Case 2:21-cv-03565-TJH-PVC Document 34 Filed 03/11/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:458

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California 10 Western Division 11 12 LINDA GUERRERO, CV 21-03565 TJH (PVCx)

13 Plaintiff, 14 v. Order 15 FCA US, LLC, 16 Defendant. 17 18 The Court has considered Plaintiff Linda Guerrero’s motion to remand, together 19 with the moving and opposing papers. 20 In 2019, Guerrero leased a Jeep Cherokee from Russell Westbrook Chrysler 21 Dodge Jeep Ram [“Westbrook”]. Allegedly, during the warranty period, the Jeep 22 Cherokee contained or developed defects. 23 On January 15, 2021, Guerrero filed this action in the Los Angeles Superior 24 Court against Defendants FCA US, LLC [“FCA”] and Westbrook, alleging violations 25 of California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act,

, et seq., 26 as to FCA, and breaches of the implied warranty of merchantability as to Westbrook. 27 On April 2, 2021, Guerrero dismissed Westbrook. On April 26, 2021, FCA removed 28 based on diversity jurisdiction. On July 9, 2021, the case was transferred to this Court. Order Page 1 of 3 Case 2:21-cv-03565-TJH-PVC Document 34 Filed 03/11/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:459

1 Guerrero, now, moves to remand. 2 Initially, a defendant may rely on the assertions made in its notice of removal to 3 establish subject matter jurisdiction. See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., L.L.C. 4 v. Owens,

, 88 (2014). However, if the plaintiff attacks the factual basis 5 of those assertions, as Guerrero did, here, the defendant must, then, prove, by a 6 preponderance of the evidence, that the assumptions underlying its assertions were 7 reasonable. See Harris v. KM Industrial, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2020). 8 FCA is not, necessarily, required to submit evidence to support its assumptions. See 9 Harris,

. FCA may rely on its assumptions, alone, or, may show their 10 reasonableness with competent evidence. See Harris,

. Competent 11 evidence must meet “the same evidentiary standard that governs in the summary 12 judgment context.” Leite v. Crane Co.,

(9th Cir. 2014) (citations 13 omitted). If FCA does not provide competent evidence, it must establish that its 14 assumptions were “founded on the allegations of the complaint.” See Arias,

at 925. Guerrero bears no burden, here, to introduce any evidence. See Harris, 980 16 F.3d at 700. 17 In her Superior Court complaint, Guerrero alleged that her damages were not 18 less than $25,001.00, but she did not allege how she reached that number. Guerrero 19 did not allege the financial details of her lease, or the number or amount of lease 20 payments she made. Further, Guerrero did not attach a copy of her lease as an exhibit 21 to her complaint. In her motion to remand, Guerrero argued that her demand of not 22 less than $25,001.00 included her actual damages, civil penalties under Song-Beverly, 23 punitive damages, and attorney’s fees, but, again, she did not explain how she reached 24 that number. 25 In its notice of removal, FCA asserted that the amount in controversy exceeded 26 $75,000.00, and that it was based on the following: (1) Guerrero made lease payments 27 of $23,456.56 as of the date of removal, and she would be entitled to recover those 28 payments from FCA if she prevails; (2) Guerrero would be entitled to recover a Song- Order Page 2 of 3 Case 2:21-cv-03565-TJH-PVC Document 34 Filed 03/11/22 Page3of3 Page ID #:460

1 || Beverly civil penalty of $46,913.12 - two times the amount of the lease payments she 2 || made, or; (3) Punitive damages of $211,109.04, based on multiplying Guerrero’s lease 3 || payments by 9; and (4) Guerrero’s anticipated attorney’s fees of at least $35,000.00. 4 || Based on FCA’s arguments, the amount of Guerrero’s lease payments is the foundation 5 || of its calculation of the amount in controversy. However, because of the lack of details 6 || alleged in the complaint, FCA’s assumptions in its notice of removal must, now, be 7 || established with competent evidence. See Arias, 936 F.3d at 925. 8 FCA submitted a copy of Guerrero’s lease in support of its motion to compel 9 || arbitration, which was denied by the Superior Court. The lease was authenticated by 10 || a declaration from Westbrook’s controller, but that declaration did not provide any 11 || additional financial details, such as whether the lease payments were, actually, made. 12 || A copy of the motion to compel was attached as an exhibit to FCA’s notice of removal. 13 To establish the amount of lease payments Guerrero made in connection with its 14 || notice of removal, FCA provided a declaration from one of its attorneys of record, 15 || Andres F. Michel, as an exhibit to its notice of removal. Michel declared that he 16 || reviewed Guerrero’s lease to determine that the total of the payments due under the 17 || lease was $26,925.40, and that Guerrero would be entitled to recover $23,456.56 in 18 || base damages, here, based on her payments through the date of removal. It appears 19 || that Michel calculated Guerrero’s lease payments by referencing only the lease. 20 || Neither Michel nor FCA provided, or relied upon, accounting records or any other 21 || competent evidence to establish Guerrero’s base damages amount to the evidentiary 22 || standard that governs summary judgments. See Leite. 23 Accordingly, 24 It is Orsered that the motion to remand be, and hereby is, ranted. 25 || Date: March 11, 2022

27 ‘hd. ty J. Hatter, Fr. 98 Senior Cited States District Judge

Order Page 3 of 3