Eduardo Santa Cruz Sosa v. BMW of North America, LLC et al

Filing 15

(IN CHAMBERS) Order Remanding Action to State Court by Judge R. Gary Klausner: The Court finds that Defendant has not plausibly alleged that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional requirement. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this action to state court for all further proceedings. (Made JS-6 Case Terminated.) (See Civil Minutes for further specifics). (jp)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JS-6 CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title 2:21-cv-09816-RGK-KS ---------------------- Date Janmuy 11, 2022 Eduardo Santa Cruz Sosa v. BMW ofNorth America, LLC et al Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Sharon L. Williams Not Repo1ted NIA Deputy Clerk Comt Repo1ter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Remanding Action to State Court On November 17, 2021, Eduardo Santa Cmz Sosa ("Plaintiff') filed a complaint against BMW ofN01th America, LLC ("Defendant") in state comt, alleging violations ofthe Song-Beverly Wananty Act. Plaintiff seeks damages, civil penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs. Defendant removed the case to federal comt on diversity jurisdiction grounds (28 U.S.C. § 1332). (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1.) Upon review ofDefendant's Notice ofRemoval, the Comt hereby REMANDS the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) authorizes defendants to remove a case to federal comt when the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, district courts 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. A defendant's notice ofremoval must include a "plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold." Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). Here, Defendant does not plausibly allege that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Defendant asse1ts that the "total payments under the Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Contract is $49,950.80" and attaches the contract in suppo1t. (Notice ofRemoval at 5; id., Ex. C.) The contract indicates that $49,950.80 is the total sale price. (Id. at Ex. C.) While the Song­ Beverly Wananty Act allows a plaintiff to recover the full purchase price ofthe car, this amount must be reduced to account for any use by plaintiff prior to the first repair ofthe vehicle. See Tokmakova v. Volkswagen Group ofAmerica, Inc., 2012 WL 12952629, at* 2-3. Fmther, a plaintiff's recove1y 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). Defendant does not indicate how many miles Plaintiff drove, nor the actual payment amounts made to the seller, leaving the Court with considerable doubt as to the amount in controversy. Accord Tokmakova, 2012 WL 12952629, at*3. CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Pagel of2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?