Anaid Bautista v. Nissan North America, Inc.

Filing 13

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND 8 by Judge David O. Carter Granting 8 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court: For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of Orange County, California. The hearing set for December 16, 2024 is VACATED. (see document for further details) MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (bm)

JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:24-cv-02141-DOC-ADS

Date: December 6, 2024

Title: Anaid Bautista vs. Nissan North America, Inc. et al.
PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE
Rolls Royce Paschal for 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 [8]
Before the Court is Plaintiff Anaid Bautista’s Motion to Remand (“Mot.”) (Dkt.
8). The Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. R. 7-15. After considering the moving papers and the arguments
made therein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.
I.

Facts

The following facts are taken from Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Compl.”) (Dkt. 1).
Plaintiff alleges causes of action against Nissan North America, Inc., a Delaware
corporation that manufactures, sells, and distributes Nissan vehicles, and Does 1 through
20 (collectively “Defendants”). Compl. ¶ 1. On July 2, 2024, Plaintiff bought a 2021

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:24-cv-02141-DOC-ADS

Date: December 6, 2024
Page 2

Nissan Kicks. Id. ¶ 5. Plaintiff claims written, express, and implied warranties were made
by the Defendants, including, but not limited to:
(1) Vehicle would be free from all defects in material and workmanship
(2) Vehicle would pass in the trade under the Contract description
(3) Vehicle would be fit for the ordinary purpose for which it was intended
(4) Vehicle would conform to the promises and affirmations of fact made
(5) Defendants would perform repairs, alignments, adjustments, and/or
replacements of any parts necessary to ensure the Vehicle was free from
defects
(6) Defendants would maintain the utility of the vehicle for three years or 36,000
miles under the basic warranty, and five years or 60,000 miles under the
powertrain warranty, and would conform the vehicle to the express warranties
Id. ¶ 7.
Plaintiff claims he has performed all of his conditions under the Contract. Id. ¶ 8.
Plaintiff states he has taken the vehicle to Defendants’ service and repair facilities at least
five separate times which resulted in the vehicle “being out of service by reason of repair
of nonconformities.” Id. ¶ 9. Plaintiff provides examples of defects that needed to be
repaired, including: the brake pedal leaking oil; the power steering fluid leaking; the
steering wheel producing an abormal noise; and the rear brakes creating a squeaking
noise. Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff claims he would notify Defendants of the defects when returning
the vehicle to them for repair and that Defendants would represent they could conform
the vehicle. Id. ¶ 11-12. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to conform the vehicle to
the applicable warranties. Id. ¶ 12. Plaintiff raises claims of breach of implied warranty of
merchantability under California’s Song-Beverly Act and breach of express warranty
under the Song-Beverly Act. See generally id.
II.

Procedural History

On October 2, 2024, Defendant Nissan filed a Notice of Removal from the Orange
County Superior Court to this Court (“Not.”) (Dkt. 1). On November 8, 2024, Plaintiff
filed the present Motion to Remand the case to state court (Dkt. 8). On November 25,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:24-cv-02141-DOC-ADS

Date: December 6, 2024
Page 3

2024, Defendant Nissan filed its Opposition to the Motion (Dkt. 10). On December 2,
2023, Plaintiff filed his Reply (Dkt. 11).
III.

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 exceeds $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. In that situation, 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, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992); Sanchez v. Monumental Life
Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 403-04 (9th Cir. 1996).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:24-cv-02141-DOC-ADS

Date: December 6, 2024
Page 4

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).
IV.

Discussion

Here, the Parties agree that the diversity of citizenship requirement is met. They
dispute whether the amount in controversy is met. Plaintiff does not expressly allege an
amount in controversy over $75,000. See generally Complaint. Accordingly, Defendants
must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional minimum is

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:24-cv-02141-DOC-ADS

Date: December 6, 2024
Page 5

satisfied. See Geographic Expeditions, Inc., 599 F.3d at 1106-07; Guglielmino, 506 F.3d
at 699.
Defendants have not met their burden to show that the amount in controversy
requirement is satisfied. Defendants state that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000, but this assertion is not supported by the underlying facts in the Notice of
Removal or Opposition and Plaintiff has not alleged any numerical amount of damages in
their Complaint. Defendants assert that the vehicle was purchased by Plaintiff for
$38,533.52. Not. at 5-6. Defendants contend that the mileage offset is reflected as
$3,104.91. Id. at 6. Subtracting the mileage offset from the purchase price leaves the
economic damages at $35,428.61. Id.; Opp. at 4.
Additionally, to reach the jurisdictional threshold, the Defendants include civil
penalties and attorney’s fees in their estimations. Not. at 6-7. Defendants assert that
Plaintiff seeks two times the base amount of civil penalties which if awarded would bring
the amount in controversy to $106,285.83 including civi penalties and restitution. Opp. at
4-5. However, the Court will not include speculative civil penalties or attorney’s 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).
The Court’s decision not to include speculative awards in the amount in
controversy is reinforced by the fact that Congress has not raised the amount in
controversy since 1996—nearly three decades ago. 1 See The Federal Courts Improvement
Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 3850. Since then, the inflation rate is nearly 100% (i.e., prices have
almost doubled). Thus, adjusted for inflation, the amount in controversy should be around
$150,000. Stated conversely, a case worth $75,000 in 1996 is worth only $37,500 in
today’s dollars. Because inflation has plainly decreased the “real” value of the amount in
controversy, more and more cases are able to meet the jurisdictional threshold and can be
brought in federal court. As federal diversity jurisdiction expands, state court jurisdiction
to decide purely state law issues and develop state law correspondingly decreases. Thus,
the federal jurisdictional creep is incompatible with the most basic principles of
federalism.

For reference, in 1996, the minimum wage was $4.75 per hour, and only 16% of Americans had cell phones.
Indeed, the current amount-in-controversy is older than both of my law clerks.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:24-cv-02141-DOC-ADS

Date: December 6, 2024
Page 6

Federalism is not the only loser in Congress’s failure to increase the amount in
controversy. When a case is improperly removed, as happened here, ultimate resolution is
delayed. Because cases subject to motion to remand are typically small dollar cases, this
increased motion work can quickly cause attorneys’ fees to outrun any potential recovery
and places an immense burden on a plaintiff’s lawyer working on contingency. In this
respect, the current low jurisdictional threshold reduces access to justice. Therefore, the
Court respectfully encourages Congress to reconsider the amount in controversy
minimum.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants have not shown by a preponderance
of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Thus, the Court finds
that it lacks diversity jurisdiction over this matter.
V.

Disposition

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to the
Superior Court of Orange County, California. The hearing set for December 16, 2024 is
VACATED.
The Clerk shall serve this minute order on the parties.
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk: kdu