Nancy Nadeen Zamora v. BMW of North America, LLC

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: September 8, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00838
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 Me CW perry 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SOUTHERN DIVISION 10 || NANCY NADEEN ZAMORA, Case No.: LACV 20-00838-CJC(GJSx) Plaintiff, 14 vs 1S || BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC MOTION TO REMAND AND. DOES 1 through 10, ° , (pe oT FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 33 || 1. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 24 25 Plaintiff Nancy Zamora filed this action against Defendant BMW of North 26 || America, LLC, (“BMW”) and unnamed Does, alleging that BMW violated California’s 97 || Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. (Dkt. 21-3 [Complaint, hereinafter “Compl.”’].) ag || Zamora’s complaint asserts that the vehicle she purchased from BMW (the “Vehicle’’)

1 abnormally shuts down while driving and could not be repaired despite a reasonable 2 number of attempts. (Id.) Zamora initially leased the Vehicle and then purchased it for a 3 total sale price of over $40,000. (Dkt. 23-8.) Zamora seeks actual damages, a civil 4 penalty of at least $81,000, and attorney’s fees. (Compl.) 5 6 Zamora filed her complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court but BMW removed the 7 action to this Court asserting diversity jurisdiction. Before the Court is Zamora’s motion 8 to remand and request for attorney’s fees. (Dkt. 21.) For the following reasons, both 9 Zamora’s motion to remand and request for fees are DENIED.1 10 11 II. LEGAL STANDARD 12 13 A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to a federal district court 14 when the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. 15 § 1441. Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over cases where the amount in 16 controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is complete diversity of citizenship between the 17 parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The removal statute is strictly construed “against removal 18 jurisdiction” and “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the 19 right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 20 1992). “The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant 21 always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Id. (quotations omitted). 22 23 // 24 // 25 III. DISCUSSION 26

27 1 Having read and considered the papers presented by the parties, the Court finds this matter appropriate 1 2 A. Motion to Remand 3 4 Zamora argues that remand is proper because BMW has failed to establish both 5 diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy over $75,000. The Court disagrees. 6 7 First, BMW has established complete diversity of citizenship. BMW is a limited 8 liability company whose sole member is BMW (US) Holding Corporation, a corporation 9 formed in Delaware with its principal place of business in New Jersey. Because “an LLC 10 is a citizen of every state of which its []members are citizens,” BMW is a citizen of 11 Delaware and New Jersey. Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 12 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (“[A] corporation shall be 13 deemed [] a citizen of every state . . . by which it has been incorporated and of the state . . 14 . where it has its principal place of business.”). Zamora does not dispute this. 15 16 Zamora, on the other hand, is a California citizen. For diversity purposes, a person 17 is a “citizen” of the state in which she is domiciled. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 18 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). “A person’s domicile is her permanent home, where she 19 resides with the intention to remain or to which she intends to return.” Id. 20 21 Although Zamora argues that BMW has failed to establish her domicile, (Dkt. 21-1 22 at 5), this argument is unconvincing. BMW has presented evidence that (1) Zamora’s 23 social security number was issued in California; (2) she has maintained California 24 residences since 2001; (3) she has a California driver’s license; and (4) she purchased and 25 serviced the Vehicle in California. (Dkt. 22 [BMW’s Opposition, hereinafter “Opp.”] at 26 3–5.) This evidence indicates that California is Zamora’s permanent home where she 27 intends to remain. See Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857; see also Mondragon v. Capital One Auto 1 prima facie evidence of the person’s domicile.”). Thus, complete diversity of citizenship 2 exists in this case. 3 4 Second, BMW has established that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. A 5 notice of removal must include only “a plausible allegation that the amount in 6 controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., 7 LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 553–54, (2014). But where “the plaintiff contests, or the 8 court questions, the defendant’s allegation” and “both sides submit proof,” the defendant 9 must prove the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 554. 10 Here, BMW emphasizes that Zamora’s complaint alleges that she is entitled to restitution 11 “in an amount equal to the actual price paid,” which is over $40,000. (Opp. at 6.) 12 Zamora’s complaint also seeks a civil penalty equal to two times her actual damages. 13 (Id.) Indeed, because Zamora seeks a civil penalty of over $80,000, her own calculations 14 estimate the amount in controversy at over $120,000. (Compl. at 3–4.) Accordingly, this 15 requirement is satisfied. 16 17 B. Request for Attorney’s Fees 18 19 Zamora also requests an award of attorney’s fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1447(c) for filing her motion to remand. “Courts may award attorney’s fees under 21 § 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for 22 seeking removal.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). Because 23 BMW had a reasonable basis for seeking removal, the Court denies Zamora’s request for 24 fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 CONCLUSION 2 3 For these reasons, Zamora’s motion to remand and request for attorney’s fees are 4 || DENIED. 5 . Lo / ’ DATED: September 8, 2020 é 8 HON. CORMAC J. CARNEY 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10

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