Theweny v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: March 18, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00088
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NANI B. THEWENY, Case No.: 24-CV-00088-GPC-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 REMAND 14 v. [ECF No. 6] 15 MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, and 16 DOES 1 through 10, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. ECF No. 6-1 at 1. For the 20 reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED. 21 BACKGROUND 22 On December 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a state court complaint against Mercedes- 23 Benz USA, LLC (“Defendant”), alleging a number of state law claims arising out of her 24 purchase of a 2022 Mercedes-Benz C300W. ECF No. 1-2 at 2. Defendant removed the case 25 under diversity jurisdiction on January 12, 2024. ECF No. 1 at 1. This motion followed. 26 DISCUSSION 27 There is a “strong presumption” against removal. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 28 567 (9th Cir. 1992). As such, the burden of establishing removal jurisdiction falls to 1 Defendant. See Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2 1990). 3 Plaintiff asserts that Defendant cannot meet its burden in this case. ECF No. 6-1 at 4 5. Plaintiff provides no support for this contention. While her motion cites the relevant 5 standards, at no point does she apply them. Rather, her boilerplate motion merely recites 6 relevant law and concludes that Defendant must demonstrate “substantive propriety”—that 7 this Court has original jurisdiction—and “procedural propriety”—that the notice of 8 removal complied with the procedural requirements contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1446. The 9 Court addresses those arguments in turn. 10 I. Original jurisdiction 11 The Court may only exercise removal jurisdiction over cases for which it has original 12 jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), this Court has original 13 jurisdiction over civil claims, where the action arises between (1) citizens of different states 14 and (2) the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. 15 a. Diversity 16 On a motion to remand, Defendant is “merely required to allege (not to prove) 17 diversity.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). 18 Here, Defendant’s notice of removal alleged that Plaintiff is “a California citizen” 19 and that Mercedes-Benz is “a citizen of Michigan and Delaware.” ECF No. 1 at 9. As 20 mentioned above, Plaintiff does not articulate any arguments contesting either party’s 21 citizenship. Thus, the Court concludes that for the purposes of the instant motion, diversity 22 of citizenship is satisfied. 23 b. Amount in Controversy 24 Here, where, Plaintiff’s complaint “does not demand a dollar amount, the removing 25 defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that the amount in 26 controversy” exceeds the statutory minimum. Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 27 F.3d 373, 376 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 28 404 (9th Cir. 1996)). 1 Defendant has met its burden. Plaintiff seeks “actual damages and/or restitution, 2 consequential and incidental damages, civil penalties of ‘up to two times the amount of 3 actual damages,’ reasonable attorney’s fees, prejudgment interest; and such other relief as 4 the Court may deem proper.” ECF No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff’s complaint invokes the Song- 5 Beverly Act, ECF No. 1-3 at 8–9, and Defendant explains that under the act, “Plaintiff 6 alleges actual damages of at least $57,735[].00 (the invoice price of their vehicle) and could 7 be awarded up to twice that amount in civil penalties, for a total amount in controversy of 8 $115,470.00.”1 ECF No. 1 at 6. Defendant supports this contention with a copy of the 9 manufacturer’s suggested retail price for Plaintiff’s vehicle. Again, Plaintiff makes no 10 argument in response. Thus, the Court concludes that Defendant has carried its burden. See 11 Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014) (“[A] 12 defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in 13 controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.”). 14 II. 28 U.S.C. § 1446 15 Finally, the Court finds that Defendant filed its notice of removal within 30 days of 16 its receipt of a copy of the initial pleading, having been served on December 13, 2023, and 17 removing the case on January 12, 2024. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). All relevant parties (there is 18

19 1 Plaintiff’s only attempt to engage with the facts is a boilerplate assault on the 20 admissibility of several exhibits attached to Defendant’s notice of removal. Plaintiff 21 contends that Defendant’s reference to the manufacturer’s suggested retail price for Plaintiff’s vehicle lacks foundation, lacks authentication, and is improper hearsay. ECF 22 No. 6-3 at 2. But such objections are premature. See Kalasho v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 23 No. 20-CV-1423-CAB-AHG, 2020 WL 5652275, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2020). When determining the amount in controversy, “[t]he parties may submit evidence outside the 24 complaint, including affidavits or declarations, or other ‘summary-judgement-type 25 evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of removal.’” Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Singer, 116 26 F.3d at 377). “At the summary judgement stage, evidence need not be authenticated or 27 otherwise presented in an admissible form.” Maurer v. Independence Town, 870 F.3d 380, 384 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). Therefore, the Court rejects 28 Plaintiff’s evidentiary arguments at this time. 1 one) joined in the removal, and Defendant attached all relevant pleadings. See ECF 2 1. Accordingly, there is no procedural impropriety. 3 CONCLUSION 4 The Court finds that Defendant properly removed this case because the parties are 5 || diverse, the amount in controversy is met, and Defendant complied with 28 U.S.C. § 1446. 6 || For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to remand. The hearing 7 || set for March 22, 2024, is VACATED. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. ? Dated: March 18, 2024 (3 salto OA ) 10 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28