Leonard v. Nissan North America Inc et al

Filing 17

JURISDICTIONAL REVIEW FINDING: Considering the foregoing, the undersigned concludes that jurisdiction is established in this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol B Whitehurst on 1/28/2021. (crt,Chicola, C)

Case 6:20-cv-00377-RRS-CBW Document 17 Filed 01/28/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 67

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
Velma Renee Leonard

Civil Action No. 6:20-00377

versus

Judge Summerhays

Nissan North America, Inc., et al.

Magistrate Judge Carol B. Whitehurst

JURISDICTIONAL REVIEW FINDINGS
In this matter filed directly in this Court, the plaintiff alleges that this Court
has jurisdiction over this matter because the parties are diverse in citizenship and
the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000.00. The
plaintiff also argues her claims give rise to federal question jurisdiction under the
Magnusson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301, et seq.
The record shall reflect that this Court has conducted a review of the
pleadings. Although the plaintiff alleges that diversity jurisdiction exists, a review
of the pleadings shows that it does not. The plaintiff is a citizen of Louisiana,
while defendant Nissan North America, Inc. is a California corporation with its
principal place of business in Tennessee, and defendant Giles Automotive, Inc. is a
Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Lafayette, Louisiana.
Therefore, complete diversity does not exist.

Case 6:20-cv-00377-RRS-CBW Document 17 Filed 01/28/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 68

Nevertheless, the parties agree that federal question jurisdiction exists in this
case under the Magnusson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301, et seq. The
MMWA grants federal courts jurisdiction to hear claims for breach of express and
implied warranty with the following limitation:
No claim shall be cognizable in a suit brought [in federal court] ... if
the amount in controversy is less than the sum or value of $50,000
(exclusive of interests and costs) computed on the basis of all claims
to be determined in this suit....
15 U.S.C. §2310(d)(3).

Accordingly, federal question jurisdiction under the

MMWA is limited to breach-of-warranty claims for which the amount in
controversy is at least $50,000. In Scarlott v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 771 F.3d 883,
887–88 (5th Cir. 2014), the Fifth Circuit recognized several limitations in
calculating the amount in controversy under the MMWA. First, personal injury
damages for breach of warranty, which are not recoverable under the MMWA,
may not be counted to satisfy the jurisdictional amount.

Boelens v. Redman

Homes, Inc, 748 F.2d 1058, 1069 (5th. Cir. 1984). Second, attorneys’ fees may not
be used to satisfy the jurisdictional amount, because the MMWA requires that the
amount in controversy be calculated “exclusive of interests and costs.” Id.; see
also Samuel–Bassett v. KIA Motors Am., Inc., 357 F.3d 392, 402 (3rd Cir.2004)
(“Nor may attorneys’ fees be considered in calculating the jurisdictional amount.”).
Finally, damages for any pendent state-law claims should not be included to satisfy
the jurisdictional amount. Boelens, 748 F.2d at 1071 n. 19.

Case 6:20-cv-00377-RRS-CBW Document 17 Filed 01/28/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 69

In the instant matter, the undersigned concludes that the plaintiff has
asserted breach of warranty claims that fall under the Act.

Additionally, the

$50,000 minimum amount in controversy under the MMWA is established, given
that the purchase price of the vehicle in question -- $50,598 -- is sought as the first
item of damages.
Considering the foregoing, the undersigned concludes that jurisdiction is
established in this case.
Thus done and signed in Lafayette, Louisiana this 28th day of January 2021.