Mahesh Bhuta v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. et al

Filing 17

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND 13 by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. Defendant has sufficiently established federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331. And the Motion is DENIED. (iv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV 21-07815-MWF (JCx)
Date: November 30, 2021
Title:
Mahesh Bhuta v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., et al.
Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District Judge
Deputy Clerk:
Rita Sanchez

Court Reporter:
Not Reported

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None Present

Proceedings (In Chambers):

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO REMAND [13]

Before the Court is Plaintiff Mahesh Bhuta’s Motion to Remand (the “Motion”),
filed on October 29, 2021. (Docket No. 13). Defendant Toyota Motor Sales filed an
Opposition on November 8, 2021. (Docket No. 15). Plaintiff did not file a Reply.
The Court has read and considered the papers on this Motion and deems the
matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b);
Local Rule 7-15. The hearing is therefore VACATED and removed from the Court’s
calendar. Vacating the hearing is also consistent with General Order 21-08, arising
from the COVID-19 pandemic.
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is DENIED.
Plaintiff argues that Defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy under
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) for diversity jurisdiction. Defendant, however, properly
removed this action under federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
I.

BACKGROUND

On August 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in California Superior Court,
asserting that Defendant violated the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the
Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”). (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 1–2
(Docket No. 1)).
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV 21-07815-MWF (JCx)
Date: November 30, 2021
Title:
Mahesh Bhuta v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., et al.
Plaintiff’s claims arise from the lease of a new 2018 Lexus LS 500 and
Defendant’s alleged failure to conform the vehicle to the applicable warranties after a
reasonable number of repair attempts. (Id. ¶ 3).
Defendant removed the action under federal question jurisdiction because the
MMWA states that a plaintiff may bring such a claim in federal court where the
amount in controversy exceeds $50,000. See 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3)(B).
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

“On a plaintiff’s motion to remand, it is a defendant’s burden to establish
jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Taylor v. United Road Services, No.
CV 18-330-LJO-JLT, 2018 WL 2412326, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 29, 2018) (citing Dart
Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 547 U.S. 81, 86–87 (2014); Rodriguez v.
AT&T Mobility Servs., LLC, 728 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2013)). The non-moving
party bears the burden of identifying “a legitimate source of the court’s jurisdiction”
and “[d]isputed questions of fact and ambiguities in the controlling law must be
resolved in favor of the remanding party.” Pac. Mar. Ass’n v. Mead, 246 F. Supp.2d
1087, 1089 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566). Removability is
determined based on the removal notice and the complaint as it existed at the time of
removal. See Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985).
III.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff asks the Court to remand this case because Defendant failed to establish
an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000, which is required to establish federal
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). But Plaintiff’s argument is flawed
because Defendant removed this case under federal question jurisdiction – not diversity
jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 4–12); See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
The MMWA allows a plaintiff to bring a claim in federal court where the
amount in controversy exceeds $50,000, computed on the basis of all claims to be
determined in the suit. See 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3)(B). Defendant computes Plaintiff’s
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV 21-07815-MWF (JCx)
Date: November 30, 2021
Title:
Mahesh Bhuta v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., et al.
demand for actual damages and a civil penalty to equal $211,684.05, which
demonstrably exceeds the $50,000 threshold. (Notice of Removal ¶ 10). Indeed, in
Plaintiff’s own Motion he asserts that “Plaintiff’s only finite, tangible claim for
damages at present is $70,561.35.” (Motion at 2). Even if the Court were to only
consider this claim, the amount in controversy would still exceed the $50,000 threshold
as required under the MMWA.
Accordingly, Defendant has sufficiently established federal question jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. And the Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
3