ms. Massey 2 also believes FCA concealed its knowledge of a particular defect. Id. ¶ 59. 3 Ms. Massey originally filed this action in state court. Her complaint includes six claims: 4 violations under the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (claims one, two, and 5 three), breach of express and implied warranties under the California-Song Beverly Act (claims 6 four and five), and fraudulent inducement (claim six). See generally id. Ms. Massey does not 7 allege a specific amount in damages; she alleges she “suffered damages in a sum to be proven at 8 trial in an amount that is not less than $25,001.00.” Id. ¶ 10. She also seeks restitution, civil 9 penalties in the amount of two times plaintiff’s actual damages under Civil Code section 1794 (c) 10 or (e), consequential damages, incidental damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, restitution of all 11 monies expended, rescission of purchase contract under California Civil Code section 1692, 12 prejudgment interest, punitive damages, and any other relief the court may deem proper. See id. 13 at 25 (prayer). 14 FCA removed this action to this court based on the parties’ diversity and the amount in 15 controversy. Not. Removal, ECF No. 1. Ms. Massey moves to remand, contending FCA has not 16 carried its burden to show damages exceed $75,000. See generally Mot. Remand. FCA opposes 17 the motion, see generally Opp’n, ECF No. 11, and Ms. Massey has replied, see generally Reply, 18 ECF No. 13. 19 Ms. Massey requests judicial notice of various remand orders in other cases. Request for 20 Judicial Notice (RJN), ECF No. 8. FCA opposes that request because it believes the cited orders 21 are irrelevant, but in the alternative, it asks the court to take judicial notice of various other 22 remand orders. Opp’n, Request for Judicial Notice, ECF No. 12. The court will consider other 23 district court decisions the parties cite, but judicial notice of them is not necessary. See, e.g., 24 United States v. Pac. Health Corp., No. 12-960, 2014 WL 12859893, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 25 2014) (collecting authority to show it is unnecessary to take judicial notice of publicly available 26 court decisions). Ms. Massey’s request for judicial notice is denied. 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 When a federal district court would have original jurisdiction over an action originally 3 filed in state court, the action may be removed to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal 4 courts have original jurisdiction over civil cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds 5 $75,000 and the case is diverse, meaning it is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. 6 § 1332. The amount in controversy is an “estimate of the total amount in dispute.” Lewis v. 7 Verizon Communications, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 400 (9th Cir. 2010). When the amount of damages 8 is unspecified, the removing party must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount 9 in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 971 F.3d 10 845, 849 (9th Cir. 2020). To determine if the amount in controversy is met, district courts 11 consider the complaint, allegations in the petition for removal, and “summary-judgment-type 12 evidence relevant to the amount in controversy.” Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976, 980 13 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). 14 III. ANALYSIS 15 The parties dispute only whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. As noted 16 above, Ms. Massey seeks actual, consequential, incidental, and punitive damages. She also seeks 17 restitution, civil penalties, reasonable attorneys’ fees, rescission of the purchase price, 18 prejudgment interest, and any other relief the court may deem proper. 19 The court begins with the request for actual damages. As noted, Ms. Massey alleges she 20 “suffered damages” of at least $25,001.00. Compl. ¶ 10. In isolation, that allegation could 21 suggest her actual damages were $25,001 and that any penalties, fees, and other relief were 22 additional. In her motion to remand, however, Massey clarifies she uses the word “damages” to 23 refer to not only her actual damages but also to all penalties, attorneys’ fees, and punitive 24 damages she is now seeking. Mot. Remand at 6. For that reason, her allegation about damages of 25 at least $25,001 does not in itself suggest more than $75,000 is in controversy in this case. 26 In its notice of removal, FCA uses the vehicle’s purchase price, i.e., $39,887.92, as an 27 estimate of Ms. Massey’s potential damages. See Not. Removal at 6–7; Opp’n at 5. FCA also 28 calculates Ms. Massey’s potential restitution under the Song-Beverly Act as the purchase price 1 minus a reduction of $5,857.38, based on the minivan’s mileage of 26,512 at the time Ms. Massey 2 first brought the minivan in for repairs, for a total of $34,030.54. See Not. Removal at 6–7 & n.1; 3 Compl. ¶ 14. That calculation is specified in the California Civil Code under provisions 4 permitting manufacturers to make restitution rather than replacing a defective vehicle. See Cal. 5 Civ. Code § 1793.2(d)(2). Ms. Massey argues FCA has not justified its decision to use 26,512 6 miles to calculate the mileage offset. See Mot. Remand at 9. If instead a larger mileage figure 7 were used, such as the figures recorded at her later repair visits, see Compl. ¶¶ 15–19, then the 8 mileage offset would be higher, and her actual damages would be smaller. See Mot. Remand at 9. 9 It is not necessary to resolve this dispute here, however. Ms. Massey does not rely solely on the 10 Song-Beverly Act in her complaint. She also asserts a claim for fraud. See Compl. ¶¶ 143–61. It 11 is reasonable to use the purchase price as a measurement of actual damages for her fraud claim, 12 given that where the defendant provides the purchase price, as here, there is no need to speculate 13 as to the measurement of damages. Cf. Amavizca v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 22-02256, 2023 WL 14 3020489, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2023) 15 For these reasons, FCA has shown that at least $39,887.92 in actual damages is in 16 controversy. If FCA can show that other remedies in dispute exceed $35,113.08 -- the difference 17 between $75,001 and $39,887.92 --, then it will have satisfied its obligation to show the amount 18 in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of $75,000. The court finds FCA in fact has 19 done so by pointing to Ms. Massey’s request for attorneys’ fees and civil penalties. 20 First, as for attorneys’ fees, “where an underlying statute authorizes an award of attorneys’ 21 fees, either with mandatory or discretionary language, such fees may be included in the amount in 22 controversy.” Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 1998). Future fees 23 may be included in this calculation. Fritsch v. Swift Transportation Co. of Ariz., LLC, 899 F.3d 24 785, 795–96 (9th Cir. 2018). District courts in California, including this court, apply this rule to 25 Song-Beverly Act claims. See, e.g., Eguilos v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., No. 22-00614, 26 2022 WL 2713273, at *5 (E.D. Cal. July 13, 2022) (citing Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc., 27 243 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2002)); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(e)(1) (“[T]he 28 buyer shall recover damages and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs . . .”). A defendant does 1 “‘not need to prove to a legal certainty’ a plaintiff will be awarded the proffered attorneys’ fees in 2 the removal notice.” Greene v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 965 F.3d 767, 774 n.4 (9th Cir. 2020) 3 (quoting Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 88 (2014)). The 4 estimated attorneys’ fees must be “reasonable.” See id. “The reasonableness of attorney’s fees, 5 when such fees are not ascertainable on the face of the complaint, can be calculated by looking to 6 other attorney’s fees awards in similar cases.” Sasso v. Noble Utah Long Beach, LLC, No. 14- 7 9154, 2015 WL 898468, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2015) (internal marks and citation omitted). 8 FCA has cited other Song-Beverly Act cases in which Ms. Massey’s counsel has sought 9 more than $65,000 in attorneys’ fees. Opp’n at 8. That estimate is consistent with what this court 10 has seen in similar cases. As a general matter, “[a]ttorneys’ fees in Song-Beverly Act cases 11 frequently reach into the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in the event of 12 a trial.” Eguilos, 2022 WL 2713273, at *5 (citing Quinonez v. FCA US, LLC, No. 19-2032, 2022 13 WL 2007429, at *4 (E.D. Cal. June 6, 2022); Warren v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 30 Cal. App. 5th 14 24, 28 (2018)). Here, the court finds FCA’s identification of a fee award of at least $36,000 is 15 reasonable. 16 Second, as FCA points out, Ms. Massey seeks civil penalties under the Song-Beverly Act. 17 This court has determined defendants may rely on a plaintiff’s requests for civil penalties to show 18 the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 in a Song-Beverly Act case. See Ferguson v. KIA 19 Motors Am. Inc., No. 20-01192, 2021 WL 1997550, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2021). The parties 20 disagree on the exact value of the likely penalties, but even if FCA had used the highest mileage 21 figure reported in the complaint, and thus the lowest restitution figure, it would be reasonable to 22 conclude that several thousands of dollars in penalties are in dispute. Adding these penalties to 23 the purchase price and a reasonable estimate of attorneys’ fees yields a total amount in 24 controversy of $155,663.76, in excess of the required $75,000. 25 ///// 26 ///// 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 FCA has shown the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds 3 $75,000. The motion for remand is denied. This order resolves ECF No. 7. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 DATED: December 7, 2023.