CUENNTITREADL S DTIASTTERSIC DTI SOTFR CICATL ICFOOURRNTIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:25-cv-07602-RGK-MBK Date October 2, 2025 Title Robert Luis Cardoza v. General Motors, LLC

Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Joseph Remigio (Not Present) Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Order Remanding Action to State Court On April 1, 2025, Robert Luis Cardoza (“Plaintiff”) filed a First Amended Complaint against General Motors, LLC (“Defendant”) alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, Wagnuson- Moss Warranty Act, Uniform Commerical Code, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. . On August 14, 2025, Defendant removed the action to federal court alleging jurisdiction on the grounds of diversity of citizenship. On September 22, 2025, upon review of Defendants Notice of Removal, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause re Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, which Defendant responded to on September 28, 2025. Upon review of Defendants Response to OSC, the Court hereby remands the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to

, district courts shall have original jurisdiction over any civil action in which the parties are citizens of different states and the action involved an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. After a plaintiff files a case in state court, the defendant attempting to remove the case to federal court bears the burden of proving the amount in controversy requirement has been met. Lowdermilk v. United States Bank Natl Assn,

(9th Cir. 2007). If the complaint does not allege that the amount in controversy has been met, the removing defendant must plausibly allege in its notice of removal that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens,

(2014). Whether or not the plaintiff challenges these allegations, a court may still insist that the jurisdictional requirement has been established by a preponderance of the evidence. Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). Under Song-Beverly, a plaintiff can collect restitution in an amount equal to the actual price paid or payable by the buyer for the automobile.

(d)(2)(B). Courts have held that in the context of an automobile lease, the actual price paid or payable by the buyer extends only to those payments made in fact by the lessee rather than to all payments which might be due for the CUENNTITREADL S DTIASTTERSIC DTI SOTFR CICATL ICFOOURRNTIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:25-cv-07602-RGK-MBK Date October 2, 2025 Title Robert Luis Cardoza v. General Motors, LLC Here, the evidence shows that in 2021, Plaintiff entered into an Installment Contract for a Chevrolet Maliby. The agreement shows a $3,346 down payment, and a monthly payment obligation of $372.33 starting April 30, 2021. Therefore, to date, Plaintiff has paid approximately $18,611.53 for the vehicle. Additionally, this amount should be reduced by the statutory mileage offset, which Defendant states is $2,005.86. With $16,605.67 as the starting point, even if civil penalties were added, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to meet its burden of showing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. In light of the foregoing, the action is hereby remanded to state court for all further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. : Initials of Preparer JRE/vc