Robert Garcia V Fca Us Llc

Key Facts

Transaction Type

Issues

• The court analyzed whether civil penalties under the Song-Beverly Act could be included in the amount in controversy calculation, examining whether Plaintiff's willfulness allegation and prayer for relief satisfied the jurisdictional threshold for diversity jurisdiction.
• The court assessed whether Defendant's mileage use offset calculation of $2,713.84 was accurate and sufficient to establish the amount in controversy, given the uncertainty around the date of first material repair and lack of supporting evidence from repair orders.
• The court evaluated whether attorney's fees could be considered in the amount in controversy calculation, finding Defendant's evidence insufficient to support the inclusion of projected fees despite Ninth Circuit precedent allowing such consideration.
• The court determined whether Plaintiff's complaint request for 'an amount not less than $35,001' referred to actual damages or total damages, and whether the Retail Installment Sales Contract provided competent proof of actual damages under Song-Beverly Act jurisdictional requirements for diversity jurisdiction.

Holdings

Remedies

• The court granted Plaintiff's motion to remand the case back to Kings County Superior Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and directed the Clerk of Court to effectuate the remand.
• The court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss as moot, as the case was remanded to state court.

Contract Value

Legal Principles

• The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2) provides consumers with the right to restitution when a vehicle fails to conform to warranty terms after reasonable repair attempts. Buyers may recover actual damages equal to the price paid, with a use offset deduction for vehicle use before first repair. The Act also provides for civil penalties up to two times actual damages if the manufacturer or seller willfully violated the Act. Civil penalties are properly included in determining the amount in controversy when the plaintiff alleges willful conduct and requests double the actual damages.
• Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446, when a defendant removes a case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, they must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory minimum. The party seeking removal must support jurisdictional allegations with competent proof and cannot rely on mere speculation. When the plaintiff's complaint does not contain specific damages, the defendant bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory amount. The court may consider the complaint, notice of removal, and opposition to remand when evaluating the amount in controversy.

Precedent Name

• Villegas v. Ford Motor Co.
• West v. FCA US LLC
• Lewis v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc.
• Gutierrez v. Ford Motor Co.
• Hernandez v. FCA US LLC
• Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC
• Quinonez v. FCA US LLC
• McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Indiana

Cited Statute

• Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(d)
• Cal. Civ. Code § 1791.1(c)
• Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(c)
• 28 U.S.C. § 1446
• 28 U.S.C. § 1447
• California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
• 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)

Judge Name

Passage Text

• Defendant removed this case based on diversity jurisdiction, (Doc. 1 at 2), and Plaintiff challenges only the jurisdictional amount, (Doc. 12-1 at 10-22). In evaluating AIC, courts first 'consider whether it is facially apparent from the complaint that the jurisdictional amount is in controversy.' Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 690 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). When the plaintiff's complaint 'does not contain any specific amount of damages sought, the party seeking removal... bears the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory amount.' Lewis v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 397 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). The AIC is 'an estimate of the total amount in dispute, not a prospective assessment of defendant's liability.' Id. at 400.
• Without more information regarding the September 11, 2015, repair date, this Court cannot reasonably determine 'the time the buyer first delivered the vehicle . . . for correction of the problem that gave rise to the nonconformity.' Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(d)(2)(C). There are no facts indicating Plaintiff delivered his vehicle for repair of a material defect covered by a warranty on that date. (See Doc. 1 at 6 n.1.) If instead Plaintiff presented his vehicle for 'normal or scheduled maintenance' or for 'damage caused by poor or improper maintenance,' such repair would not be covered by the warranty, (Doc. 1-3 at 33), and the selected repair date would not serve as an accurate measure for Plaintiff's use offset since it would not constitute a 'nonconformity.' Absent these details, the Court cannot reasonably determine whether the use offset reduces the AIC to a level below the jurisdictional minimum. Accordingly, Defendant fails to meet its burden to show actual damages reach $37,270 in restitution.
• Because the number of actual damages is uncertain, the number of civil penalties is equally uncertain. West, 2024 WL 3298911, at *6. Defendant therefore failed to satisfy its burden of proof required to include civil penalties in the jurisdictional amount. West, 2024 WL 3298911, at *6. Additionally, Defendant's lump sum estimate does not delineate the amount of time major tasks will take or approximate the hourly billing rate. Newsome, 2022 WL 408631, at *6. Defendant's bare comparison to a separate 'similar' case fails to establish the estimated attorney's fees in this case. Nor does it meet the threshold of evidentiary support that typically allows for the inclusion of fees.

Damages / Relief Type

• Civil penalty of up to two times Plaintiff's actual damages, and attorney's fees commonly exceeding $25,000 in Song-Beverly cases
• Restitution in an amount not less than $35,001, which Plaintiff argues refers to actual damages equal to the price paid for the vehicle ($37,258), plus civil penalty of two times actual damages
• General, special, and actual damages, replacement or reimbursement, cover damages, incidental and consequential damages, prejudgment interest, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees