William Michael Septien Jr. FCA US LLC et al
Filing
15
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge David O. Carter: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND #10 . For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to the Orange County Superior Court and vacates the hearing scheduled for November 22, 2021. The Clerk shall serve this minute order on the parties. Case Remanded to Orange County Superior Court, Case no. 30-2021-01185164-CU-BC-CJC. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (lc) Modified on 11/18/2021 (lc).
JS 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:21-CV-01531-DOC-KES
Date: November 18, 2021
Title: WILLIAM MICHAEL SEPTIEN JR. V. FCA US LLC ET AL.
PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE
Karlen Dubon
Courtroom Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFF:
None Present
Not Present
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANT:
None Present
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND [10]
Before the Court is a Motion to Remand (Dkt. 10) (“Motion” or “Mot.”) brought
by Plaintiff William Michael Septien Jr. (“Plaintiff”). The Court finds the matter
appropriate for resolution without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. R. 715.
The Court now GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.
I.
Background
A.
Facts
The following facts are drawn from Plaintiff Laura Vazquez Garcia’s (“Plaintiff”)
Complaint (“Compl.”) (Dkt. 1-2). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant FCA US, LLC (“FCA,”
or “Defendant”) violated California’s Lemon Law and the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1790 et seq) by, among other things, selling a defective
vehicle to Plaintiff, failing to repair the Subject Vehicle within a reasonable number of
attempts, and refusing to provide restitution even though FCA knew that the Vehicle was
defective. See generally Compl.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:21-CV-01531-DOC-KES
Date: November 18, 2021
Page 2
B.
Procedural History
Plaintiff originally filed suit in Orange County Superior Court on February 18,
2021. Exhibit B, Notice of Removal (Dkt. 1-2). On September 17, 2021, Defendant FCA
US LLC (“Defendant”) removed the case to this Court. Notice of Removal (Dkt. 1).
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on October 18, 2021. Defendants opposed (Opp’n) (Dkt.
14) on November 17, 2021.
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:21-CV-01531-DOC-KES
Date: November 18, 2021
Page 3
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,
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, 980 F.2d at
567). 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.
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).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:21-CV-01531-DOC-KES
Date: November 18, 2021
Page 4
III.
Discussion
Defendant argues that this Court has diversity jurisdiction in this action. See
generally Notice of Removal. The Court disagrees.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s actual damages—coupled with the incidental and
consequential damages, civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees—Plaintiffs seek, is greater
than $75,000. Opp’n at 4. Defendant argues this because Plaintiff has claimed actual
“damages…not less than $25,001.00.” Compl. at ¶ 13. Defendant then asserts that
because Plaintiff’s prayer for relief specifically includes “a civil penalty in the amount of
two times Plaintiff’s actual damages pursuant to Civil Code section 1974, subdivision (c)
or (e),” the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Id. at 9.
This Court does not find it appropriate to include speculative civil penalties or
attorneys’ fees in the amount in controversy. 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 only showing
the Defendant has made is that the Plaintiff’s actual damages are not less than
$25,001.00. This does not sufficiently demonstrate that damages are more than $75,000.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant has not shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and that it lacks diversity
jurisdiction over this matter.
IV.
Disposition
For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to the
Orange County Superior Court and vacates the hearing scheduled for November 22,
2021.
The Clerk shall serve this minute order on the parties.
Initials of the 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?