Heriberto Saucedo Sanchez v. FCA US LLC

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CV 21-05534-RSWL-PLA x HERIBERTO SAUCEDO SANCHEZ, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 13 Plaintiff, SUBJECT MATTER 14 v. JURISDICTION FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.

Plaintiff Heriberto Saucedo Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) brings this Action against Defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant”) for alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. On July 8, 2021, Defendant removed the Action from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to this Court.

In its Notice of Removal, Defendant avers that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 based on the purchase price of the subject vehicle, civil penalties sought by Plaintiff, and anticipated attorneys’ fees.

2 See Notice of Removal (“Removal”) ¶¶ 28-29, ECF No. 1.

3 With respect to civil penalties, however, Defendant states only that Plaintiff claims entitlement to “a civil penalty in the amount of two times the amount of actual damages.” Id. ¶ 29. Because Defendant offers no support for including the civil penalty in the calculation of the amount in controversy, Defendant has not carried its burden to establish removal jurisdiction. See D’Amico v. Ford Motor Co., No. CV 20- 2985-CJC (JCx), 2020 WL 2614610, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2020) (“[C]ourts 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 6607006, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2019) (“The civil penalty under California Civil Code § 1794(c) cannot simply be assumed.”).

19 Similarly, with respect to attorneys’ fees, Defendant states that “Plaintiffs’ attorneys in Song- Beverly cases tried or prepared for trial regularly request more than $65,000 in fees.” Removal ¶ 30.

23 However, Defendant fails to explain how the facts and circumstances of those cases compare to those of the instant Action. Without such a comparison, the Court cannot simply assume that the services required here will lead to a fee of that amount. Accordingly, Defendant has not carried its burden to establish that any amount of attorneys’ fees should be included in the amount in controversy determination. See D’Amico v. Ford Motor Co., No. CV 20-2985-CJC (JCX), 2020 WL 4 2614610, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2020) (rejecting the same argument because defendant made “no effort to explain what amount of attorney fees might be sought or awarded in this case”); see also Fritsch v. Swift Trans.

8 Co. of Ariz., LLC, 899 F.3d 785, 794 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that although future attorneys’ fees recoverable by statute should typically be included when assessing the amount in controversy, courts retain discretion to disregard a fee estimate where it is too speculative).

14 Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS Defendants to show, in writing, on or before November 8, 2021, why the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The Action will otherwise be remanded.

18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 DATED: October 22, 2021 ______/s_/_ R_o_n_a_ld_ _S_.W__. _L_e_w________ HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW Senior U.S. District Judge