1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 10 11 Pablo Astudillo-Bautista et al., 12 2:20-cv-07618-VAP-MRWx Plaintiffs,

13 v. Order DENYING Motion to 14 Remand (Dkt. 10) Ford Motor Company,

15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiffs Pablo and Sualo Astudillo-Barrera filed a Motion to Remand 19 (“Motion”) on September 29, 2020. (Dkt. 10). Defendant Ford Motor 20 Company filed an Opposition on October 12, 2020 (Dkt. 11), and Plaintiff 21 replied on October 19, 2020 (Dkt. 12). 22 23 After considering all the papers filed in support of, and in opposition 24 to, the Motion, the Court deems this matter appropriate for resolution 25 without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7-15. The Court DENIES the 26 Motion. 1 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in the California Superior Court, Los 3 Angeles County, on July 7, 2020, asserting two claims under California’s 4 Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act relating to their purchase of a 2018 5 Ford Mustang. (See Dkt. 1-1, ¶ 5 “Complaint”). Defendant removed the 6 action to federal court on August 21, 2020. (Dkt. 1, “Notice of Removal”). 7 Plaintiffs now seek to remand to state court, arguing that Defendant’s 8 removal failed to establish the amount in controversy requirement for federal 9 subject matter jurisdiction. (See generally Dkt. 10). 10 11 II. LEGAL STANDARD 12 Under

(a), a civil action may be removed to the 13 district court where the action is pending if the district court has original 14 jurisdiction over the action. A district court has diversity jurisdiction over any 15 civil action between citizens of different states if the amount in controversy 16 exceeds $75,000, excluding interest and costs.1

. “[T]he 17 amount in controversy includes damages (compensatory, punitive, or 18 otherwise), the costs of complying with an injunction, and attorneys’ fees 19 awarded under fee-shifting statutes or contract.” Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. 20 of Ariz., LLC,

(9th Cir. 2018). 21 22 Generally, a defendant must file a notice of removal within 30 days 23 after receipt of the first pleading in the state action that sets forth a 24 removable claim.

(b)(1). Where removability is uncertain, 25

26 1 Plaintiffs do not challenge diversity of citizenship. (See generally Dkt. 10). 2 1 the 30-day period is measured from the point at which defendant had notice 2 that the action is removable.

(b)(3). 3 4 “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking 5 removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal 6 jurisdiction.” Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc.,

(9th 7 Cir. 1999), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Abrego 8 Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2006). There is 9 a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, and federal jurisdiction 10 “must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first 11 instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (citation 12 omitted). A “defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal 13 is proper.”

“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the 14 district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 15

(c). 16 17 III. DISCUSSION 18 Plaintiffs contend the Notice of Removal fails to allege an amount in 19 controversy greater than $75,000. Defendant responds that the amount in 20 controversy is apparent from the face of the Complaint. (Dkt. 11, at 8). The 21 Court agrees with Defendant. 22 23 Paragraph 13 of the Complaint states: 24 25 The amount in controversy exceeds TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS. ($25,000.00), exclusive of interest 26 and costs, for which Plaintiff seeks judgment against 3 Defendants, together with equitable relief. In addition, Plaintiff 1 seeks damages from Defendants, and each of them, for 2 incidental, consequential, exemplary, and actual damages including interest, costs, and actual attorneys’ fees. 3 4 5 (Dkt. No. 1-1) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs’ allegations mirror the plaintiff’s 6 allegation in Bernstein v. BMW of N. Am.,

(N.D. Cal. May 7 15, 2018) where the court held that the amount in controversy was apparent 8 from the face of the plaintiff’s complaint. 9 10 Similar to the plaintiff in that case, in addition to the $25,000 at issue, 11 Plaintiffs seek (among other things) incidental, consequential, exemplary, 12 and actual damages, plus attorneys’ fees and costs. Exemplary damages 13 would include the civil penalties Plaintiffs seek up to two times the amount of 14 Plaintiffs’ actual damages; twice Plaintiffs’ $25,000 alleged damages would 15 total $50,000, bringing the potential damages to $75,000, not including 16 attorney’s fees. Thus, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 is 17 evident from the face of the Complaint. See also McDonald v. BMW of N. 18 Am., LLC,

, at *1-2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2017) (“The 19 complaint states that Plaintiff’s damages exceed $25,000, and prays for 20 actual damages, statutory penalties of two times actual damages, attorney’s 21 fees and punitive damages … BMW []could have multiplied $25,001 (the 22 minimum amount of damages alleged in the complaint) by three to 23 determine that Plaintiff seeks, at a minimum, in excess of $75,000, not 24 including attorney’s fees or punitive damages.”). Plaintiffs make no effort to 25 distinguish the Bernstein and McDonald decisions from this case. 26 4 1 Plaintiffs do not argue that $25,000 stands for Plaintiff’s total 2 damages. Indeed, Plaintiffs argue the exact opposite. See Cox v. Kia 3 Motors Am.,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2020) (reasoning 4 that the court denied a motion to remand in a prior auto warranty case 5 because the plaintiff in that case alleged that “‘[t]he amount in controversy 6 exceeds TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00),’ and that in 7 addition the plaintiff sought damages ‘for incidental, consequential, 8 exemplary, and actual damages including interest, costs, and actual 9 attorneys’ fees.’ The plaintiff did not argue … that the $25,000 figure 10 alleged in the complaint encompassed all damages and civil penalties at 11 issue, and in fact he made allegations expressly to the contrary.”); compare 12 with Bourland v. Ford Motor Co., No. 5:19-cv-08456-EJD,

5797915, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2020) (granting motion to remand where 14 plaintiffs made no mention in the body of their complaint of excluding 15 interests and costs, “and do not mention seeking ‘exemplary’ damages as 16 well as attorneys’ fees separately.”); see also Feichtmann v. FCA US LLC, 17 No. 5:20-cv-01790-EJD,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2020) 18 (“In the absence of any contradictory allegations in the Complaint, the Court 19 accepts Plaintiff’s explanation that the $25,001.00 figure represents the 20 combined total of actual damages and civil penalties.”). 21 22 “[W]hen a complaint filed in state court alleges on its face an amount 23 in controversy sufficient to meet the federal jurisdictional threshold, such 24 requirement is presumptively satisfied unless it appears to a ‘legal certainty’ 25 that the plaintiff cannot actually recover that amount.” Sanchez v. 26 Monumental Life Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 1996). As it does 5 | | not appear “to a ‘legal certainty’ that the plaintiff cannot actually recover the 2 | amount sought here, the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. 3 4 IV. CONCLUSION 5 The Court therefore DENIES the Motion to Remand. 6 7 | ITIS SO ORDERED. * | Dated: — 10/27/20 Vigne A, es 10 Virginia A. Phillips E United States District Judge 12

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26