UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT □□ CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Case No. 2:25-cv-07255-ODW (MAAx) Date October 8, 2025 Title Linda Thomas 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 Linda Thomas initiated this action against Defendant General Motors (“GM”) LLC in state court. (Notice of Removal, Ex. A (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1-1.) In her Complaint, Thomas alleges, among other things, breach of express and implied warranties and violations of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act. (/d.) Thomas seeks recission of the contract; restitution; attorneys’ fees; civil penalties; and general, special, and incidental damages. (/d., Prayer.) On August 6, 2025, GM removed the action to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal (“NOR”), ECF No. 1.) On September 5, 2025, Thomas filed a motion to remand, arguing that GM’s removal was untimely. (Mot. Remand, ECF No. 18.) On October 2, 2025, the Court ordered GM to show cause why this action should not be remanded for failing to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 19.) On October 7, 2025, GM filed a Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause (“OSC”). (Resp., ECF No. 20.) 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. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS the action and DENIES Thomas’s motion to remand as moot. (ECF No. 18.) Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject-matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. U.S. Const. art. IH, § 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

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-07255-ODW (MAAx) Date October 8, 2025 Title Linda Thomas v. General Motors LLC et al federal question under

, or diversity of citizenship under

. 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 Thomas’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. (Resp. GM asserts that Thomas’s actual damages in controversy total at least $25,003.13 including a mileage offset. (/d.) GM also contends that because Thomas “is seeking civil penalties,” the amount in controversy should include the “maximum civil penalt[y],” which would “bring[] the total damages to $75,009.39. (Ud. 4.) Finally, GM contends that based on its experience with Thomas’s counsel, the attorneys’ fees will push the amount in controversy over the $75,000 threshold. (/d. at 3-4.) First, GM’s inclusion of civil penalties to establish the amount in controversy is 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 Thomas’s counsel. (Resp. 3-4; Decl. Simran K. Thiara ISO Resp. 7, ECF No. 20-1.) 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.

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-07255-ODW (MAAx) Date October 8, 2025 Title Linda Thomas v. General Motors LLC et al See Kaplan v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 21-cv-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.”); v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:20-cv-2985-CJC (JCx),

, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2020) (“[M]any cases alleging violations 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 $25,003.13. 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 25STCV09022. 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