Gerber v. FCA US LLC et al
Filing
25
ORDER denying 9 , 10 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Gerber's motion to remand is DENIED. (Doc. Nos. 9, 10.) Because the Court denies his motion, Gerber's request for attorneys fees and costs is also DENIED. (Doc. No. 9-1 at 13.) The parties' requests for jurisdictional discovery are DENIED. (Id. at 12; Doc. No. 15 at 1617). Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 6/23/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(acc)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MICHAEL GERBER,
Case No.: 17-CV-0518-AJB-BGS
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND
FCA US LLC, A Delaware Limited
Liability Company; DOES 1 through 10,
Inclusive,
15
16
(Doc. Nos. 9, 10)
Defendant.
17
18
19
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Gerber’s (“Gerber”) motion to
20
remand. (Doc. Nos. 9, 10.) Defendant FCA US LLC (“FCA”) opposes the motion. (Doc.
21
No. 15.) Having reviewed the parties’ moving papers and controlling legal authority, and
22
pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1.d.1, the Court finds the matter suitable for decision on the
23
papers and without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing currently set for July 6, 2017,
24
at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 4A is hereby VACATED. For the reasons set forth below, the
25
Court DENIES Gerber’s motion.
26
BACKGROUND
27
This dispute arises from FCA’s alleged breach of warranty obligations owed to
28
Gerber for a new 2012 Jeep Grand Cherokee (“Jeep”) he purchased from FCA. Gerber
1
17-CV-0518-AJB-BGS
1
asserts FCA concealed a known defect from him, specifically, a defect with the totally
2
integrated power module (“TIPM”), which is responsible for controlling and distributing
3
electrical power to the entire vehicle. (Doc. No. 1 at 9 ¶ 4.) Based on this concealment,
4
Gerber instituted this action in San Diego Superior Court on June 30, 2016, bringing causes
5
of action for breaches of express and implied warranties in violation of California’s Song-
6
Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly Act” or “Act”), as well as a cause of
7
action for fraudulent inducement/concealment under California state common law. (Doc.
8
No. 1 at 2 ¶ 1.)
9
FCA removed the action to this Court on March 16, 2017, asserting the Court has
10
diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 1 at 1.) On April 17, 2017, Gerber filed the instant motion
11
to remand, arguing FCA has failed to carry its burden of establishing that the amount in
12
controversy exceeds $75,000 and that the parties are completely diverse. (Doc. Nos. 9, 10.)
13
FCA filed an opposition, (Doc. No. 15), and Gerber replied, (Doc. No. 20). This order
14
follows.
LEGAL STANDARD
15
16
The right to remove a case to federal court is entirely a creature of statute. See
17
Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979). The removal
18
statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, allows defendants to remove an action when a case originally
19
filed in state court presents a federal question, or is between citizens of different states and
20
involves an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), (b); 28
21
U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). Only state court actions that could originally have been filed in
22
federal court can be removed. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams,
23
482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir.
24
1988).
25
“[J]urisdiction founded on [diversity] requires that parties be in complete diversity
26
and the amount in controversy exceed $75,000.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins.
27
Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
28
Complete diversity requires that the plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from that of each
2
17-CV-0518-AJB-BGS
1
named defendant. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)(1), 1332(c)(1); Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S.
2
61, 68 n.3 (1996). Whether or not complete diversity is present is determined at the time
3
of removal. See Am. Dental Indus., Inc. v. EAX Worldwide, Inc., 228 F. Supp. 2d 1155,
4
1157 (D. Or. 2002) (citing St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283,
5
(1938)).
6
The Ninth Circuit “strictly construe[s] the removal statute against removal
7
jurisdiction,” and “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right
8
of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per
9
curiam) (citations omitted). “The ‘strong presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means
10
that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Id.; see
11
also McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., Inc., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936) (finding that
12
the removing party must prove its allegations by a preponderance of the evidence). The
13
Court takes this proof from the notice of removal and may, if it chooses, construe the
14
opposition to the motion to remand as an amendment to the notice of removal. See Cohn v.
15
Petsmart Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 840 n.1 (9th Cir. 2002).
DISCUSSION
16
17
Gerber argues four points that he contends require remand of this action to California
18
state court: (1) FCA’s amount-in-controversy calculation ignores California state law; (2)
19
FCA, as a limited liability company (“LLC”), has not established the citizenship of its
20
foreign member, nor has it established Gerber’s citizenship; (3) comity dictates that this
21
case be remanded to state court; and (4) FCA’s failure to attach all pleadings that were filed
22
in state court render FCA’s removal procedurally improper. (Doc. Nos. 9, 10, 20.) The
23
Court will consider each argument in turn.
24
I.
Amount in Controversy
25
In his complaint, Gerber seeks, inter alia, “reimbursement of the price paid for the
26
[Jeep] less that amount directly attributable to use by the Plaintiff prior to discovery of the
27
nonconformities” and “a civil penalty of up to two times the amount of actual damages in
28
that FCA [] has willfully failed to comply with its responsibilities under the [Song-Beverly]
3
17-CV-0518-AJB-BGS
1
Act.” (Doc. No. 1 at 31 ¶¶ 145, 148.) Gerber asserts that FCA has not proven the amount
2
in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Doc. No. 9-1 at 7–10; Doc. No. 20 at 7–8.)
3
Gerber contends FCA’s notice of removal improperly relies on an approximation of
4
the cash price, but offers no explanation as to why this number is the proper figure to base
5
the amount-in-controversy calculation on. (Doc. No. 9-1 at 8–9.) In response, FCA points
6
to the retail installment sale contract (“RISC”), attached to the complaint, as well as FCA
7
warranty claim reports, documents upon which it bases its calculation that the actual
8
damages at issue are $38,629.50. (Doc. No. 15 at 12–14.)
9
California Civil Code section 1793.2(d)(2)(B) defines “restitution” in relevant part
10
as “an amount equal to the actual price paid or payable by the buyer, . . . including any
11
collateral charges such as sales or use tax, license fees, registration fees, and other official
12
fees[.]” Section 1793.2(d)(2)(C) goes on to permit the defendant to reduce the amount
13
payable to the buyer “by that amount directly attributable to use by the buyer prior to the
14
time the buyer first delivered the vehicle to the manufacturer or distributor, or its authorized
15
service and repair facility for correction of the problem that gave rise to the
16
nonconformity.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(d)(2)(C).
17
The complaint does not allege the total amount sought with respect to these damages.
18
However, as noted, the RISC is attached to the complaint. (Doc. No. 1 at 36.) The RISC
19
lists the total cash price as $45,022.73. (Id.) FCA predicates its actual damages analysis on
20
this figure. (Doc. No. 15 at 12; see Doc. No. 1 at 4 ¶ 19.) Given that the statute permits
21
Gerber to recover collateral charges, which FCA did not use in its amount-in-controversy
22
calculation, the Court finds FCA’s use of the total cash price conservatively estimates “the
23
actual price paid or payable by” Gerber.
24
As noted above, however, this figure does not end the inquiry. Rather, the restitution
25
awardable under section 1793.2(d)(2)(B) must be reduced by the amount directly
26
attributable to Gerber’s use of the Jeep prior to the first repair or attempted repair. This set-
27
off amount is determined by multiplying the “actual price of the new motor vehicle paid or
28
payable by the buyer . . . by a fraction having as its denominator 120,000 and having as its
4
17-CV-0518-AJB-BGS
1
numerator the number of miles traveled by the new motor vehicle prior to the time the
2
buyer delivered the vehicle” for correction of the problem. Cal. Civ. Code §
3
1793.2(d)(2)(C).
4
The complaint does not include the Jeep’s mileage when Gerber took it to the
5
dealership for the first relevant repair. Rather, the complaint lists April 29, 2013, as the
6
date he “delivered the [Jeep] to an authorized FCA [] repair facility for repair.” (Doc. No.
7
1 at 23 ¶ 95.) On that date, the Jeep had 17,082 miles on it. (Doc. No. 15-1 ¶ 10; Doc. No.
8
15-9 at 3.) When Gerber purchased the Jeep, it had 42 miles on its odometer. (Doc. No. 1
9
at 36.) Accordingly, the Court finds FCA has presented sufficient evidence to establish it
10
is more likely than not that the mileage attributable to Gerber’s use, for purposes of the
11
instant motion, is 17,040. Utilizing the formula provided by section 1793.2(d)(2)(C), this
12
results in a mileage offset of $6393.23, which reduces the actual damages at issue to
13
$38,629.50.
14
This does not end the inquiry either. In the complaint, Gerber also seeks civil
15
penalties. (Doc. No. 1 at 31 ¶ 148.) California Civil Code section 1794(c) and (e) permits
16
a buyer to recover a civil penalty not to exceed two times the amount of actual damages
17
where the buyer establishes the defendant’s failure to comply with the Song-Beverly Act
18
is willful. “Courts[,] as a matter of law, calculate the amount in controversy based upon the
19
maximum amount of civil penalties available to plaintiff.” Garcia v. FCA US, LLC, No.
20
1:16-cv-00730-DAD-BAM, 2016 WL 4445337, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2016) (quoting
21
Saulic v. Symantec Corp., No. SA 07-cv-00610-AHS-PLAx, 2007 WL 5074883, at *4
22
(C.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 2007)); see also Chabner v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 225 F.3d
23
1042, 1046 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting district courts can consider treble damages where
24
authorized by statute). Here, the Act permits recovery of up to two times actual damages.
25
Because Gerber “is seeking recovery from a pot that [FCA] has shown could exceed
26
[$75,000] and [Gerber] has neither acknowledged nor sought to establish that the []
27
recovery is potentially any less,” the Court finds inclusion of a full civil penalty award is
28
appropriate. Lewis v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 401 (9th Cir. 2010); see also
5
17-CV-0518-AJB-BGS
1
id. at 401 (“Once the proponent of federal jurisdiction has explained plausibly how the
2
stakes exceed [the amount in controversy], . . . then the case belongs in federal court unless
3
it is legally impossible for the plaintiff to recover that much.” (quoting Spivey v. Vertrue,
4
Inc., 528 F.3d 982, 986 (7th Cir. 2008))).
5
As determined above, the actual damages figure at issue is $38,629.50. When
6
trebled, the amount in controversy, exclusive of incidental and consequential damages,
7
finance charges, and attorney’s fees and costs, is $115,888.50. Because this figure exceeds
8
the jurisdictional threshold, the Court finds FCA has carried its burden as to the amount in
9
controversy. Garcia, 2016 WL 4445337, at *4.
10
II.
Diversity of Citizenship
11
Gerber next argues that FCA, as an LLC, has failed to establish the citizenship of its
12
foreign member. (Doc. No. 9-1 at 10–12; Doc. No. 20 at 4–6.) Gerber also asserts FCA has
13
failed to establish Gerber’s citizenship. (Doc. No. 20 at 3–4.) In opposition, FCA asks the
14
Court to consider Book 2 of the Dutch Civil Code, Article 2:64-1, which states that “[a]n
15
Open Corporation (‘naamloze vennootschap’) is a legal person . . . .” (Doc. No. 15 at 6–
16
10.) FCA argues that its ultimate owner is a naamloze vennotschap (“N.V.”); accordingly,
17
FCA is a citizen of the Netherlands and thus diverse from Gerber. (Id.)
18
Removal based on diversity requires that the citizenship of each plaintiff be diverse
19
from the citizenship of each defendant (e.g., complete diversity). Caterpillar Inc., 519 U.S.
20
at 68. For purposes of diversity, an LLC is a citizen of every state in which its
21
“owners/members” are citizens. Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d
22
894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that courts are to treat LLCs like partnerships, which
23
have the citizenships of all of their members). “Section 1332(a)(2) applies to foreign legal
24
entities of all kinds, so long as the entity is considered a juridical person under the law that
25
created it.” Cohn v. Rosenfeld, 733 F.2d 625, 629 (9th Cir. 1984). A “juridical person” is
26
an “entity, such as a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights and duties
27
of a human being[.]” Black’s Law Dictionary 979, 1324–25 (10th ed. 2014). Factors
28
relevant to whether an entity is a juridical person include the entity’s ability to sue and be
6
17-CV-0518-AJB-BGS
1
sued in its own name, whether any recovery in such litigation becomes an asset of the
2
entity, and whether the laws of the foreign country recognize the entity as a legally
3
independent organized enterprise. Cohn, 733 F.2d at 629.
4
In the notice of removal and accompanying declaration, FCA explained it is an LLC
5
organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. (Doc. No. 1 at 3 ¶ 11; Doc. No. 1-2 ¶
6
2.) Its sole member is FCA North American Holding LLC, also a limited liability company
7
organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. (Doc. No. 1 at 3 ¶ 11; Doc. No. 1-2 ¶
8
3.) In turn, FCA North American Holding LLC’s sole member is Fiat Chrysler
9
Automobiles, N.V. (“Fiat N.V.”), which is a publicly traded company incorporated under
10
the laws of the Netherlands with its principal place of business in London, England. (Doc.
11
No. 1 at 3 ¶ 11; Doc. No. 1-2 ¶ 4.)
12
It is Fiat N.V.’s citizenship that Gerber contends FCA has failed to establish by a
13
preponderance of evidence. Specifically, Gerber asserts Kris Krueger’s declaration fails to
14
establish that Fiat N.V. is a juridical person under the laws of the Netherlands because the
15
Krueger declaration is conclusory, contains improper legal conclusions, lacks foundation,
16
and lacks any documentary evidence. (Doc. No. 9-1 at 12; see Doc. No. 9-3.)
17
The Court overrules Gerber’s objections. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1
18
provides, “In determining foreign law, the court may consider any relevant material or
19
source, including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under the
20
Federal Rules of Evidence.” As such, FCA’s evidence need not pass muster under the
21
Federal Rules of Evidence to be considered on the instant motion.1 Having considered
22
Krueger’s declaration, along with Scott Shepardson’s declaration and the accompanying
23
translation of the Dutch Civil Code provided, the Court is satisfied that FCA has proven it
24
25
26
27
For this reason, the Court DENIES Gerber’s request for jurisdictional discovery. (Doc.
No. 9-1 at 12.)
1
28
7
17-CV-0518-AJB-BGS
1
is more likely than not a citizen of the Netherlands.2 The Dutch Civil Code provides that
2
an N.V. is a “legal person” that can, inter alia, be held jointly and severally liable for its
3
directors’ juridical acts. (Doc. No. 15-2 at 2, 5.) The Court’s conclusion is in keeping with
4
those of other courts, finding N.V.s to be foreign entities. See Garcia, 2016 WL 4445337,
5
at *3 (finding FCA “adequately asserted and established that [Fiat N.V.] is a juridical
6
person under the laws of Netherlands and that [FCA] is not a citizen of California”);
7
Ibrahim v. Titan Corp., 391 F. Supp. 2d 10, 20 (D.D.C. 2005) (dismissing foreign
8
plaintiffs’ claims against defendant N.V. because 28 U.S.C. § 1332 “does not confer
9
jurisdiction over suits by a group consisting of only foreign persons against another foreign
10
person”).
11
Gerber further asserts that remand is appropriate because FCA has failed to establish
12
that Gerber is a citizen of California. (Doc. No. 20 at 3–4.) In the notice of removal, FCA
13
stated Gerber is a citizen and resident of California. (Doc. No. 1 at 3 ¶ 10.) That statement
14
references the complaint, which simply states that Gerber “is an individual residing in the
15
City of San Diego, County of San Diego, and State of California.” (Id. at 9 ¶ 1.) Gerber
16
argues that because the complaint does not allege that he is a citizen of California, and
17
because the notice of removal relies on the complaint, FCA has failed to prove Gerber’s
18
citizenship for purposes of removal. (Doc. No. 20 at 3–4.)
19
If the record contained only the information Gerber asserts it does, the Court would
20
agree. “The natural person’s state citizenship is [] determined by her state of domicile, not
21
her state of residence. A person’s domicile is her permanent home, where she resides with
22
the intention to remain or to which she intends to return. A person residing in a given state
23
is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a citizen of that state.” Kanter
24
25
26
27
28
2
Gerber also raises evidentiary objections to the Shepardson declaration. (Doc. No. 20-4.)
First, Gerber’s filing violates the undersigned’s Civil Case Procedures, which require that
objections relating to the motion be set forth in the party’s opposition or reply. Second, the
Court OVERRULES the objections based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1.
8
17-CV-0518-AJB-BGS
1
v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). However,
2
while Gerber stated in the complaint that he is a resident of California, the civil cover sheet
3
clarifies that Gerber is also a California citizen. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 1.) In Item III, Gerber
4
indicated he is a citizen of this (e.g., California) state. (Id.) In the absence of any evidence
5
or argument to the contrary, the record supports finding it is more likely than not that
6
Gerber is a citizen of California. See Lastra v. PHH Mortg. Corp., No. 10cv2573–LAB
7
(BLM), 2011 WL 768135, at *1 n.2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2011) (noting that defendant
8
intended to allege plaintiff is a citizen of California given that the civil cover sheet
9
identifies plaintiff as such). In sum, the Court finds FCA has carried its burden of
10
establishing diversity jurisdiction.
11
III.
Gerber’s Remaining Arguments
12
Gerber’s final arguments do not alter the foregoing conclusions. Gerber asserts that
13
the Court should decline jurisdiction on comity principles because this case involves
14
“consideration of numerous state-specific issues on sensitive, uniquely state-law issues of
15
regulation and statutory interpretation.” (Doc. No. 9-1 at 4–6.) As a federal district court
16
located within the State of California, this is not the Court’s first case dealing with claims
17
predicated on the Song-Beverly Act or similar California state consumer protection laws.
18
As such, the Court is confident in its ability to faithfully interpret and apply California state
19
law to the issues of this case. While the Court is cognizant that Gerber has litigated this
20
case for several months in state court, Gerber should rest assured that this district seeks to
21
move cases quickly in keeping with the spirit of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. The
22
Court therefore declines to remand this case based upon principles of comity.
23
Gerber lastly contends that FCA’s removal of this action was procedurally improper
24
for FCA’s failure to attach certain pleadings to its notice of removal. (Doc. No. 9-1 at 13.)
25
Gerber cites no authority to support this position. In fact, the weight of authority provides
26
that the Court should not remand for defects in the removal procedure where the pleadings
27
that are attached to the notice of removal provide the Court with sufficient information
28
from which it can evaluate whether federal jurisdiction exists. See, e.g., Kuxhausen v. BMW
9
17-CV-0518-AJB-BGS
1
Fin. Servs. NA LLC, 707 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2013) (construing defendant’s failure
2
to attach original complaint to notice of removal as a “de minimis procedural defect [that]
3
was curable even after expiration of the thirty-day removal period” (citation and internal
4
quotation marks omitted)); Romero v. Tornier Med. Grp. N.V., No. SA CV 16-1060-DOC
5
(JCGx), 2016 WL 3749695, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 13, 2016) (“To the extent Plaintiff is
6
arguing the case should be remanded because Defendant failed to attach the motion to
7
consolidate, that argument fails.”). Furthermore, FCA’s failure is easily remedied by FCA
8
filing those pleadings on this Court’s docket.3 Accordingly, the Court declines to remand
9
the case on this basis.
CONCLUSION
10
11
Based on the foregoing, Gerber’s motion to remand is DENIED. (Doc. Nos. 9, 10.)
12
Because the Court denies his motion, Gerber’s request for attorney’s fees and costs is also
13
DENIED. (Doc. No. 9-1 at 13.) The parties’ requests for jurisdictional discovery are
14
DENIED. (Id. at 12; Doc. No. 15 at 16–17.)
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
Dated: June 23, 2017
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3
28
Gerber attempted to file these documents as exhibits to his motion to remand; however,
all he attached were the exhibits cover sheets. (Doc. Nos. 9-4, 9-5.)
10
17-CV-0518-AJB-BGS
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?