Donn Edwin Cottom v. FCA US LLC e tal

JS-6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CV 21-01983-RSWL-ADS x DONN EDWIN COTTOM,

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO Plaintiff,

CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

FCA US LLC, a Delaware Corporation; YPD ALHAMBRA CDJR, LLC d/b/a Alhambra Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram; and DOES 2 through 25, inclusive,

Defendants.

On June 14, 2021, the Court ordered Defendants FCA US LLC (“FCA”) and YPD Alhambra CDJR, LLC d/b/a Alhambra CDJR (“Alhambra CDJR”) (collectively, “Defendants”) to show cause [14] why the Action should not be remanded to state court for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, the Court expressed concern over the Defendants’ ability to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Defendants filed their response [15] on June 25.

In their Notice of Removal, Defendants aver that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 based on the purchase price of the subject vehicle and civil penalties sought by Plaintiff. See Notice of Removal 7:12-15, ECF No. 1. Defendants argue that the civil penalty should be part of the present calculus because Plaintiff’s Complaint and initial disclosures include civil penalties totaling $64,101.04. However, courts in the Ninth Circuit have consistently required defendants to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a civil penalty will be awarded. See, e.g., D’Amico v. Ford Motor Co., No. CV 20-2985-CJC (JCx), 2020 WL 2614610, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2020) (“Courts do not simply assume that a civil penalty will be awarded, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.”); Barrett v. FCA US LLC, No. SA CV 21- 00243-DOC-DFMx, 2021 WL 1263838, at *4 (declining to include defendant’s estimate of speculative civil penalties to meet the amount in controversy requirement); Castillo v. FCA USA, LLC, No. 19-CV-151- CAB-MDD, 2019 WL 6607006, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2019) (excluding the civil penalty due to defendant’s failure to provide analogous cases showing that it is more likely than not that civil penalties will be awarded).

Defendants point to no case law or evidence suggesting that a civil penalty is more likely than not. For that reason, Defendants have not carried their burden to establish removal jurisdiction. See D’Amico v. Ford Motor Co., No. CV 20-2985-CJC (JCx), 2020 WL

3 2614610, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2020) (stating that “courts do not simply assume that a civil penalty will be awarded, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction”); see also Castillo v. FCA USA, LLC, No. 19-CV-151-CAB-MDD, 2019 WL

8 6607006, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2019) (“The civil penalty under California Civil Code § 1794(c) cannot simply be assumed.”).

Based on the foregoing, the Court REMANDS the Action to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 20, 2021 ______/s_/ _R_on_a_ld_ S_.W_._ L_ew_____________

HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW Senior U.S. District Judge