UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT □□ CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Case No. 2:25-cv-07660-ODW (RAOx) Date September 24, 2025 Title Yolanda Rivera v. General Motors LLC et al

Present: The Honorable Otis D. Wright, I, 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 March 27, 2025, Plaintiff Yolanda Rivera initiated this action against Defendant General Motors (“GM”) LLC in state court. (Notice of Removal, Ex. A (“Compl.”), ECF No. 3- 1.) The Complaint alleges breach of express and implied warranties and violations of the Song- Beverly Warranty Act. U/d.) Rivera seeks restitution; attorneys’ fees; civil penalties; and general, special, and incidental damages. (/d., Prayer.) On August 15, 2025, GM removed the action to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal (“NOR”), ECF No.3.) On September 8, 2025, the Court ordered GM to show cause why this action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Min. Order, ECF No. 9.) On September 12, 2025, Rivera also filed a Motion to Remand Case. (Mot. Remand, ECF No. 17.) On September 22, 2025, GM filed a Response, ostensibly to the Court’s Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) but also addressing arguments in Rivera’s Motion to Remand. (Resp., ECF No. 18.) Upon review of GM’s Notice of Removal and Response to the Court’s OSC, the Court finds GM fails to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and accordingly REMANDS the action and DENIES Rivera’s Motion to Remand as MOOT. (ECF No. 17.) Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject-matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. U.S. Const. art. HJ, § 2, cl. 1; v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

(1994). A suit filed in a state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit.

(a). Federal courts have original jurisdiction where an action presents a federal question under

, or diversity of citizenship under

.

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Case No. 2:25-cv-07660-ODW (RAOx) Date September 24, 2025 Title Yolanda Rivera v. General Motors LLC et al Accordingly, a defendant may remove a case from state court to federal court pursuant to the federal removal statute,

, on the basis of federal question or diversity Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship among the adverse and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

(a). Courts strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction, and “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). The party seeking removal the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. /d. Here, GM argues that Rivera’s potential damages exceed $75,000 because the Song- Beverly Act allows a plaintiff to recover the price paid for the vehicle in the form of restitution, up to twice the compensatory damages in civil penalties and attorneys’ fees. (NOR {J 4-6; Resp. 8-10.) GM asserts that Rivera’s actual damages in controversy total at least $51,596.72 including a mileage offset. (Resp. 9.) GM also contends that because Rivera “is seeking civil the amount in controversy should include the “maximum civil penalt[y],” which would “bring[] the total damages to $154,790.16. (/d. at 9). Finally, GM contends that based on its experience with Rivera’s counsel, the attorneys’ fees will push the amount in controversy over the $75,000 threshold. (/d. at 10.) First, GM’s inclusion of civil penalties to establish the amount in controversy highly speculative and insufficient to meet its burden. “A plaintiff who establishes that a violation of the [Song-Beverly] Act was willful may recover a civil penalty of up to two times the amount of actual damages.” See

(c). However, “[t]he civil penalty under California Civil Code § 1794(c) cannot simply be assumed.” Castillo v. FCA USA, LLC, No. 19-cv-151- CAB-MDD,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2019); Estrada v. FC US LLC, No. 2:20- cv-10453-PA (JPRx),

, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2021) (collecting cases and remanding where defendant’s inclusion of civil penalties to establish the amount in controversy was “too speculative and are not adequately supported by the facts and evidence”). GM fails to establish that inclusion of civil penalties is appropriate. Next, GM fails in its burden with respect to attorneys’ fees. To support this argument, GM to its experience with Rivera’s counsel. (Resp. 10.) GM does not specify what the fees are, nor does it cite to any authority that can justify inclusion of the proposed attorneys’ fees. This plainly does not satisfy GM’s burden. See Kaplan v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 21-cv-

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT □□ CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Case No. 2:25-cv-07660-ODW (RAOx) Date September 24, 2025 Title Yolanda Rivera v. General Motors LLC et al 00857-TWR (AGS),

, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2021) (“[Other] cases must be similar enough to the case at hand that the court can conclude that it is more likely than not that the plaintiff may incur a similar fee award.”); D’Amico v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:20-cv-2985- CJC (JCx),

, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2020) (“[M]any cases alleging of the [Song-Beverly] Act settle early.”). Thus, GM fails to establish that inclusion of the proposed attorneys’ fees is appropriate. GM’s failure to establish that inclusion of civil penalties or attorneys’ fees is appropriate dooms federal subject matter jurisdiction in this case. See Gaus,

(“Federal must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”’). Absent civil penalties and attorneys’ fees, GM establishes an amount in controversy of only $51,596.72. This falls short of GM’s burden to establish the requisite $75,000. See

(a). Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, Case 25STCV08988. All dates are VACATED. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED.

: 00 Initials of Preparer SE

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 3 of 3