Van Horn v. General Motors, LLC

Filing 35

ORDER Granting Leave to File Amended Complaint; denying as moot 11 Motion to Dismiss; denying 18 Motion to Remand. Amended Complaint due by 4/17/2024. Signed by Judge P. Casey Pitts on 3/27/2024.(nmc, COURT USER) (Filed on 3/27/2024)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
STACY WINTER VAN HORN,

7

Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

GENERAL MOTORS, LLC,

10

Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 23-cv-04320-PCP
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
DENYING MOTION TO REMAND
Re: Dkt. Nos. 11, 18

12
Plaintiff Stacy Van Horn purchased an electric Chevrolet Bolt from defendant General

13
14

Motors LLC (GM) in October 2020. In her complaint, she makes identical allegations against GM

15

as plaintiff Corey Ching in Ching v. General Motors LLC, No. 23-cv-04442. GM again moves to

16

dismiss two claims in the complaint for failing to plead fraud with particularity under Federal Rule

17

of Civil Procedure 9(b), and Van Horn requests leave to amend her complaint in response. For the

18

same reasons discussed in Ching, Dkt. No. 33 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2024), the Court grants Van

19

Horn’s request for leave to file an amended complaint, which must be filed within 21 days of this

20

Order.1 The sufficiency of Van Horn’s allegations of fraud will best be addressed after Van Horn

21

has filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, GM’s motion to dismiss is denied as moot without

22

prejudice to its arguments in any subsequent motion to dismiss Van Horn’s amended complaint.
Van Horn separately moves to remand the case to state court, arguing that this Court does

23
24

not have subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. “If at any time before final judgment it

25
26
27
28

1

In granting leave to amend, the Court orders Van Horn to address the deficiencies identified by
Judge Chhabria in an order dismissing three nearly identical cases against GM in this District.
Singh et al. v. General Motors LLC, No. 23-cv-06702, Dkt. No. 24 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2024);
Nieuwboer v. General Motors LLC, No. 24-cv-00137, Dkt. No. 17 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2024);
Jackson v. General Motors LLC, No. 24-cv-00229, Dkt. No. 18 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2024).

1

appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28

2

U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The party invoking the removal statute bears the burden of establishing federal

3

jurisdiction.” Ethridge v. Harbor House Restaurant, 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988). Because

4

this civil action was removed to federal court by defendant GM under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), GM

5

bears the burden of establishing this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires complete diversity, meaning that all

7

persons or associations on one side of the controversy (i.e., all plaintiffs) are citizens of different

8

states from all persons or associations on the other side (i.e., all defendants). Strawbridge v.

9

Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806). A corporation is a citizen of both the state in which it is incorporated

10

and the state in which it has its principal place of business—the corporation’s “nerve center.” See

11

Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 81 (2010). To establish diversity jurisdiction, the amount in

12

controversy must also exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

13

The Court has diversity jurisdiction over this case. First, the complete diversity

14

requirement is met because plaintiff Van Horn is a resident of California while defendant GM is

15

incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Michigan. Second, the amount

16

in controversy exceeds $75,000 because Van Horn is seeking replacement of her vehicle (the retail

17

price of which was $38,371) or restitution (of the $39,254 Van Horn paid for the vehicle including

18

lease payments) as well as a civil penalty under the Song-Beverly Act in an amount equal to twice

19

her damages. The amount in controversy is thus well above $75,000. See Chavez v. JPMorgan

20

Chase & Co., 888 F.3d 413, 418 (9th Cir. 2018) (“[T]he amount in controversy includes all relief

21

claimed at the time of removal to which the plaintiff would be entitled if she prevails.”). Notably,

22

this calculation does not include Van Horn’s requested punitive damages or attorneys’ fees and

23

costs under the Song-Beverly Act. Id. at 416 (“The amount in controversy may include damages

24

(compensatory, punitive, or otherwise) and the cost of complying with an injunction, as well as

25

attorneys’ fees awarded under fee shifting statutes.”); Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 945

26

(9th Cir. 2001) (“It is well established that punitive damages are part of the amount in controversy

27

in a civil action.”).

28
2

1
2
3
4

Because the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit, Van Horn’s motion to
remand this case to state court is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 27, 2024

5
6
P. Casey Pitts
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3