Jadd Nabeel Halaby v. BMW Financial Services NA, LLC et al

Filing 22

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER: (1) DENYING Motion to Remand (Doc. 10 ); and (2) DENYING AS MOOT Request for Leave to Appear Telephonically (Doc. 19 ) by Judge Josephine L. Staton: Therefore, according to Halabys own Complaint and the claims that Hala by presented in that Complaint at the time of removal, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the requirements of diversity jurisdiction are met. The Motion is DENIED. To the extent Halaby has now determined that he does not wish to pursu e any claim that would cause this action to meet the amount-in-controversy threshold for this Court's jurisdiction, he may seek to dismiss and re-file a more limited complaint in state court, to the extent that course of action remains available to him. (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:24-cv-05266-JLS-SSC
Date: August 28, 2024
Title: Jadd Nabeel Halaby v. BMW Financial Services, N.A., LLC
Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Charles A. Rojas
Deputy Clerk
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Not Present

N/A
Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Defendant:
Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION TO
REMAND (Doc. 10); AND (2) DENYING AS MOOT
REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY
(Doc. 19)
Before the Court is a Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiff Jadd Nabeel Halaby.
(Mot., Doc. 10; Mem., Doc. 10-2.) Defendant BMW Financial Services, N.A., LLC
opposed, and Halaby responded. (Opp., Doc. 14; Reply, Doc. 17.) The Court finds this
matter appropriate for decision without oral argument, and the hearing set for August 30,
2024, at 10:30 a.m. is VACATED. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. R. 7-15. Because the
Scheduling Conference set for August 30, 2024, has also been vacated, the Request for
Leave of Hovanes Margarian to Appear Telephonically at the hearing is DENIED AS
MOOT. (See Scheduling Order, Doc. 20; Request, Doc. 19.) For the following reasons,
the Court DENIES the Motion.
Halaby seeks to remand this action, arguing that the amount-in-controversy
threshold is not met for the purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction. (Mem. at 6–
7.) A federal court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 if the parties to the
action are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Halaby argues that because he has dismissed his fraud claims and
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:24-cv-05266-JLS-SSC
Date: August 28, 2024
Title: Jadd Nabeel Halaby v. BMW Financial Services, N.A., LLC
no longer seeks punitive damages, his realistic amount of recovery is $22,977.76, and
BMW cannot show that the amount-in-controversy requirement is met. (Mem. at 6.)
But “the amount in controversy is assessed at the time of removal.” Chavez v.
JPMorgan Chase & Co., 888 F.3d 413, 417 (9th Cir. 2018). Halaby dismissed his fraud
claim after BMW had already removed the case. (See Request to Dismiss Cause of
Action for Fraud and Strike Punitive Damages, Doc. 9.) Therefore, in assessing the
amount in controversy at the time of removal, the Court must consider the amount that
Halaby could recover for his fraud claim and for punitive damages. See Chavez, 888
F.3d at 417 (“[W]hen the amount in controversy is satisfied at removal, any subsequent
amendment to the complaint or partial dismissal that decreases the amount in controversy
below the jurisdictional threshold does not oust the federal court of jurisdiction.”)
Further, in the prayer for relief in Halaby’s Complaint, he seeks $230,398.43 in total
damages. (See Compl. at 39, Doc. 1-1.) Where the plaintiff’s state-court complaint
includes a damages demand, that amount, if made in good faith, “shall be deemed to be
the amount in controversy.” Id. § 1446(c)(2).
Therefore, according to Halaby’s own Complaint and the claims that Halaby
presented in that Complaint at the time of removal, the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000 and the requirements of diversity jurisdiction are met. The Motion is DENIED.
To the extent Halaby has now determined that he does not wish to pursue any claim that
would cause this action to meet the amount-in-controversy threshold for this Court’s
jurisdiction, he may seek to dismiss and re-file a more limited complaint in state court, to
the extent that course of action remains available to him.

Initials of Deputy Clerk: cr

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2