Opinion
2:24-cv-04158-RGK-MAR
05-22-2024
William Edwards v. Mercedes Benz USA LLC el al.
Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause Re: Amount in Controversy [DE 1]
On April 9, 2024, William Edwards (“Plaintiff') filed a Complaint against Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Defendant”) in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Cal. Civ. Code § § 1790, et seq.) and other related state claims. Plaintiff s allegations arise fr om his purchase of a 2021 Mercedes-Benz Sprinter vehicle (the “Vehicle”) manufactured by Defendant. On May 17, 2024, Defendant timely removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1.)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a district court shall have original jruisdiction over any civil action where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 and is between citizens of different States. After a plaintiff files an action in state court, the defendant attempting to remove the action bears the burden of proving the amount in controversy requirement has been met. Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC, 899 F.3d 785, 793 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Urbino v. Orkin Servs. of Cal., Inc., 726 F.3d 1118, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2013)).
Courts must “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jruisdiction” and remand an action “if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). However, “[w]hen a notice of r emoval plausibly alleges a basis for federal court jruisdiction, a district court may not remand the case back to state court without first giving the defendant an opportunity to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional requirements are satisfied.” Arias v. Residence Inn, 936 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir . 2019). “A shortcoming in a notice of removal concerning the amount in controversy is not jurisdictional. . . until the movant has an opportunity to correct any perceived deficiency in the notice,” and the notice need not in and of itself prove that the district court has jruisdiction. Acad, of Country Music v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 991 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir . 2021).
Plaintiff seeks replacement or restitution for all money paid, civil penalties, and attorneys' fees, among other remedies under the Song-Beverly Act. hi the Notice of Removal, Defendant asserts that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. According to Defendant, the value of the Vehicle, combined with the civil penalties and attorneys' fees Plaintiff seeks exceeds $75,000.
Defendant, however, fails to plausibly allege that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Although Plaintiff purchased the vehicle for $84,140, the vehicle was purchased under an installment contract set to be hilly paid by 2026. Furthermore, while civil penalties and attorneys' fees are available for willful failure to comply with the Act, Defendant has not offered any evidence to support such an award. The Court declines to speculate as to what this award might be.
Accordingly, the Corul ORDERS Defendant to show cause in writing why the jurisdictional requirements are or are not satisfied. Such a response shall not exceed five pages and must be submitted within fourteen days of this Order's issuance.
IT IS SO ORDERED.