Rebecca M. Rodriguez et al v. Nissan North America, Inc. et al

Filing 12

(IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Order Remanding Action to State Court by Judge R. Gary Klausner, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to plausibly allege that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional requirement. In light of the foregoing, the action is hereby remanded to state court for all further proceedings. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (See Minutes for further specifics). (jp)

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:21-cv-09119-RGK-MRW

Title

Rebecca M. Rodriguez, et al. v. Nissan North America, Inc., et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

November 24, 2021

R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Sharon Williams (Not Present)

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Order Remanding Action to State Court

On October 1, 2021, Rebecca Rodriguez and Brigitte Rodriguez (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint
against Nissan North America, Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Warranty
Act.
On November 22, 2021, Defendant removed the action to federal court alleging jurisdiction on
the grounds of diversity of citizenship. Upon review of Defendant’s Notice of Removal, the Court
hereby remands the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, district courts shall have original jurisdiction over any civil action
in which the parties are citizens of different states and the action involved an amount in controversy that
exceeds $75,000. After a plaintiff files a case in state court, the defendant attempting to remove the case
to federal court bears the burden of proving the amount in controversy requirement has been met.
Lowdermilk v. United States Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2007). If the complaint does
not allege that the amount in controversy has been met, the removing defendant must plausibly allege in
its notice of removal that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Dart Cherokee
Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 553-54(2014). Whether or not the plaintiff
challenges these allegations, a court may still insist that the jurisdictional requirement has been
established by a preponderance of the evidence. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566–67 (9th Cir.
1992).
In the complaint, Plaintiff seeks damages, including compensatory damages, restitution, statutory
remedies, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act. In support of its
removal, Defendant calculates that based on the vehicle price of $24,841.68, the minimum amount of
restitution is $23,116.70 when adjusted for mileage. Defendant further calculates that a civil penalty of
double the actual damages would equal $46,233.40. Therefore, the amount in controversy, without
taking into consideration unspecified incidental and consequential damage or attorneys’ fees, is already
$69,350.10.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:21-cv-09119-RGK-MRW

Date

November 24, 2021

Title

Rebecca M. Rodriguez, et al. v. Nissan North America, Inc., et al.

However, while Defendant has accounted for Plaintiff’s use of the car prior to the first repair of
the vehicle, a plaintiff’s recovery is limited to the actual payment amount to the seller. See Brady v.
Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 1008 (N.D. Cal. 2002). The Installment Contract,
executed on July 5, 2020, indicates that Plaintiff paid only $6,000.00 as a down payment, with the
balance to be paid over six years. (Nassihi Decl., Ex. E.) Given this evidence, the Court finds it
implausible that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
As Defendant points out, Plaintiff would be entitled to civil penalties and attorneys’ fees if the
action succeeds. As to attorneys’ fees, the Court finds this to be speculative. Moreover, given the
deficiencies of Defendant’s calculations with respect to actual damages, civil penalties, which are based
on actual damages, are similarly deficient.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to plausibly allege that the amount in
controversy meets the jurisdictional requirement.
In light of the foregoing, the action is hereby remanded to state court for all further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2