Saget v. Kia America, Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 3, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00408
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATHALIE SAGET, et al., No. 2:23-cv-00408-DAD-DB 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND 14 KIA AMERICA, INC., (Doc. No. 9) 15 Defendant.

16 17 This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ motion to remand this action to the 18 Sacramento County Superior Court. (Doc. No. 9.) On April 25, 2023, plaintiffs’ motion was 19 taken under submission on the papers. (Doc. No. 13.) For the reasons explained below, the court 20 will deny plaintiffs’ motion to remand. 21 BACKGROUND 22 On January 23, 2023, plaintiffs Nathalie and Marc Saget filed a complaint initiating this 23 action against defendant Kia America, Inc. (“Kia”) and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, in the 24 Sacramento County Superior Court. (Doc. Nos. 1-2 at 2.) Therein, plaintiffs allege the 25 following. On October 23, 2020, plaintiffs purchased a new 2020 Kia Soul (the “subject 26 vehicle”), and Kia issued express warranties in connection with that transaction, which plaintiffs 27 allege Kia subsequently breached. (Doc. No. 1-2 at 3–6.) As a result, plaintiffs brought this civil 28 action in state court asserting state law claims under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer 1 Warranty Act and federal law claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”), 15 2 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq., against defendants for breach of express and implied warranty. (Id. at 7– 3 12.) With regard to their MMWA claim, plaintiffs specifically allege that as a direct and 4 proximate result of defendant’s violations of the MMWA, plaintiffs “have sustained, and continue 5 to sustain, actual, incidental and consequential damages in the approximate amount of $73,000 6 according to proof.” (Id. at 10, ¶ 48.) 7 On March 3, 2023, defendant Kia removed this action to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 8 §§ 1331 and 1441(b) on the grounds that federal question jurisdiction exists because plaintiffs 9 bring two claims under the MMWA, a federal statute. (Doc. No. 1. at 3.) In addition, defendant 10 Kia asserts in its notice of removal that based on the allegations in the complaint, the specific 11 amount in controversy requirement applicable to MMWA claims—that the amount in controversy 12 “computed on the basis of all claims to be determined” in the lawsuit “exceed $50,000.00 13 (exclusive of interest and costs)”—is readily satisfied here. (Id.) 14 On March 31, 2023, plaintiffs moved to remand this action to the Sacramento County 15 Superior Court, arguing merely that there is a presumption against removal jurisdiction and this 16 lemon law case should not be litigated in federal court. (Doc. No. 9.) On April 17, 2023, 17 defendant Kia filed an opposition to plaintiffs’ motion to remand. (Doc. No. 12.) On April 27, 18 2023, plaintiffs filed a reply thereto. (Doc. No. 14.) 19 LEGAL STANDARD 20 A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court would have 21 had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Removal is proper when a case 22 originally filed in state court presents a federal question or where there is diversity of citizenship 23 among the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 24 1332(a). 25 “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 26 jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The removal statute is strictly 27 construed against removal jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls to 28 the party invoking the statute.” Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 1 2004) (citation omitted); see also Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 2 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is 3 proper.”). If there is any doubt as to the right of removal, a federal court must reject jurisdiction 4 and remand the case to state court. Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 5 1090 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1118 (9th Cir. 2004). 6 A party’s notice of removal must contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for 7 removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). “By design, § 1446(a) tracks the general pleading requirement 8 stated in Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” and a “statement ‘short and plain’ 9 need not contain evidentiary submissions.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 10 574 U.S. 81, 84, 87 (2014); see also Ramirez-Duenas v. VF Outdoor, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-0161- 11 AWI-SAB, 2017 WL 1437595, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 41, 2017) (“The notice of removal may rely 12 on the allegations of the complaint and need not be accompanied by any extrinsic evidence.”). 13 DISCUSSION 14 Here, despite bringing two federal claims under the MMWA in their complaint, and 15 despite alleging that approximately $73,000.00 in actual damages resulted specifically from the 16 alleged violation of the MMWA, plaintiffs do not address federal question jurisdiction in their 17 pending motion to remand. Indeed, plaintiffs do not provide any discussion related to these 18 federal claims in their motion to remand at all. Rather, plaintiffs confusingly and unhelpfully 19 recite various legal standards and cite to case law that stands for the uncontested proposition that 20 there is a presumption against removal jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 9.) Plaintiffs’ motion fails to 21 articulate any legitimate argument as to why this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this 22 case. 23 In its opposition, defendant Kia emphasizes that because “plaintiffs’ complaint includes 24 two causes of action under a federal statute, the MMWA, which undoubtedly arise under federal 25 law, the court has original jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ MMWA claims.” (Doc. No. 12 at 4.) The 26 court agrees. Moreover, given plaintiff’s alleged damages in the complaint, the amount in 27 controversy requirement under the MMWA is easily satisfied here. See Miller v. Ford Motor Co., 28 No. 19-cv-07382-BLF, 2020 WL 5569706, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020) (noting that “federal 1 courts will have subject matter jurisdiction over [plaintiff's MMWA claims] if the total amount in 2 || controversy is greater than or equal to $50,000”); see also Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 3 | 102 F.3d 398, 402-04 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining that when a complaint filed in state court 4 | alleges on its face “damages in excess of the required jurisdictional minimum,” the amount pled 5 | controls unless it appears “to a legal certainty” that the claim is for less than the jurisdictional 6 | amount). 7 Accordingly, defendant’s removal of this action based on federal question jurisdiction was 8 || proper. 9 CONCLUSION 10 For the reasons explained above, plaintiffs’ motion to remand (Doc. No. 9) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. * | Dated: _ August 2, 2023 Dake A. 2, el 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICY JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28