Ernestina Nunez et al v. Nissan North America, Inc. et al

Filing 11

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Having reviewed Nissans Notice of Removal #1 and Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause #9 , the Court hereby REMANDS the action based on Nissans failure to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Nissan fails to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, and the Court accordingly lacks diversity jurisdiction. Thus, the Court REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, 4050 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92501, Case No. CVRI2301327. Plaintiffs Motion to Remand is DENIED AS MOOT #10 . All dates and deadlines are VACATED. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (lc)

JS-6

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

5:23-cv-00881-ODW (SHKx)

Title

Ernestina Nunez et al. v. Nissan North America, Inc.

Present: The Honorable

Date

June 16, 2023

Otis D. Wright, II, United States District Judge

Sheila English

Not reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not present

Not present

Proceedings (In Chambers):

Order REMANDING Case (Diversity Jurisdiction
– Amount in Controversy)

On March 16, 2023, Plaintiffs Ernestina Nunez and Javier Nunez initiated this action
against Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. in state court. (Notice of Removal (“NOR”) ¶ 1,
ECF No. 1.) In their Complaint, Plaintiffs assert claims against Nissan for violations of express
and implied warranties under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act and fraud. (NOR Ex. A
(“Compl.”) ¶¶ 83–143, ECF No. 1-2.) Plaintiffs seek general, special, and actual damages;
rescission; incidental and consequential damages; civil penalties; prejudgment interest; punitive
damages; prejudgment interest; and attorneys’ fees and costs. (Id. at 30.)
On May 16, 2023, Nissan removed the action to this Court based on diversity
jurisdiction. (See generally NOR.) On May 18, 2023, the Court ordered the parties to show
cause why this action should not be remanded for lack of diversity jurisdiction due to an
insufficient amount in controversy. (OSC, ECF No. 8.) On June 8, 2023, Nissan filed a
Response. (Resp., ECF No. 9.)
Having reviewed Nissan’s Notice of Removal and Response to the Court’s Order to
Show Cause, the Court hereby REMANDS the action based on Nissan’s failure to establish that
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only
over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1;
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A suit filed in a state

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 5

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

5:23-cv-00881-ODW (SHKx)

Date

Title

Ernestina Nunez et al. v. Nissan North America, Inc.

June 16, 2023

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 courts have original jurisdiction where an action
presents a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. Accordingly, a defendant may remove a case from state court to federal court pursuant
to the federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, on the basis of federal question or diversity
jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship among the adverse
parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
A notice of removal based on diversity jurisdiction must include “a plausible allegation
that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin
Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). Where “the plaintiff contests, or the
court questions, the defendant’s allegation” concerning the amount in controversy, “both sides
submit proof,” and the court decides whether the defendant has proven the amount in
controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 88–89. Moreover, “[t]he ‘strong
presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of
establishing” subject matter jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992).
“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first
instance.” Id. at 566.
Actual Damages. Under the Song-Beverly Act, a plaintiff may recover “in an amount
equal to the actual price paid or payable by the buyer,” reduced by “that amount directly
attributable to use by the buyer.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(d)(2)(B)–(C). This includes a
mileage offset. The offset is calculated by reducing the purchase price by an amount directly
proportional to the number of miles driven. See id. § 1793.2(d)(2)(C).
Here, Nissan argues that Plaintiffs’ prayer for actual damages places $25,906.57 in
controversy, based on a purchase price of $29,355.44 minus an offset of $3,448.87. (Resp. 8.)
Plaintiffs have not responded to contest these figures, and Nissan’s calculations appear proper
under the Song-Beverly damages framework. The Court therefore assumes for the purpose of
this Order, without making any related legal or factual determinations, that the actual damages
Plaintiff might recover in this case are properly calculated to be $25,906.57.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 5

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

5:23-cv-00881-ODW (SHKx)

Date

Title

Ernestina Nunez et al. v. Nissan North America, Inc.

June 16, 2023

Nissan argues that three additional damages categories bring the amount in controversy to
over $75,000: civil penalties, attorneys’ fees, and punitive damages. For the following reasons,
however, Nissan fails in its burden of demonstrating that the amount in controversy under any
of these categories brings this case past the jurisdictional threshold.
Civil Penalties. Nissan’s inclusion of civil penalties to establish the amount in
controversy is highly speculative and insufficient to meet its burden. “A plaintiff who
establishes that a violation of the [Song-Beverly] Act was willful may recover a civil penalty of
up to two times the amount of actual damages.” See Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(c). However, “[t]he
civil penalty under California Civil Code § 1794(c) cannot simply be assumed.” Castillo v.
FCA USA, LLC, No. 19-CV-151-CAB-MDD, 2019 WL 6607006, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2019)
(remanding where the defendant provided no specific argument or evidence for including a civil
penalty in the amount in controversy). Instead, district courts regularly find that a SongBeverly plaintiff’s boilerplate allegations regarding a defendant’s willfulness are, without more,
insufficient to place civil penalties in controversy. Estrada v. FCA US LLC, No. CV 20-10453
PA (JPRx), 2021 WL 223249, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2021) (collecting cases and remanding
where defendant’s inclusion of civil penalties to establish the amount in controversy was “too
speculative and not adequately supported by the facts and evidence”). This is because “[s]imply
assuming a civil penalty award is inconsistent with the principle that the defendant must provide
evidence that it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.”
Makol v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, No. 18-cv-03414-NC, 2018 WL 3194424, at *3
(N.D. Cal. June 28, 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Zawaideh v. BMW of N. Am.,
LLC, No. 17-CV-2151 W (KSC), 2018 WL 1805103, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2018) (“[T]he
defendant must make some effort to justify the assumption.”); see also Khachatryan v. BMW of
N. Am., LLC, No. CV 21-1290 PA (PDX), 2021 WL 927266, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2021).
Here, beyond merely pointing to Plaintiffs’ allegations seeking civil penalties, Nissan
does not present any argument or evidence supporting the potential application of civil
penalties. (See Resp. 4–5.) Without any evidence from Nissan that civil penalties are actually
in controversy, the Court doubts whether civil penalties are more-likely-than-not in controversy,
and accordingly, the Court does not include civil penalties in the amount in controversy
calculations.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 5

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

5:23-cv-00881-ODW (SHKx)

Date

Title

Ernestina Nunez et al. v. Nissan North America, Inc.

June 16, 2023

Punitive Damages. Nissan’s inclusion of punitive damages is likewise speculative and
insufficient to meet its burden. “[T]he mere possibility of a punitive damages award is
insufficient to prove that the amount in controversy requirement has been met.” Ogden v.
Dearborn Life Ins. Co., --- F. Supp. 3d. ---, 2022 WL 17484616, at *3 (D. Ariz. 2022).
“Defendant must present appropriate evidence, such as jury verdicts in analogous cases, to show
that a claim for punitive damages establishes that it is more likely than not that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.” Id. This involves “articulat[ing] why the particular facts that
are alleged in the instant action might warrant extraordinary punitive damages.” Id. (quoting
Haisch v. Allstate Ins. Co., 942 F. Supp. 1245, 1249 (D. Ariz. 1996)).
Here, Nissan fails in its burden. It points to other cases where courts awarded punitive
damages in an amount 1.5x greater than the actual damages, but it fails to articulate how the
facts of this case are anything like the facts of the cited cases. Accordingly, the Court does not
include punitive damages in the amount in controversy calculations.
Attorneys’ Fees. In the Ninth Circuit, attorneys’ fees awarded under fee-shifting statutes
can be considered in assessing the jurisdictional threshold. Gonzales v. CarMax Auto
Superstores, LLC, 840 F.3d 644, 649 (9th Cir. 2016). But a removing defendant must “prove
that the amount in controversy (including attorneys’ fees) exceeds the jurisdictional threshold
by a preponderance of the evidence,” and must “make this showing with summary-judgmenttype evidence.” Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC, 899 F.3d 785, 795 (9th Cir. 2018).
“A district court may reject the defendant’s attempts to include future attorneys’ fees in the
amount in controversy if the defendant fails to satisfy this burden of proof.” Id.
Here, Nissan argues that the Court should include $23,220.55 as the amount of attorneys’
fees in controversy, based on an actual attorney fee award in a different lemon law case.
(Resp. 7–8.) Even if the Court accepts this argument, adding actual damages ($25,906.57) to
attorneys’ fees ($23,220.55) yields a value that falls significantly short of the required $75,000
threshold.
For these reasons, Nissan fails to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000, and the Court accordingly lacks diversity jurisdiction. Thus, the Court REMANDS
this case to the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, 4050 Main Street, Riverside,
CA 92501, Case No. CVRI2301327. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand is DENIED AS MOOT.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 5

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

5:23-cv-00881-ODW (SHKx)

Date

Title

Ernestina Nunez et al. v. Nissan North America, Inc.

June 16, 2023

(ECF No. 10.) All dates and deadlines are VACATED. The Clerk of the Court shall close this
case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

00

SE

Page 5 of 5