CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. 2:25-cv-06652-ODW (MAAx) Date September 2, 2025 Title Shirley Ann Dollarhide Chaney v. General Motors LLC

Present: The Honorable Otis D. Wright, II, United States District Judge Sheila English Not reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not present Not present Proceedings: In Chambers

On July 29, 2025, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why the action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to an insufficient amount in controversy. (OSC, ECF No. 12.) The Court gave Defendant until August 12, 2025 to respond, and provided that “[f]ailure to timely respond to this order shall result in a remand without further warning.” (Id. at 2.)

“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Acad. of Country Music v. Cont’l Cas. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2021). Where “the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s allegation” concerning the amount in controversy, “both sides submit proof,” and the court decides whether the defendant has proven the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens,

, 88–89 (2014). “[T]he amount in controversy is . . . measured . . . by reasonable reading of the value of the rights being litigated.” Kenneth Rothschild Trust v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter,

(C.D. Cal. 2002).

As of today’s date, Defendant has not filed any document in response to the Court’s OSC. This, in and of itself, is a sufficient basis on which to remand, because the Court expressly warned the parties that failure to respond would result in remand. (OSC 2.) Accordingly, the Court hereby REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of California, CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. 2:25-cv-06652-ODW (MAAx) Date September 2, 2025 Title Shirley Ann Dollarhide Chaney v. General Motors LLC

County of Los Angeles, 111 N. Hill St., Los Angeles, CA, 90012, Case No. 25STCV07048. Consequently, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 17.)

All dates and deadlines are VACATED. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

: 00 Initials of Preparer SE