1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4 5 CARI LANGE, 6 Plaintiff, No. C 20-04266 WHA 7 Vv. 8 || FCAUSLLC, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 Defendant. REMAND 10 TO 11 In this motion to remand an individual, non-class, automobile “Lemon Law” suit, 12 plaintiff did not name the in-state car dealership as a defendant, so we turn to the amount in 13 controversy. We presume remand, but a defendant may remove to federal court a case with 14 complete diversity and more than $75,000 in controversy.

, 1441; See 3 15 Hunter v. Philip Morris USA,

(9th Cir. 2009). a 16 The amount in controversy here includes the car’s value less plaintiffs use (around 3 17 $30,000), twice that amount in civil penalties for defendant’s alleged willfulness, and 18 attorney’s fees. Fritsch v. Swift Trans. Co. Ariz.,

(9th Cir. 2018); Schneider 19 v. Ford Motor Co.,

, 700 (9th Cir. 2018);

(c); 20 Kirzhner v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,

, 984 (2020). Given plaintiffs refusal to 21 stipulate otherwise, more than $75,000 remain at issue. This case will remain in federal court. 22 The motion to remand is DENIED. A case management scheduling order will follow. 23 The parties will have until SEPTEMBER 11 AT NOON to move for schedule modifications. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: August 27, 2020. 26

LLIAM ALSUP 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE