1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CV 21-05415-RSWL(MAAx) 12 LUIS NAVARRO, ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO 13 Plaintiff, CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, 14 v. COUNTY OF VENTURA 15 FCA US LLC, a limited 16 liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, 17 inclusive 18 Defendants. 19 On October 22, 2021, the Court ordered Defendant 20 FCA US LLC (“Defendant”) to show cause [12] why this 21 Action should not be remanded to state court for a lack 22 of subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, the Court 23 expressed concern over the Defendant’s ability to 24 establish that the amount in controversy exceeds 25 $75,000. Defendant filed its response [16] on November 26 8, 2021. 27 In its Notice of Removal, Defendant avers that the 28 1 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 based on the

2 purchase price of the subject vehicle and civil

3 penalties sought by Plaintiff. See Notice of Removal 4 ¶¶ 19-20, ECF No. 1. Defendant argues that the civil 5 penalty should be part of the present calculus because 6 Plaintiff’s Complaint states he is entitled to civil 7 penalties totaling $120,367.68. See Def.’s Resp. to OSC 8 4:14-21, ECF No. 16. However, where a court questions a 9 defendant’s assertion of diversity jurisdiction, the 10 defendant must provide evidence establishing that the 11 amount in controversy is met by a preponderance of the 12 evidence. See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. 13 Owens,

, 89 (2014). 14 “The amount in controversy includes all relief 15 claimed at the time of removal to which the plaintiff 16 would be entitled if she prevails.” Chavez v. JPMorgan 17 Chase & Co.,

(9th Cir. 2018). Because 18 the Song-Beverly Act requires an additional showing of 19 willfulness to justify civil penalties, courts in the 20 Ninth Circuit have frequently required defendants to 21 show by a preponderance of the evidence that a civil 22 penalty will be awarded. See, e.g., D’Amico v. Ford 23 Motor Co., No. CV 20-2985-CJC (JCx),

, at 24 *3 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2020) (“Courts do not simply 25 assume that a civil penalty will be awarded, and the 26 removal statute is strictly construed against removal 27 jurisdiction.”); Barrett v. FCA US LLC, No. SA CV 21- 28 00243-DOC-DFMx,

, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 1 5, 2021) (declining to include defendant’s estimate of

2 speculative civil penalties to meet the amount in

3 controversy requirement); Ronquillo v. BMW of North Am., 4 LLC, No. 3:20-cv-1413-W-WVG,

, at *4 5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2020) (excluding the civil penalty 6 because defendant failed to provide analogous cases or 7 identify allegations in the complaint indicating that 8 the penalty will more likely than not be awarded). 9 Even if Plaintiff were to prevail on his underlying 10 claim, Defendant points to no evidence or factually 11 analogous cases suggesting that a civil penalty will 12 more likely than not be awarded here. It is not enough 13 to assume that civil penalties will be awarded simply 14 because Plaintiff states he is entitled to them in his 15 Complaint. See Conrad Associates v. Hartford Acc. & 16 Indem. Co.,

(N.D. Cal. 1998). 17 For that reason, Defendant has not carried its burden of 18 establishing removal jurisdiction. 19 Based on the foregoing, the Court REMANDS the 20 Action to the Superior Court of California, County of 21 Ventura. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 DATED: November 12, 2021 ___/s_/ _R_o_n_a_ld_ S__.W__. _Le_w____________ HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW 25 Senior U.S. District Judge 26 27 28