UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:25-cv-09000-JLS-AS Date: December 09, 2025 Title: Roxanda Yancor et al v. General Motors LLC et al

Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Evelyn Chun N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendant:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND (Doc. 15)

Before the Court is a Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiffs Roxanda Yancor and Frankie Lomas. (Mot., Doc. 15.) The Court has reviewed the Motion as well as the additional papers. (Opp., Doc. 18; Reply, Doc. 21.) The Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument, and the hearing set for December 12, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. is VACATED. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. R. 7-15. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion.

As to timeliness, Plaintiffs’ underlying Complaint does not specify the total cash price paid or payable of the subject vehicle. Accordingly, the amount in controversy was not apparent on the face of the complaint and the 30-day removal clock did not start with the initial pleading. Lopez v. Ford Motor Co.,

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2025) (Staton, J.). Further, while the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is a federal cause of action, it contains a $50,000 amount in controversy requirement. Because the amount in controversy was not apparent on the face of the complaint, this federal claim also did not trigger the removal window upon filing. Andrade v. General Motors LLC,

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2025) (Staton, J.).

______________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:25-cv-09000-JLS-AS Date: December 09, 2025 Title: Roxanda Yancor et al v. General Motors LLC et al As to the amount in controversy, Defendant has produced evidence to support allegations of actual damages totaling $35,337.18. (Opp. at 28.) Where, as here, the underlying complaint alleges Defendant’s willful behavior and seeks a civil penalty up to two times the actual damages, (Compl. ¶ 17, Doc. 1-1), the amount in controversy may plausibly include civil penalties up to that maximum. Andrade,

at *4. While the Court reserves the right to re-calculate the precise amount of actual damages, for the moment it is satisfied that Defendant has met its burden to plausibly allege that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Galaviz v. General Motors, LLC,

, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2025) (Staton, J.); Lopez,

, at *4 (both calculating actual damages).

For the above reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand is DENIED.

Initials of Deputy Clerk: evc

______________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 2