Mayte Guerrero Avina et al v. Ford Motor Company et al
Filing
18
MINUTES IN CHAMBERS COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson Denying 10 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court: For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. IT IS SO ORDERED. (see document for further details) (bm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 23-10573 PA (Ex)
Title
Mayte Guerrero Avina,et al. v. Ford Motor Company
Present: The Honorable
Date
February 20, 2024
PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Kamilla Sali-Suleyman
N/A
N/A
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None
None
Proceedings:
IN CHAMBERS – COURT ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion to Remand filed by plaintiffs Mayte Guerrero Avina and
Daniel Ortiz-Magdaleno (“Plaintiffs”) (Docket No. 10). Plaintiffs challenge the Notice of
Removal filed by defendant Ford Motor Company (“Defendant” or “Ford”). (Docket No. 1.)
Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court finds
that this matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument. The hearing calendared for
February 26, 2024, is vacated, and the matter taken off calendar.
I.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Complaint in this matter, filed on September 8, 2023 in Los Angeles County Superior
Court, alleges three causes of action under the Song Beverly Act relating to the purchase of a
2021 Ford Explorer. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs reside in the City of Los Angeles,
State of California, and that Plaintiffs are entitled to restitution, rescission, diminution of value
damages, civil penalties and reasonable attorney’s fees in their prayer for relief. (Docket No. 1,
Ex. B.) The Complaint does not allege an amount in controversy or the citizenship of either
Plaintiff. (Id.)
The Notice of Removal filed by Ford alleges that because the amount in controversy and
Plaintiffs’ citizenship could not be ascertained on the face of the Complaint, Ford served written
discovery regarding jurisdictional issues. (Notice of Removal ¶ 2.) Ford further alleges that on
November 2, 2023, Plaintiffs served their responses to Defendant’s jurisdictional discovery..(Id.)
In those responses, Plaintiffs admitted they were seeking more than $75,000 in damages but did
not provide any substantive response to the requests for admission pertaining to citizenship.
After meeting and conferring, on December 7, 2023, Plaintiffs provided substantive responses,
admitting to being citizens of the State of California at the time the action was filed. (Id.)
Asserting that Plaintiffs’ amended discovery responses were the paper from which it was first
ascertainable that the case was removable, Defendant filed the Notice of Removal on December
18, 2023. (Id.) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand argues that Defendant’s Notice of Removal is
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 23-10573 PA (Ex)
Date
Title
Mayte Guerrero Avina,et al. v. Ford Motor Company
February 20, 2024
untimely because Defendants knew when the action was filed that the amount in controversy
exceeded $75,000 and had enough information to affirmatively allege that Plaintiffs were
citizens of California, based on their residence as alleged in the Complaint.
II.
ANALYSIS
A.
Legal Standard
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only
over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,
511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the
federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal
subject matter jurisdiction may be based on diversity jurisdiction, which requires that all
plaintiffs have a different citizenship from all defendants and that the amount in controversy
exceed $75,000.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; see also Academy of Country Music v. Continental
Cas. Co., 991 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2021). To establish citizenship for diversity purposes, a
natural person must be a citizen of the United States and be domiciled in a particular state.
Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983). Persons are domiciled
in the place they reside with the intent to remain or to which they intend to return. See Kanter v.
Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). For the purposes of diversity
jurisdiction, a corporation is a citizen of any state where it is incorporated and of the state where
it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c); see also Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero
Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990). The citizenship of an LLC is the citizenship of its
members. See Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006)
(“[L]ike a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are
citizens.”).
A removed action must be remanded to state court if the federal court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The removal statute is strictly construed against removal
jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls to the party invoking the
statute.” California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing
Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988)). “Federal jurisdiction
must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v.
Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592
F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)).
“The defendant also has the burden of showing that it has complied with the procedural
requirements for removal.” Riggs v. Plaid Pantries, Inc., 233 F. Supp. 2d 1260, 1264 (D. Or.
2001) (citing Schwartz v. FHP Int’l Corp., 947 F.Supp. 1354, 1360 (D. Ariz. 1996)). These
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 23-10573 PA (Ex)
Date
Title
Mayte Guerrero Avina,et al. v. Ford Motor Company
February 20, 2024
procedures include a requirement that the “notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall
be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy
of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is
based.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). “[I]f the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, a
notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after receipt by the defendant, through service
or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may
first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.” Id. § 1446(b)(3).
B.
Discussion
Defendant alleges that the Notice of Removal is timely because it was filed within 30
days of its receipt of Plaintiffs’ amended responses to Defendant’s discovery requests, in which
Plaintiffs first admitted that they were citizens of California. “[A] proper removal notice must
be filed within 30 days of service of the plaintiff’s complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b); Parrino v.
FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1998). In Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d
689, 694 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit clarified that if an initial pleading is not removable on
its face, then the first 30-day period for removal is not triggered. “In such case, the notice of
removal may be filed within thirty days after the defendant receives ‘an amended pleading,
motion, order or other paper’ from which it can be ascertained from the face of the document
that removal is proper.” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3)). Sworn discovery responses
received from another party in the pending litigation constitute “other paper” within the meaning
of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) from which a party may properly be put on notice that a case is or has
become removable. See Riggs v. Continental Baking Co., 678 F.Supp. 236, 238 (N.D. Cal.
1998).
Because the Complaint only alleges where Plaintiffs “reside,” an allegation that is
insufficient to establish citizenship for diversity purposes, Defendant’s receipt of the amended
discovery responses opened a 30-day window for Defendant to file the Notice of Removal.1/
See Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857 (“A person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled
there, and thus is not necessarily a citizen of that state.”). Plaintiffs argue that Defendant should
have known that Plaintiffs were citizens of California from the Complaint, and did not need to
serve and wait for discovery responses in order to remove the action. The Court disagrees. The
Ninth Circuit does not “charge defendants with notice of removability until they’ve received a
1/
In order establish diversity jurisdiction, Defendants must prove both that there is diversity
of citizenship and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Because the Court concludes
that the Complaint did not include sufficient allegations to establish Plaintiffs’ citizenship, the
Court does not need to address Plaintiffs’ arguments relating to the amount in controversy.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 3 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 23-10573 PA (Ex)
Date
Title
Mayte Guerrero Avina,et al. v. Ford Motor Company
February 20, 2024
paper that gives them enough information to remove.” Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445
F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2006). Because citizenship is based on domiciliary intent, and not
residency, the Complaint did not start the removal period. See Cioffi v. Solomon, No.
C-14-04139-RMW, 2014 WL 6679555, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2014) (citing Harris v.
Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 695 (9th Cir. 2005)) (“Plaintiff’s initial complaint did
not trigger the first thirty-day window for removal because it only disclosed plaintiff’s residency,
not his citizenship. . . . Diversity jurisdiction is based on parties’ citizenship, not residency. 28
U.S.C. 1332. The first thirty-day period only begins to run if the case stated by the initial
pleading affirmatively reveals on its face the grounds for removal – in this case, complete
diversity of citizenship.”).
The Court therefore concludes that Defendant has met its burden of establishing diversity
jurisdiction in this matter, and rejects Plaintiffs’ contention that the Notice of Removal is
untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3).
Conclusion
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 4 of 4
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?