1 2 3
6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No. 2:24-cv-05430 HDV MAAx 11 ROBERT AGAZARYAN, 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, MOTION TO REMAND [11] 13 v. 14
15 BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC, et 16 al., 17 Defendants. 18
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 Plaintiff Robert Agazaryan brings this action against Defendant BMW Financial Services
3 NA, LLC (“BMW”), alleging that BMW induced him to enter into a lease agreement for a 2021
4 BMW X5 M50i. After the vehicle was deemed a total loss, Plaintiff continued to make payments to
5 maintain a clean credit history. He alleges BMW refused to return his payments, even while BMW
6 collected insurance proceeds.
7 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (“Motion”), which argues that BMW fails
8 to establish the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. [Dkt. No. 11].
9 Plaintiff relies principally on the voluntary dismissal of its fraud claim, contending the Court should
10 not consider his now-stricken plea for punitive damages, which comprise the majority of his initial
11 $154,294.93 damages plea. The amount in controversy, however, must be assessed at the time of
12 removal. Broadway Grill, Inc. v. Visa Inc., 856 F.3d 1274, 1277 (9th Cir. 2017).
13 The Court finds that the amount-in-controversy requirement is met and removal was proper.
14 The Motion is denied.
15 II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
16 In 2021, Plaintiff leased a 2021 BMW X5 M50i (“Subject Vehicle”) from BMW and
17 Valencia B. Imports, Inc.1 Complaint at 1, ¶ 14 [Dkt. No. 1-1]. According to Plaintiff, BMW
18 assured him that his financial obligation under the motor vehicle lease agreement would not exceed
19 the down payment, monthly payments, and lease end fee. Id. Plaintiff alleges BMW induced him to
20 enter into the lease, which entitles BMW to collect sums in the event of a total loss. Id.
21 The Subject Vehicle was later deemed a total loss on March 2, 2023. Id. ¶ 25. After
22 investigating Plaintiff’s insurance claim, his insurance company determined that the total insurance
23 payout/net settlement amount was to be $78,507.45. Id. ¶ 26. In addition, at the time of the total
24 loss, the adjusted lease balance was $64,149.06, and the equity amount was $14,008.39. Id. ¶ 28. 25 Plaintiff made an additional monthly payment of $1,359.02 to maintain a clean credit history around 26 27 1 Although Plaintiff initially named Valencia B. Imports, Inc. as a defendant in the state court 28 complaint, Plaintiff dismissed it from the Complaint on May 29, 2024. 1 this time. Id. ¶ 49. Although BMW collected the full settlement amount, BMW refused to remit any
2 of the payout to Plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 28–29.
3 In a complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on February 22, 2024, Plaintiff asserts the
4 following five claims: (1) fraud and deceit; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
5 dealing; (3) violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; (4) violation of Business &
6 Professions Code § 17500, et seq.; (5) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Id.
7 ¶¶ 63–144. On June 26, 2024, BMW filed a Notice of Removal to this Court. (“Removal Notice”)
8 [Dkt. No. 1] at 1–4. BMW argues that because Plaintiff is a resident of California and BMW is a
9 citizen of Delaware and New Jersey, complete diversity exists between the parties. Id. ¶ 5. BMW
10 also avers that since Plaintiff’s Complaint specifies that he seeks damages in the amount of
11 $154,294.93, the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional requirement. Id. ¶ 7.
12 Plaintiff filed his Motion to Remand on July 25, 2024, and BMW opposed it (“Opposition”).
13 [Dkt. Nos. 11, 15, 16]. The Court heard oral argument on September 26, 2024, and took the matter
14 under submission. [Dkt. No. 18].
15 III. LEGAL STANDARD
16 Federal courts have original jurisdiction of civil actions between citizens of different states
17 where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Federal jurisdiction under
18 Section 1332 requires complete diversity, i.e., that each plaintiff is diverse from each defendant.
19 Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005) (citing Strawbridge v.
20 Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806)). Any doubts about removal are resolved in favor of remand. Gaus v.
21 Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d
22 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)). “Th[is] ‘strong presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means that
23 the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Id. (citation omitted).
24 IV. DISCUSSION 25 Plaintiff argues that diversity jurisdiction does not exist since he dismissed his fraud and 26 deceit claim (and the related punitive damages sought for the claim), and therefore his “realistic” 27 amount of recovery is $15,367.41. Motion at 12–20; see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff does not 28 challenge that there is complete diversity between the parties. Motion at 13. 1 Where the amount in controversy is specifically pled in a state court complaint, the amount-
2 in-controversy requirement “is presumptively satisfied unless it appears to a ‘legal certainty’ that the
3 plaintiff cannot actually recover that amount.” Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696,
4 699 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). The Ninth Circuit and “[other] circuits have unanimously and
5 repeatedly held that whether remand is proper must be ascertained on the basis of the pleadings at
6 the time of removal.” Broadway Grill, Inc. v. Visa Inc., 856 F.3d 1274, 1277 (9th Cir. 2017). The
7 Ninth Circuit has clarified, “When we say that the amount in controversy is assessed at the time of
8 removal, we mean that we consider damages that are claimed at the time the case is removed by the
9 defendant.” Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 888 F.3d 413, 417 (9th Cir. 2018). Moreover,
10 “when the amount in controversy is satisfied at removal, any subsequent amendment to the
11 complaint or partial dismissal that decreases the amount in controversy below the jurisdictional
12 threshold does not oust the federal court of jurisdiction.” Id.
13 When Plaintiff initially filed his complaint, he sought “recovery of $154,294.93 in damages.”
14 Complaint at 39. Since this amount is specifically pled and meets the jurisdictional minimum, the
15 amount-in-controversy is presumed satisfied “unless it appears to a ‘legal certainty’ that the plaintiff
16 cannot actually recover that amount.” Guglielmino, 506 F.3d at 699.
17 Plaintiff contends that the initial amount cannot be recovered, since his amount of recovery is
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3
6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No. 2:24-cv-05430 HDV MAAx 11 ROBERT AGAZARYAN, 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, MOTION TO REMAND [11] 13 v. 14
15 BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC, et 16 al., 17 Defendants. 18
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 Plaintiff Robert Agazaryan brings this action against Defendant BMW Financial Services
3 NA, LLC (“BMW”), alleging that BMW induced him to enter into a lease agreement for a 2021
4 BMW X5 M50i. After the vehicle was deemed a total loss, Plaintiff continued to make payments to
5 maintain a clean credit history. He alleges BMW refused to return his payments, even while BMW
6 collected insurance proceeds.
7 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (“Motion”), which argues that BMW fails
8 to establish the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. [Dkt. No. 11].
9 Plaintiff relies principally on the voluntary dismissal of its fraud claim, contending the Court should
10 not consider his now-stricken plea for punitive damages, which comprise the majority of his initial
11 $154,294.93 damages plea. The amount in controversy, however, must be assessed at the time of
12 removal. Broadway Grill, Inc. v. Visa Inc., 856 F.3d 1274, 1277 (9th Cir. 2017).
13 The Court finds that the amount-in-controversy requirement is met and removal was proper.
14 The Motion is denied.
15 II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
16 In 2021, Plaintiff leased a 2021 BMW X5 M50i (“Subject Vehicle”) from BMW and
17 Valencia B. Imports, Inc.1 Complaint at 1, ¶ 14 [Dkt. No. 1-1]. According to Plaintiff, BMW
18 assured him that his financial obligation under the motor vehicle lease agreement would not exceed
19 the down payment, monthly payments, and lease end fee. Id. Plaintiff alleges BMW induced him to
20 enter into the lease, which entitles BMW to collect sums in the event of a total loss. Id.
21 The Subject Vehicle was later deemed a total loss on March 2, 2023. Id. ¶ 25. After
22 investigating Plaintiff’s insurance claim, his insurance company determined that the total insurance
23 payout/net settlement amount was to be $78,507.45. Id. ¶ 26. In addition, at the time of the total
24 loss, the adjusted lease balance was $64,149.06, and the equity amount was $14,008.39. Id. ¶ 28. 25 Plaintiff made an additional monthly payment of $1,359.02 to maintain a clean credit history around 26 27 1 Although Plaintiff initially named Valencia B. Imports, Inc. as a defendant in the state court 28 complaint, Plaintiff dismissed it from the Complaint on May 29, 2024. 1 this time. Id. ¶ 49. Although BMW collected the full settlement amount, BMW refused to remit any
2 of the payout to Plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 28–29.
3 In a complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on February 22, 2024, Plaintiff asserts the
4 following five claims: (1) fraud and deceit; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
5 dealing; (3) violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; (4) violation of Business &
6 Professions Code § 17500, et seq.; (5) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Id.
7 ¶¶ 63–144. On June 26, 2024, BMW filed a Notice of Removal to this Court. (“Removal Notice”)
8 [Dkt. No. 1] at 1–4. BMW argues that because Plaintiff is a resident of California and BMW is a
9 citizen of Delaware and New Jersey, complete diversity exists between the parties. Id. ¶ 5. BMW
10 also avers that since Plaintiff’s Complaint specifies that he seeks damages in the amount of
11 $154,294.93, the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional requirement. Id. ¶ 7.
12 Plaintiff filed his Motion to Remand on July 25, 2024, and BMW opposed it (“Opposition”).
13 [Dkt. Nos. 11, 15, 16]. The Court heard oral argument on September 26, 2024, and took the matter
14 under submission. [Dkt. No. 18].
15 III. LEGAL STANDARD
16 Federal courts have original jurisdiction of civil actions between citizens of different states
17 where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Federal jurisdiction under
18 Section 1332 requires complete diversity, i.e., that each plaintiff is diverse from each defendant.
19 Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005) (citing Strawbridge v.
20 Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806)). Any doubts about removal are resolved in favor of remand. Gaus v.
21 Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d
22 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)). “Th[is] ‘strong presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means that
23 the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Id. (citation omitted).
24 IV. DISCUSSION 25 Plaintiff argues that diversity jurisdiction does not exist since he dismissed his fraud and 26 deceit claim (and the related punitive damages sought for the claim), and therefore his “realistic” 27 amount of recovery is $15,367.41. Motion at 12–20; see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff does not 28 challenge that there is complete diversity between the parties. Motion at 13. 1 Where the amount in controversy is specifically pled in a state court complaint, the amount-
2 in-controversy requirement “is presumptively satisfied unless it appears to a ‘legal certainty’ that the
3 plaintiff cannot actually recover that amount.” Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696,
4 699 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). The Ninth Circuit and “[other] circuits have unanimously and
5 repeatedly held that whether remand is proper must be ascertained on the basis of the pleadings at
6 the time of removal.” Broadway Grill, Inc. v. Visa Inc., 856 F.3d 1274, 1277 (9th Cir. 2017). The
7 Ninth Circuit has clarified, “When we say that the amount in controversy is assessed at the time of
8 removal, we mean that we consider damages that are claimed at the time the case is removed by the
9 defendant.” Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 888 F.3d 413, 417 (9th Cir. 2018). Moreover,
10 “when the amount in controversy is satisfied at removal, any subsequent amendment to the
11 complaint or partial dismissal that decreases the amount in controversy below the jurisdictional
12 threshold does not oust the federal court of jurisdiction.” Id.
13 When Plaintiff initially filed his complaint, he sought “recovery of $154,294.93 in damages.”
14 Complaint at 39. Since this amount is specifically pled and meets the jurisdictional minimum, the
15 amount-in-controversy is presumed satisfied “unless it appears to a ‘legal certainty’ that the plaintiff
16 cannot actually recover that amount.” Guglielmino, 506 F.3d at 699.
17 Plaintiff contends that the initial amount cannot be recovered, since his amount of recovery is
18 realistically $15,367.41. Motion at 12–15. He points to his requests to dismiss his cause of action
19 for fraud and deceit, and to strike his request for punitive damages, which the Court granted. [Dkt.
20 Nos. 10, 12]. Plaintiff reasons that since the large bulk of his initial $154,294.93 prayer for damages
21 was comprised of punitive damages, which he no longer seeks, this larger amount cannot be
22 recovered. 2 However, assessing the amount in controversy at the time of removal—and not based 23 on subsequent amendments—the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional minimum.3
24 2 The Court notes that Plaintiff sought dismissal of his first cause of action without prejudice. See 25 [Dkt. Nos. 10, 12]. Consequently, it is not legally certain that he cannot recover on the basis of that claim. See Guglielmino, 506 F.3d at 699. 26
27 3 Numerous courts in this district have reached the same conclusion under similar circumstances. See, e.g., Martirosyan v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA, LLC, No. CV 24-5413-JFW(ASX), 2024 WL 28 1] V. CONCLUSION 2 The Court therefore finds that diversity jurisdiction exists and removal to this Court was 3 || proper. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand is denied. 4 5 6 | Dated: October 3, 2024 . Ye 7 g Hernan D. Vera United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 | 3886100, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2024); Simonyan v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA, LLC, No. CV 24-5404- 24 | JFW(EX), 2024 WL 3860973, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2024); Halaby v. BMW Fin. Servs., N.A., LLC, No. 2:24-CV-05266-JLS-SSC, 2024 WL 3993770, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2024); 25 Hayrapetyan v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA, LLC, No. 2:24-CV-05216-AB-KS, 2024 WL 4171323, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2024); Karapetyan v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA, LLC, No. CV 24-5301-PSG (SKX), 2024 WL 4236319, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2024); Sokiazian v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA, LLC, No. 27 || CV 24-5419-PSG (KSX), 2024 WL 4236349, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2024); Shakhbazyan v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA, LLC, No. 2:24-CV-05355-WLH-AJRX, 2024 WL 4360133, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 28 | Sept. 30, 2024).