Aldo Pizano v. Ford Motor Company et al

Filing 11

MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Order Remanding Action to State Court before 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.) (jp)

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

2:22-cv-05249-RGK-MRW

Date

Title

Aldo Pizano v. Ford Motor Company, et al.

August 1, 2022

JS6

Present: The
Honorable

R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Joseph Remigio

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 June 17, 2021, Aldo Pizano (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Ford Motor Company
(“Defendant”) alleging breaches of express and implied warranties pursuant to the Song-Beverly
Warranty Act. On July 28, 2022, 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 $69,312.64, and with a mileage offset
of $3,827.77, the base damages are $65,484.87. Including civil penalties (i.e, two times actual damages),
and an estimated $50,000 in attorney’s fees, Defendant argues the amount in controversy is likely at
least $246,454.61, well over the jurisdictional minimum.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

2:22-cv-05249-RGK-MRW

Date

Title

Aldo Pizano v. Ford Motor Company, et al.

August 1, 2022

JS6
However, while the Song-Beverly Warranty Act allows a plaintiff to recover the full purchase
price of the car, minus the value for any use by plaintiff prior to the first repair of the vehicle, the
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 in this case, executed
in October 2020, indicates that $63,973.92 of the total purchase price was financed. Plaintiffs’ monthly
payments are $905.79 until November 2023, and then $1044.20, and the last payment is not due until
April 2, 2026. (Kashani Decl., Ex. C at NRF 000001, ECF No. 4.) In light of these facts, 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

jre/a

Page 2 of 2