1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAFAEL NORIEGA,, ) Case No.: 3:21-cv-01671-BEN-MSB 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. ) MOTION TO REMAND 14 VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, ) ) [ECF Nos. 5, 7] 15 INC., a corporation, and DOES 1 through ) 100, inclusive, 16 ) Defendant. ) 17 ) 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 Plaintiff RAFAEL NORIEGA (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendant 20 VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., a corporation (“Defendant”) pursuant to 21 California’s Song-Beverly Act, CAL. CIV. CODE § 1790 et seq. ECF No. 1. Before the 22 Court are (1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, ECF No. 5, and (2) the parties’ Joint 23 Stipulation to Remand, ECF No. 7. After considering the papers submitted, supporting 24 documentation, and applicable law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. 25 II. BACKGROUND 26 A. Statement of Facts 27 On or about February 2, 2019, Plaintiff leased a 2019 Volve XC90 vehicle, VIN: 28 VIN: YV4A22PK4K1460953 (the “Vehicle”) from Volve of San Diego in San Diego, 1 California. ECF No. 1-2 at 7,1 ¶ 4. Since purchasing the Vehicle, Plaintiff alleges 2 numerous issues have arisen that have substantially impaired the value of the Vehicle. Id. 3 at 7-8, ¶ 11. 4 B. Procedural History 5 On August 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior 6 Court entitled: Rafael Noriega v. Volvo Cars of North America, Inc., Case No. 37-2021- 7 00035800-CU-BC-CTL alleging causes of action relating to the lease of a 2019 Volvo 8 XC90. See ECF No. 1-2 at 6-9. 9 On August 24, 2021, Plaintiff served Defendant. ECF No. 1-2 at 17. 10 On September 20, 2021, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint. ECF No. 1- 11 2 at 20-28; see also ECF No. 3. Shortly after, on September 23, 2021, Defendant removed 12 the case to federal court. ECF No. 1. 13 On October 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand, arguing that the amount 14 in controversy is not satisfied because Defendant has only paid of fraction of the total 15 lease payment. ECF No. 5 at 7. On November 2, 2021, Defendant filed a Joint Stipulation 16 to Remand, pursuant to which Plaintiff acknowledged and agreed that the amount in 17 controversy, including any damages Plaintiff seeks from Defendant—including interest, 18 civil penalties, and attorney’s fees and costs—does not exceed $75,000.00. ECF No. 7 at 19 2:5-8. 20 III. LEGAL STANDARD 21 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 22 Co. of Am.,

(1994). Consequently, district courts are presumed to lack 23 jurisdiction unless the Constitution or a statute expressly provides otherwise. Stock West, 24 Inc. v. Confederated Tribes,

, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). Generally, federal 25 subject matter jurisdiction exists due to the presence of a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1331, or complete diversity between the parties, see

. 27 28 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all page number references are to the ECF-generated l “Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress,” where a plaintiff files in state court a civil action over which the district courts of the United States have 3 original jurisdiction, the defendant may remove that case “to the district court of the 4 United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.”

(a). However, removing a case does not deprive another party 6 “of his right to move to remand the case.”

. Courts strictly construe the 7 removal statute against removal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque 8 v. Placer Dome, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2009). 9 DISCUSSION 10 Plaintiff moved to remand this case, and the motion was set to be heard on Monday, 11 |) November 22, 2021, ECF No. 5, meaning Defendant’s opposition was due on Monday, 12]! November 8, 2021. If an opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner required by the local rules, “that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other 14 request for ruling by the court.” S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.1(f)(3)(c). Here, Defendant not only 13 || tailed to oppose the motion but also affirmatively consents to the Court granting it given 16 || before its opposition was due, Defendant filed the Joint Stipulation. Pursuant to that 7 stipulation, both parties agreed the amount in controversy in this case does not exceed 18 $75,000.00 and consented to remand. Accordingly, the Court agrees remand of this case appropriate. 20\\v. CONCLUSION 21 For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Remand based on 22 ||the parties’ stipulation that the amount in controversy in this case does not exceed 23 11$75,000.00. The Clerk of the Court shall remand the case. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: November 10, 2021 26 - ROGER T. BENITE 07 United States District Judge 28

3.