CUENNTITREADL S DTIASTTERSIC DTI SOTFR CICATL ICFOOURRNTIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:21-CV-05214-RGK-SK Date September 23, 2021 Title JOSE NATIVIDAD MEZA, et al v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 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 May 20, 2021, Jose Natividad Meza and Leonardo Reyes Juarez (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Ford Motor Company (“Defendant”) alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act. On June 25, 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 the complaint, Plaintiffs seek 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 and mileage offset, the lowest possible base damages amount is $83,278.05, already exceeds the jurisdictional minimum, not including penalties and attorneys’ fees. CUENNTITREADL S DTIASTTERSIC DTI SOTFR CICATL ICFOOURRNTIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:21-CV-05214-RGK-SK Date September 23, 2021 Title JOSE NATIVIDAD MEZA, et al v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al However, while the Song-Beverly Warranty Act allows a plaintiff to recover the full purchase price of the car, Plaintiffs’ recovery is limited to the actual payment amount to the seller. See Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc.,

(N.D. Cal. 2002). The Installment Contract, executed on September 24, 2018, indicates that Plaintiff paid only $10,800.00 as a down payment, with the balance to be paid over five years, beginning November 8, 2018. (Mortenson Decl., Ex. 3.) With $10,800.00 as a starting point, the Court finds it implausible that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. As Defendant points out, Plaintiff would be entitled to civil penalties and attorneys’ fees if the action succeeds. As to attorneys’ fees, the Court finds this to be speculative. 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 failed to plausibly allege 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