1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CV 21-01983-RSWL-ADS x 12 DONN EDWIN COTTOM, ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO 13 Plaintiff, CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, 14 v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 15 FCA US LLC, a Delaware 16 Corporation; YPD ALHAMBRA CDJR, LLC d/b/a Alhambra 17 Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram; and DOES 2 through 25, 18 inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 21 On June 14, 2021, the Court ordered Defendants FCA 22 US LLC (“FCA”) and YPD Alhambra CDJR, LLC d/b/a Alhambra 23 CDJR (“Alhambra CDJR”) (collectively, “Defendants”) to 24 show cause [14] why the Action should not be remanded to 25 state court for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 26 Specifically, the Court expressed concern over the 27 Defendants’ ability to establish that the amount in 28 controversy exceeds $75,000. Defendants filed their 1 response [15] on June 25.

2 In their Notice of Removal, Defendants aver that

3 the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 based on the 4 purchase price of the subject vehicle and civil 5 penalties sought by Plaintiff. See Notice of Removal 6 7:12-15, ECF No. 1. Defendants argue that the civil 7 penalty should be part of the present calculus because 8 Plaintiff’s Complaint and initial disclosures include 9 civil penalties totaling $64,101.04. However, courts in 10 the Ninth Circuit have consistently required defendants 11 to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a civil 12 penalty will be awarded. See, e.g., D’Amico v. Ford 13 Motor Co., No. CV 20-2985-CJC (JCx),

, at 14 *3 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2020) (“Courts do not simply 15 assume that a civil penalty will be awarded, and the 16 removal statute is strictly construed against removal 17 jurisdiction.”); Barrett v. FCA US LLC, No. SA CV 21- 18 00243-DOC-DFMx,

, at *4 (declining to 19 include defendant’s estimate of speculative civil 20 penalties to meet the amount in controversy 21 requirement); Castillo v. FCA USA, LLC, No. 19-CV-151- 22 CAB-MDD,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2019) 23 (excluding the civil penalty due to defendant’s failure 24 to provide analogous cases showing that it is more 25 likely than not that civil penalties will be awarded). 26 Defendants point to no case law or evidence 27 suggesting that a civil penalty is more likely than not. 28 For that reason, Defendants have not carried their 1 burden to establish removal jurisdiction. See D’Amico

2 v. Ford Motor Co., No. CV 20-2985-CJC (JCx),

2614610, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2020) (stating that 4 “courts do not simply assume that a civil penalty will 5 be awarded, and the removal statute is strictly 6 construed against removal jurisdiction”); see also 7 Castillo v. FCA USA, LLC, No. 19-CV-151-CAB-MDD,

6607006, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2019) (“The civil 9 penalty under California Civil Code § 1794(c) cannot 10 simply be assumed.”). 11 Based on the foregoing, the Court REMANDS the 12 Action to the Superior Court of California, County of 13 Los Angeles. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 DATED: July 20, 2021 ______/s_/ _R_on_a_ld_ S_.W_._ L_ew_____________ HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW 17 Senior U.S. District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28