Armen Mirzakhanians v. BMW Financial Services NA, LLC

Filing 26

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND 10 by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha: The court GRANTS the Motion, and REMANDS the action to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Alhambra, Case No. 23AHCV02880. All dates and deadlines in this court are VACATED. The clerk of the court shall close the action administratively. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (lc)

1

JS-6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARMEN MIRZAKHANIANS,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.

15

BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA,
LLC, et al.,

16

Defendants.

Case No. 2:24-cv-05358-FLA (JCx)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND [DKT. 10]

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1

1

RULING

2

Before the court is Plaintiff Armen Mirzakhanians’ (“Plaintiff”) Motion to

3

Remand the Case to Los Angeles Superior Court (“Motion”). Dkts. 10 (“Mot.”), 10-1

4

(“Margarian Decl.”). Defendant BMW Financial Services NA, LLC (“BMW”)

5

opposes the Motion. Dkt. 16 (“Opp’n”). On September 18, 2024, the court found the

6

matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument and vacated the hearing set for

7

September 20, 2024. Dkt. 25; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Local Rule 7-15.

8

For the reasons stated herein, the court GRANTS the Motion.
DISCUSSION

9
10

I.

Background
Plaintiff initiated this action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court on

11
12

December 12, 2023, against Defendants BMW and Sai Monrovia B, Inc.,1 asserting

13

causes of action for fraud and deceit, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and

14

fair dealing, violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 and 17500, and violation of

15

the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”). Dkt. 1-1 (“Compl.”). In

16

relevant part, the Complaint seeks $413,278.43 in damages. Id., Prayer for Relief.

17

On June 25, 2024, BMW removed the action to this court on the basis of

18

diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Dkt. 1. Prior to filing the instant

19

Motion, Plaintiff filed a “Request to Dismiss Cause of Action for Fraud and Deceit

20

and Strike Request for Punitive Damages” (Dkt. 9), which the court granted on

21

September 6, 2024 (Dkt. 22). Plaintiff now moves to remand the action to the Los

22

Angeles County Superior Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the

23

amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. Mot.

24

///

25

///

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff dismissed Sai Monrovia B, Inc. as a defendant on May 31, 2024. Margarian
Decl. ¶ 5.
2

1

II.

Legal Standard

2

Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power

3

authorized by the Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of

4

Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. District courts are

5

presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the

6

record. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3 (2006).

7

Additionally, federal courts have an obligation to examine jurisdiction sua sponte

8

before proceeding to the merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526

9

U.S. 574, 583 (1999).
Federal courts have jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law or

10
11

where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the

12

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C.

13

§§ 1331, 1332(a). Thus, a notice removing an action from state court to federal court

14

must include “a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the

15

jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574

16

U.S. 81, 89 (2014). Where “the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the

17

defendant’s allegation” concerning the amount in controversy, “both sides [shall]

18

submit proof,” and the court may then decide whether the defendant has proven the

19

amount in controversy “by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 88–89. “Federal

20

jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first

21

instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). As the removing

22

party, BMW bears the burden to establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over

23

this action. See id. at 567.

24

III.

25

Analysis
Plaintiff argues the “realistic amount of recovery” is $41,265.27, and BMW

26

fails to “prove [] the amount in controversy requirement … has been satisfied,”

27

because it does not establish that the inclusion of punitive damages and/or attorney’s

28

fees exceeds the jurisdiction threshold. Margarian Decl. ¶¶ 10, 12, 14, 16. BMW
3

1

argues the allegations in the Complaint expressly seek damages of $413,265.27 and it

2

is immaterial that Plaintiff later amended the Complaint to strike the request for

3

punitive damages, as the amount in controversy is determined at the date of removal.

4

Opp’n at 9 (relying on Chavez v. JP Morgan, 888 F.3d 413, 418 (9th Cir. 2018)). The

5

court agrees with Plaintiff.

6

BMW asserts correctly post-removal amendments to the Complaint have no

7

bearing on whether removal was proper. See Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,

8

471 F.3d 975, 976 (9th Cir. 2006). However, “[w]hen a complaint filed in state court

9

alleges on its face ‘damages in excess of the required jurisdictional minimum,’ the

10

amount pled controls unless it appears to a ‘legal certainty’ that the claim is for less

11

than the jurisdictional amount.” Carillo v. FCA USA, LLC, 546 F. Supp. 3d 995, 998

12

(C.D. Cal. 2021) (emphasis added).

13

Here, though the Complaint seeks recovery of $413,278.43 in damages, the

14

facts and causes of action pleaded do not support recovery of over $75,000. See

15

Compl., Prayer for Relief; see also Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir.

16

2002) (statement of damages “is relevant evidence of the amount in controversy if it

17

appears to reflect a reasonable estimate of the plaintiff’s claim.”); Romsa v. Ikea U.S.

18

W., Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-05552-MMM (JEMx), 2014 WL 4273265, at *2 (C.D. Cal.

19

Aug. 28, 2014) (“A plaintiff’s damage estimate will not establish the amount in

20

controversy, however, if it appears to be only a bold optimistic prediction.”) (internal

21

quotation marks omitted). Specifically, the Complaint alleges BMW “failed to remit

22

Plaintiff his equity of $28,069.64,” and “failed to refund Plaintiff [] monthly

23

payments” totaling $13,196.12. Compl. ¶¶ 48, 50. Thus, the Complaint places only

24

$41,265.27 in controversy. The remaining $372,013.16 appears only to be a “bold

25

optimistic prediction” and not a reasonable estimate of damages. Romsa, 2014 WL

26

4273265, at *2.

27
28

As BMW bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the amount in controversy requirement has been satisfied, see Carillo, 546 F.
4

1

Supp. 3d at 998, BMW contends the court should include in its calculations “all

2

recoverable damages sought by [] plaintiff, including compensatory damages, punitive

3

damages, statutory penalties and attorney’s fees when authorized by statute.” Opp’n

4

at 11. However, “the mere possibility of a punitive damages award is insufficient to

5

prove that the amount in controversy requirement has been met.” Ogden v. Dearborn

6

Life Ins. Co., 644 F. Supp. 3d 559, 564 (D. Ariz. 2022). “Defendant must present

7

appropriate evidence, such as jury verdicts in analogous cases, to show that a claim for

8

punitive damages establishes that it is more likely than not that the amount in

9

controversy exceeds $75,000.” Id. Accordingly, a removing defendant must

10

“articulate why the particular facts that are alleged in the instant action might warrant

11

extraordinary punitive damages.” Id. (emphasis in original) (quoting Haisch v.

12

Allstate Ins. Co., 942 F. Supp. 1245, 1249 (D. Ariz. 1996)).

13

BMW argues only “a punitive damages award sufficient to meet the

14

jurisdictional threshold at the time of removal would have only needed to amount to

15

less than 1.9-to-1 ratio, which California courts have consistently found to be within

16

the permissible range of recovery.” Opp’n at 11–12. This is insufficient, as BMW

17

does not explain or offer evidence establishing why any particular facts pleaded might

18

warrant punitive damages if proven or identify any comparable cases in which

19

punitive damages were awarded based on similar facts as pleaded in the Complaint.

20

Importantly, BMW does not argue any specific amount of punitive damages is likely

21

to be awarded, and thus, the court cannot determine whether inclusion of punitive

22

damages is sufficient to satisfy the jurisdictional threshold.

23

Similarly, BMW argues attorney’s fees “are properly included in determining

24

the amount in controversy, including for claims seeking fees under the CLRA.”

25

Opp’n at 11–12 (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(e)). While courts “must include future

26

attorneys’ fees recoverable by statute or contract when assessing” the amount in

27

controversy, a removing defendant must establish the “amount in controversy

28

(including attorneys’ fees) exceeds the jurisdictional threshold with summary5

1

judgment-type evidence[.]” Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC, 899 F.3d 785,

2

795 (9th Cir. 2018). A “district court may reject the defendant’s attempts to include

3

future attorneys’ fees in the amount in controversy if the defendant fails to satisfy this

4

burden of proof.” Id.

5

As an initial matter, BMW does not identify any statutory or contractual basis

6

upon which Plaintiff may recover attorney’s fees other than the CLRA claim. As

7

above, far from offering evidence establishing attorney’s fees are reasonably likely to

8

be awarded to Plaintiff should he prevail on that claim, BMW does not offer any

9

specific amount of attorney’s fees the court should consider in its calculation of the

10

amount in controversy. Thus, BMW has not met its burden to show that any

11

attorney’s fees are in controversy.
CONCLUSION

12
13

Given that any doubt regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction must

14

be resolved in favor of remanding the action to state court, see Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566,

15

the court GRANTS the Motion, and REMANDS the action to the Los Angeles County

16

Superior Court, Case No. 23AHCV02880. All dates and deadlines in this court are

17

VACATED. The clerk of the court shall close the action administratively.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: September 23, 2024

22
23
24

______________________________
FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
6