Shahin Bastani v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC
Filing
23
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge David O. Carter: Remanding case to State Court Sua Sponte. For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Case number 30- 2021-01194764 CU-BC-CJC. The Clerk shall serve this minute order on the parties. (twdb)
Case 8:21-cv-00911-DOC-ADS Document 23 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:117
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 21-00911-DOC-ADS
Date: September 7, 2021
Title: SHAHIN BASTANI V. MERCEDES BENZ USA, LLC
PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE
Karlen Dubon
Courtroom Clerk
Not Present
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFF:
None Present
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANT:
None Present
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
STATE COURT SUA SPONTE
On its own motion and having considered the Notice of Removal (Dkt. 1) the
Court hereby REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of California, County of
Orange.
I.
Background
A.
Facts
The following facts are drawn from Plaintiff Shahin Bastani’s Complaint
(“Compl.”) (Dkt. 1-1). This action concerns Plaintiff’s purchase of a vehicle
manufactured by Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Defendant”). Compl. ¶¶ 12, 13.
Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle contained or developed numerous defects and continued
to exhibit such defects after Plaintiff returned the vehicle to the authorized repair facility
for repairs. Id. ¶ 14-18. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has continuously failed to make
the vehicle conform to the applicable warranties. Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiff brings claims under
the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act seeking
actual damages, civil penalties, costs and expenses, attorneys’ fees, recision of the
contract and restitution of consideration, and prejudgment interest. Id. at 5-7.
Case 8:21-cv-00911-DOC-ADS Document 23 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:118
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 21-00911-DOC-ADS
B.
Date: September 7, 2021
Page 2
Procedural History
Plaintiff originally filed suit in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange
County. See generally Compl. (Dkt. 1-1). On May 17, 2021, Defendant removed the
action to this Court, asserting jurisdiction based on federal question and diversity. Notice
of Removal (Dkt. 1).
II.
Legal Standard
“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Removal of a case
from state court to federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which provides in
relevant part that “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of
the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed . . . to the district court of
the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is
pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441. This statute “is strictly construed against removal
jurisdiction,” and the party seeking removal “bears the burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction.” Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988)
(emphasis added) (citations omitted).
Federal diversity jurisdiction requires that the parties be citizens of different states
and that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). For diversity
jurisdiction purposes, a corporation is “deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign
state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its
principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). The presence of any single plaintiff
from the same state as any single defendant destroys “complete diversity” and strips the
federal courts of original jurisdiction over the matter. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah
Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005).
Generally, a removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that the amount in controversy satisfies the jurisdictional threshold. Guglielmino v.
McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2008). If the complaint affirmatively
alleges an amount in controversy greater than $75,000, the jurisdictional requirement is
“presumptively satisfied.” Id. A plaintiff who then tries to defeat removal must prove to a
“legal certainty” that a recovery of more than $75,000 is impossible. St. Paul Mercury
Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-89 (1938); Crum v. Circus Enters., 231
F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000). This framework applies equally to situations where the
complaint leaves the amount in controversy unclear or ambiguous. See Gaus v. Miles,
Case 8:21-cv-00911-DOC-ADS Document 23 Filed 09/07/21 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:119
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 21-00911-DOC-ADS
Date: September 7, 2021
Page 3
Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992); Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d
398, 403-04 (9th Cir. 1996).
A removing defendant “may not meet [its] burden by simply reciting some
‘magical incantation’ to the effect that ‘the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of
[$75,000],’ but instead, must set forth in the removal petition the underlying facts
supporting its assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds [$75,000].” Richmond v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 897 F. Supp. 447, 450 (S.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,
980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992)). If the plaintiff has not clearly or unambiguously
alleged $75,000 in its complaint or has affirmatively alleged an amount less than $75,000
in its complaint, the burden lies with the defendant to show by a preponderance of the
evidence that the jurisdictional minimum is satisfied. Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v.
Estate of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 2010); Guglielmino,
506 F.3d at 699.
While the defendant must “set forth the underlying facts supporting its assertion
that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory minimum,” the standard is not so
taxing so as to require the defendant to “research, state, and prove the plaintiff’s claims
for damages.” Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, Inc., 730 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1148 (C.D.
Cal. 2010) (emphases added). In short, the defendant must show that it is “more likely
than not” that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory minimum. Id. Summary
judgment-type evidence may be used to substantiate this showing. Matheson v.
Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090–91 (9th Cir. 2003); Singer v. State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997). For example, defendants
may make mathematical calculations using reasonable averages of hourly, monthly, and
annual incomes of comparable employees when assessing the amount in controversy in a
wrongful termination suit. Coleman, 730 F. Supp. 2d. at 1148–49.
Federal district courts have original jurisdiction in actions “arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. An action "arises
under" the federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 if: (1) federal law creates
the cause of action, or (2) the Plaintiff right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of
a substantial question of federal law. Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers
Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. l, 27-28 (1983). 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(l)(B) of the MagnusonMoss Warranty Act states in part that a consumer who is damaged by a warrantor's
failure to comply with a warranty “may bring suit for damages and other legal and
equitable relief in an appropriate district court of the United States, subject to paragraph
(3) of this subsection.” Paragraph (3) goes on to state that “[n]o claim shall be cognizable
Case 8:21-cv-00911-DOC-ADS Document 23 Filed 09/07/21 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:120
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 21-00911-DOC-ADS
Date: September 7, 2021
Page 4
in a suit brought under paragraph (l)(B) of this subsection ... if the amount in controversy
is less than the sum or value of $50,000.00 (exclusive of interest and costs) computed on
the basis of all claims to be determined in this suit ...” 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3)(B).
If the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, any action it takes is ultra vires and
void. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 534 (2005); Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better
Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94, 101–02 (1998). The lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be
raised at any time by either the parties or the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). If subject
matter jurisdiction is found to be lacking, the court must dismiss the action, id., or
remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). A Court may raise the question of subject matter
jurisdiction sua sponte. See Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002).
III.
Discussion
Defendant argues that this Court has federal question and diversity jurisdiction in
this action. Notice of Removal ¶¶ 7, 11. The Court disagrees.
The Court finds that Defendant has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence
that the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000 for federal question purposes, nor does it
exceed $75,000 for diversity purposes. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s actual damages,
coupled with the civil penalties Plaintiffs seek, is greater than $75,000. Notice of
Removal ¶ 10. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s actual damages amount to the lease price
of the Plaintiff’s vehicle—a total of $26,103.35. Notice of Removal ¶ 8. Defendant
further alleges that the awarded damages could exceed $75,000 based on civil penalties
and reasonable attorneys’ fees. Id. The Court will not include speculative civil penalties
or attorneys’ fees to meet the amount in controversy requirement. See Galt G/S v. JSS
Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 1998) (“We hold that where an underlying
statute authorizes an award of attorneys’ fees, either with mandatory or discretionary
language, such fees may be included in the amount in controversy.”) (emphasis added).
Thus, the Court finds that it lacks diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction
over this matter.
When remanding a case, a court may, in its discretion, “require payment of just
costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the
removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also Jordan v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 781 F.3d
1178, 1184 (9th Cir. 2015). Typically, a court may only award fees and costs when “the
removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Id. (quoting
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005)). In making this
determination, courts should look at whether the removing party’s arguments are “clearly
Case 8:21-cv-00911-DOC-ADS Document 23 Filed 09/07/21 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:121
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 21-00911-DOC-ADS
Date: September 7, 2021
Page 5
foreclosed” by the relevant case law. Lussier v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 518 F.3d 1062,
1066-67 (9th Cir. 2008). The Ninth Circuit has further clarified that “removal is not
objectively unreasonable solely because the removing party’s arguments lack merit,” id.
at 1065, though a court need not find the removing party acted in bad faith before
awarding fees under § 1447(c), Moore v. Permanente Med. Grp., 981 F.2d 443, 446 (9th
Cir. 1992).
Here, while the Court finds that removal was improper, the Court concludes that it
was not so inconceivable as to meet the “objectively unreasonable” standard. As a result,
the Court declines to award Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees.
IV.
Disposition
For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to the
Superior Court of Orange County, California.
The Clerk shall serve this minute order on the parties.
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN
Initials of Deputy Clerk: kdu
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?