JS-6 CLERK, U. CerRect COURT 2 9/3/2020 3 “ENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BY: CW DEPUTY 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SOUTHERN DIVISION 10 11 || JOSEPH THOMAS TRACY III and Case No.: SACV 20-01514-CJC(ADSx) 12 || GINA TRACY, 13 Plaintiffs, 14 ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING V. CASE TO STATE COURT

16 || HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, and 4 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

18 Defendants. jg J) 20 21 On July 15, 2020, Plaintiffs Joseph Thomas Tracy III and Gina Tracy filed this 22 action in Orange County Superior Court against Defendants Hyundai Motor America and 23 || unnamed Does. (Dkt. 1-1 [Complaint, hereinafter “Compl.’”].) Plaintiffs allege that on 24 ||July 15, 2018 they acquired a 2017 Hyundai Sonata from Defendants. (/d. 9.9.) Shortly 25 || before August 4, 2019, the vehicle began experiencing problems with the engine, “which 26 || caused the vehicle to stall and lose power upon the vehicle reaching the speed of 60 miles 27 hour.” (/d. § 11.) Plaintiffs brought the vehicle to Defendants’ authorized 28 || dealerships at least three times for repairs, but Defendants “failed and refused to repair

1 defect within a reasonable number of repair attempts.” (/d. | 12.) Plaintiffs asserts 2 ||four claims alleging breach of express and implied warranties under the Song-Beverly 3 |}Consumer Warranty Act, California Civil Code § 1790 et seq., and the Magnuson-Moss 4 || Warranty Act,

et seq. Ud.) They seek restitution, incidental and 5 ||consequential damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and civil penalties. (/d. at 6-7.) 6 7 On August 14, 2020, Defendant Hyundai Motor America removed, asserting that 8 Court has federal question jurisdiction over the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act 9 ||claims and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C §§ 1331, 10 |] 1367. A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to a federal district court 11 |{1f the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. 12 ||§ 1441. Principles of federalism and judicial economy require courts to “scrupulously 13 ||confine their [removal] jurisdiction to the precise limits which [Congress] has defined.” 14 || See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets,

(1941). Indeed, “[nJothing is 15 |]to be more jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction.” See United States v. Ceja- 16 || Prado,

(9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). The defendant 17 ||removing the action to federal court bears the burden of establishing that the district court 18 subject matter jurisdiction over the action, and the removal statute is strictly 19 |] construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 20 }| 1992). 21 22 Federal courts have a duty to examine their subject matter jurisdiction whether or 23 ||not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, 24 || Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2004) (“[A] district court's duty to establish subject 25 || matter jurisdiction is not contingent upon the parties’ arguments.”). “The court may— 26 |}indeed must—remand an action sua sponte if it determines that it lacks subject matter 27 ||jurisdiction.” GFD, LLC v. Carter,

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012). 28

l As relevant here, a federal question claim brought under the Magnuson-Moss 2 || Warranty Act requires that the amount in controversy exceeds “$50,000 (exclusive of 3 |}interests and costs) computed on the basis of all claims to be determined in this suit.”

(d)(3)(B). If the complaint does not allege that the amount in 5 ||controversy has been met, the removing defendant must allege in its notice of removal 6 || that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Dart Cherokee Basin 7 || Operating Co., LLC v. Owens,

, 87-88 (2014). 8 9 Plaintiffs do not allege a specific amount of damages. (See Compl.) At best, the 10 |} Complaint indicates the “[a]mount demanded exceeds $25,000.” (/d. at Ex. B.) Thus, 11 || from the face of the Complaint the amount in controversy is unclear and Defendant bears 12 ||the burden of establishing it has been met. In its notice of removal, Defendant fails to 13 establish that the amount in controversy exceeds the $50,000 threshold required for 14 federal question jurisdiction. (See Dkt. 1 [Notice of Removal].) Indeed, it does not 15 || address the issue at all, but references only the Complaint and its attached exhibits. 16 17 This does not satisfy Defendant’s burden to establish this Court’s removal 18 || jurisdiction, which is strictly construed against such jurisdiction. See Gaus,

The Complaint does not describe the extent of Plaintiffs’ damages, and Defendant 20 || makes no effort to describe them to the Court to help the Court evaluate whether 21 || Defendant has met its burden. According to the vehicle acquisition agreement, the total 22 ||cash price was $11,990. (Compl. at Ex. A.) Even considering the two-times damages 23 penalty under California Civil Code § 1794(c), this would not exceed the $50,000 24 || requirement. 25 26 Courts in this district have found that defendants who made a much better showing 27 || of a $50,000 amount in controversy than Defendant did here failed to meet their burden. 28 || For example, one court found that a defendant failed to show by a preponderance of the

1 ||evidence that the amount in controversy was met where the defendant presented evidence 2 the retail price of the vehicle was $22,090 which, when calculated with the maximu 3 || civil penalty, exceeded the $50,000 threshold. Limon-Gonzalez v. Kia Motors America, 4 || Inc., at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2020). Here, Defendant did not present any calculations at 5 Similarly, another court found that evidence that the plaintiff paid $30,000 was not 6 || sufficient to show the amount in controversy was met when adding civil penalties, 7 because the defendant did not address a reduction in the amount for use of the vehicle or 8 || provide evidence to support the award of civil penalties. Quinones v. FCA US LLC, 2020 9 || WL 4437482, at *1—2 (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2020). Here, Defendant provides even less 10 || information—in fact, none—than the defendants in Limon-Gonzalez or Quinones, who at 11 || least attempted to calculate the amount in controversy. 12 13 “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of 14 ||removal in the first instance.” Gaus,

. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte 15 ||, REMANDS this case to Orange County Superior Court. 16 Ke Lo 17 DATED: — September 3, 2020 a f 7 18 19 CORMAC J. CARNEY 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28