Roger Gonzalez v. FCA US, LLC

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 4, 2021
• Docket: 8:21-cv-01059
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION 11 ) 12 ) ) 13 ) Case No.: SACV 21-01059-CJC(KESx) ROGER GONZALEZ, ) 14 ) ) 15 Plaintiff, ) ) 16 v. ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S ) MOTION TO REMAND [Dkt. 16] 17 ) FCA US LLC, TRACY CHRYSLER ) 18 DODGE JEEP RAM, and DOES 1 ) ) 19 through 10, inclusive, ) ) 20 ) Defendants. ) 21 ) ) 22 ) ) 23

24 25 I. INTRODUCTION 26 27 In April 2021, Plaintiff Roger Gonzalez filed this action in Orange County 1 Ram, and unnamed Does. (Dkt. 1-2 [Complaint].) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants sold 2 him a Chrysler Pacifica that they knew was defective. (Id. ¶¶ 21–24.) Specifically, 3 Plaintiff claims that the vehicle’s transmission and power control module were defective, 4 which caused the vehicle to unexpectedly shut off, stall, and lose power. (Id. ¶ 50.) 5 Plaintiff brings claims for (1) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act 6 (“Magnuson-Moss Act”), (2) fraud by omission, and (3) negligent repair. (Id.) He seeks, 7 among other remedies, actual damages, rescission of the purchase contract and restitution 8 of all money expended, statutory penalties, and punitive damages. (Id. at 10–11.) 9 Defendants removed the case in June 2021 and in July 2021, the Court dismissed 10 Plaintiff’s second claim for fraud. Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remand 11 the case to Orange County Superior Court. (Dkt. 16.) For the following reasons, 12 Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.1 13 14 II. DISCUSSION 15 16 A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to a federal district court 17 when the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1441. The removal statute is strictly construed “against removal jurisdiction” and 19 “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in 20 the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “The strong 21 presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden 22 of establishing that removal is proper.” Id. (quotations omitted). 23 24 For claims, like Plaintiff’s, asserting violations of the Magnuson-Moss Act, a 25 federal court may exercise jurisdiction only if “the amount in controversy exceeds 26

27 1 Having read and considered Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition 1 $50,000.” Khachatryan v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 2021 WL 927266, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 2 10, 2021); 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3). “When determining the amount in controversy, the 3 Court must assume that the allegations in the complaint are true and that a jury will return 4 a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor on all of the claims in the complaint. Id. “[I]f the 5 complaint alleges damages in excess of the federal amount-in-controversy requirement, 6 then the amount-in-controversy requirement is presumptively satisfied unless it appears 7 to a legal certainty that the claim is actually for less than the jurisdictional minimum.” 8 Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2007). 9 10 “If the complaint does not allege that the amount in controversy has been met, the 11 removing defendant must plausibly allege in its notice of removal that the amount in 12 controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Quinones v. FCA US LLC, 2020 WL 13 4437482, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2020) (citing Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., 14 LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 87 (2014). “[T]he defendant’s amount-in-controversy 15 allegation should be accepted when not contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the 16 court.” Dart, 574 U.S. at 87. But when “the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the 17 defendant’s allegation” and “both sides submit proof,” the defendant must prove the 18 amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.; see Salter v. Quality 19 Carriers, Inc., 974 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2020) (When one party “contests the truth of 20 [the opposing party’s] factual allegations, . . . the responding party must support her 21 jurisdictional allegations with ‘competent proof’ . . . under the same evidentiary standard 22 that governs in the summary judgment context.”). “[T]he defendant’s showing on the 23 amount in controversy may rely on reasonable assumptions.” Arias v. Residence Inn by 24 Marriott, 936 F.3d 920, 922 (9th Cir. 2019). 25 26 Here, in the paragraph after Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges his vehicle’s defects and 27 Defendants’ failed repair attempts, Plaintiff alleges that he “suffered damages in a sum to 1 Because this amount is alleged directly after allegations concerning the vehicle’s defects 2 and repairs and not in connection with the statutory damages that Plaintiff seeks, the 3 Court concludes that this amount refers to Plaintiff’s actual damages. Bernstein v. BMW 4 of N. Am., LLC, 2018 WL 2210683, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2018) (finding that Plaintiff 5 sought actual damages exceeding $25,000 when the complaint stated that “the amount in 6 controversy” exceeded that amount).2 In Plaintiff’s prayer for relief, he also seeks civil 7 damages in an amount of two times his actual damages. (Complaint at 10.) Thus, 8 according to Plaintiff’s Complaint, the amount in controversy is at least $75,000. 9 Bernstein, 2018 WL 2210683, at *2; McDonald v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 2017 WL 10 5843385, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2017); Chism v. FCA US LLC, 2020 WL 777300, at 11 *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2020). 12 13 Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to “rescission of the purchase 14 contract and/or restitution of all monies expended,” and the purchase contract was worth 15 over $40,000. (Dkt. 20-3.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s statutory penalties would be over 16 $80,000 and the total damages would be over $120,000. Galloway v. Volkswagen Grp. of 17 Am., Inc., 2011 WL 685822, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2011) (explaining that if the 18 contract were rescinded, Plaintiff could be entitled to twice the value of the contract or 19 twice the value of the money paid on the contract). Based on Plaintiff’s own Complaint, 20 the amount in controversy exceeds the Magnusson-Moss Act’s $50,000 jurisdictional 21 requirement. 22 23 // 24 // 25

26 2 The Court notes that this type of damages allegation will not always be construed as referring only to 27 actual damages. For example, a similar allegation included after a discussion of statutory penalties could be construed as alleging the entire amount in controversy. Feichtmann v. FCA US LLC, 2020 WL 1 || IT. CONCLUSION 2 3 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to remand is DENIED. 4 5 6 DATED: August 4, 2021 ; of 7 Cafe, 8 CORMAC J. CARNEY 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28