CUENNTITREADL S DTIASTTERSIC DTI SOTFR CICATL ICFOOURRNTIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:21-CV-03400-RGK-RAO Date May 14, 2021 Title ANNA SAKVARELIDZE v. FORD MOTOR CO., et al

Present: The R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Honorable Sharon Williams (Not Present) Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Order Remanding Action to State Court On February 16, 2021, Anna Sakvarelidze (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Ford Motor Company (“Defendant”) alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act. On April 21, 2021, Defendant removed the action to federal court alleging jurisdiction on the grounds of diversity of citizenship. Upon review of Defendant’s Notice of Removal, the Court hereby remands the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to

, district courts shall have original jurisdiction over any civil action in which the parties are citizens of different states and the action involved an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. After a plaintiff files a case in state court, the defendant attempting to remove the case to federal court bears the burden of proving the amount in controversy requirement has been met. Lowdermilk v. United States Bank Nat’l Ass’n,

(9th Cir. 2007). If the complaint does not allege that the amount in controversy has been met, the removing defendant must plausibly allege in its notice of removal that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens,

(2014). Whether or not the plaintiff challenges these allegations, a court may still insist that the jurisdictional requirement has been established by a preponderance of the evidence. Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

, 566–67 (9th Cir. 1992). In her complaint, Plaintiff seeks damages, including compensatory damages, restitution, statutory remedies, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act. In support of its removal, Defendant calculates that based on the vehicle price of $20,058.20, $47,116.40 in civil (i.e, two times actual damages), recovery of incidental and consequential damage of at least $3,500, and reasonable attorney’s fees, the amount in controversy is well over the $75,000 threshold. CUENNTITREADL S DTIASTTERSIC DTI SOTFR CICATL ICFOOURRNTIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:21-CV-03400-RGK-RAO Date May 14, 2021 Title ANNA SAKVARELIDZE v. FORD MOTOR CO., et al of the vehicle. See Tokmakova v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,

, at * 2–3. Here, there is there no indication as to how many miles Plaintiff drove the car prior to the first repair. Without such facts, the Court is left with considerable doubt as to the amount in controversy. Accord Tokmakova,

, at *3. Further, a plaintiff’s recovery is limited to the actual payment amount to the seller. See Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc.,

(N.D. Cal. 2002). Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that she leased the vehicle, and there are no facts indicating how many payments have already been made on the lease. As Defendant points out, Plaintiff would be entitled to civil penalties and attorneys’ fees if the action succeeds. As to attorneys’ fees, however, the Court finds that Defendant has not carried its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence the amount of future attorneys’ fees. At best, Defendant has provided only speculation. As to civil penalties, Defendant has not offered any evidence to support such an award. Moreover, given the deficiencies of Defendant’s calculations with respect to actual damages, civil penalties, which are based on actual damages, are similarly deficient. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant has not plausibly alleged that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional requirement. In light of the foregoing, the action is hereby remanded to state court for all further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. : Initials of Preparer