Case 2:22-cv-09088-RGK-E Document Filed 12/19/22 Pagelof2 Page ID #:307

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JS6 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:22-cv-09088-RGK-E Date December 19, 2022 Title Alanna Apfel Horowitz v. FCA US LLC, et al

cc: Los Angeles Superior Court, 22STCV18697

Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Joseph Remigio Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attommeys Present for Defendant: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Remanding Action to State Court

On June 7, 2022, Alanna Horowitz (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against FCA US, LLC (“FCA”) and Santa Monica Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram (“Defendants”) in state court, alleging, inter alia, violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs. FCA removed the case to federal court on federal question jurisdiction grounds (

). (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1.) Upon review of FCA’s Notice of Removal, the Court hereby REMANDS the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Title

(a) authorizes defendants to remove a case to federal court when the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the case. Under

, district courts have original jurisdiction over any civil action “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Claims arising under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act must also have an amount in controversy equal to or greater than $50,000.

(d)(3)(B). A defendant’s notice of removal must include a “plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens,

, 89 (2014). Here, FCA does not plausibly allege that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. FCA asserts that the value of the vehicle at the time Plaintiff leased it was $35,185. (Notice of Removal § 27; see also id., Ex. C.) But Plaintiff leased the vehicle for a 36-month term, and thus the “total amount Plaintiff was to pay through the end of the lease was at least $15,531.61.” Ud. § 28; id. Ex. C.) Therefore, even assuming that Plaintiff has paid the entirety of her lease (or paid the full purchase price of the car), her payments would not come close to meeting the $50,000 amount-in-controversy requirement. FCA also asserts, however, that Plaintiff seeks crvil penalties and attorneys’ fees and costs. But these penalties and costs are speculative. As to civil penalties, while authorized under the Song-Beverly Act, FCA has not alleged sufficient facts supporting such an award. As to attorneys’ fees, district courts CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2

Case 2:22-cv-09088-RGK-E Document 14 Filed 12/19/22 Page 2of2 Page ID #:308

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:22-cv-09088-RGK-E Date December 19, 2022 Title Alanna Apfel Horowitz v. FCA US LLC, et al

within the Ninth Circuit are split with respect to including prospective attorneys’ fees in the amount in controversy, and some courts have declined to do so. See, e.g., MIC Philberts Invs. v. Am. Cas. Co of Reading, Pa.,

, at *5 (E.D. Cal. June 11, 2012). In those cases, the courts have found that attorneys’ fees are in the control of the client and counsel and may be avoided or accrue over years depending on legal strategy. See Grieffv. Brigandi Coin Co.,

, at *3 (W.D. Wash. June 11, 2014). The Court finds those holdings well-reasoned and finds that prospective attorneys’ fees are also too speculative to include in the amount in controversy. Therefore, the Court finds that FCA has not plausibly alleged that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional requirement. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this action to state court for all further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Preparer JRE/a

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 2