Mamchits v. Ford Motor Co

Filing 16

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/3/2023 DENYING #9 Motion to Remand. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NICKOLAY MAMCHITS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

15

Defendant.

16
17

No. 2:23-cv-00805-DAD-AC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO REMAND THIS ACTION TO
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT
(Doc. No. 9)

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion to remand this action to the

18

Sacramento County Superior Court. (Doc. No. 9.) On June 30, 2023, plaintiff’s motion was

19

taken under submission to be decided on the papers. (Doc. No. 12.) For the reasons set forth

20

below, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion to remand.

21
22

BACKGROUND
On February 28, 2023, plaintiff Nickolay Mamchits filed a complaint initiating this action

23

against defendant Ford Motor Company and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, in the Sacramento

24

County Superior Court. (Doc. Nos. 1 at 2; 1-2 at 2.) Therein, plaintiff asserts three claims under

25

California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act for breach of express and implied warranties

26

and for failure to repair the new 2022 Ford F-150 that plaintiff had purchased in June 2022 (“the

27

subject vehicle”). (Doc. No. 1-2 at 2–6.) In his complaint, plaintiff does not specific the amount

28

of money that he paid to purchase the vehicle, nor specify an amount certain of damages sought
1

1

by way of his complaint. In his prayer for relief, plaintiff seeks restitution, incidental and

2

consequential damages, actual and statutory damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and

3

costs, and a civil penalty of two times his actual damages. (Id. at 6.)

4

On April 28, 2023, defendant removed this action to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

5

§§ 1332 and 1441(b) on the grounds that diversity jurisdiction exists because plaintiff and

6

defendant are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Doc.

7

No. 1.) Defendant attached as an exhibit to the notice of removal a copy of the sale contract

8

between the dealership and plaintiff, which reflects $103,234.34 as the total amount paid by

9

plaintiff (the purchase price) for the subject vehicle. (Doc. Nos. 1-1 at 4; 1-4.)

10

On May 26, 2023, plaintiff moved to remand this action to the Sacramento County

11

Superior Court—not because diversity jurisdiction is lacking—but merely because “[t]here is a

12

strong presumption against removal jurisdiction” and “[t]his California Lemon Law case should

13

not be litigated in Federal Court.” (Doc. No. 9 at 8.) On June 9, 2023, defendant filed an

14

opposition to the pending motion, expressing its understandable confusion as to the basis for

15

plaintiff’s motion and reiterating that its removal of this case is proper. (Doc. No. 10.) On June

16

16, 2023, plaintiff filed a reply in support of the pending motion. (Doc. No. 11.)

17
18

LEGAL STANDARD
A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court would have

19

had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Removal is proper when a case

20

originally filed in state court presents a federal question or where there is diversity of citizenship

21

among the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a).

22

If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter

23

jurisdiction over the removed action, “the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The

24

removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing

25

federal jurisdiction falls to the party invoking the statute.” Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc.,

26

375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc.,

27

582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The defendant bears the burden of establishing that

28

removal is proper.”). As such, a federal court must reject jurisdiction and remand the case to state
2

1

court if there is any doubt as to the right of removal. Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co.,

2

319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1118

3

(9th Cir. 2004).

4

A party’s notice of removal must contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for

5

removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). “By design, § 1446(a) tracks the general pleading requirement

6

stated in Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” and a “statement ‘short and plain’

7

need not contain evidentiary submissions.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens,

8

574 U.S. 81, 84, 87 (2014).

9

ANALYSIS

10

Here, plaintiff’s motion to remand fails to articulate any basis whatsoever to support

11

remanding this action to the Sacramento County Superior Court. Notably, in his motion to

12

remand, plaintiff does not contest that the parties are completely diverse in their citizenship or

13

that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 threshold. Rather, plaintiff’s short motion

14

provides several paragraphs of purported legal standard (Doc. No. 9), but he provides no analysis

15

or argument that defendant has failed to satisfy the legal standard for removal in this case. This

16

lackluster effort is plainly insufficient, and the filing of a such a motion leads to a waste of the

17

court’s limited resources.

18

In its opposition to the pending motion, defendant reiterates the propriety of its removal of

19

this action based on diversity jurisdiction, as stated in its notice of removal. (Doc. No. 10.)

20

Indeed, as defendant provided in its notice of removal, defendant again provides in its opposition

21

brief a thorough and reasoned analysis of the amount in controversy calculations it relies upon,

22

including addressing the mileage offsets that apply in Song Beverly Act claims and how those

23

offsets impact the calculations in this case. (Id. at 7–9.) Defendant also reiterated that it is a

24

citizen of Michigan and Delaware, whereas plaintiff is a citizen of California (id. at 9–10)—

25

citizenship allegations that were included in the notice of removal and yet were not acknowledged

26

by plaintiff, let alone contested, in plaintiff’s pending motion to remand this action.

27

In his reply, plaintiff asserts—for the first time, and in conclusory fashion—that defendant

28

failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy requirement has
3

1

been satisfied. (Doc. No. 11.) Given that defendant’s notice of removal thoroughly explained the

2

basis for its amount-in-controversy calculations, including by providing a copy of the sales

3

contract for plaintiff’s purchase of the subject vehicle, as well as an analysis of the mileage

4

offsets, plaintiff had ample opportunity to contest defendant’s assertions of diversity jurisdiction

5

in his motion to remand, yet he did not raise any such argument until his reply brief. In any

6

event, plaintiff does not meaningfully refute defendant’s amount-in-controversy allegations and

7

calculations, as set forth in the notice of removal and in defendant’s opposition to the pending

8

motion, and which suffice to satisfy the requirements for removal of this action.

9

CONCLUSION

10

For the reasons explained above, plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. No. 9) is denied.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated:

October 3, 2023
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4