Adrian Melendez v. Subaru of America, Inc., 2:21-cv-02163

Plaintiff Adrian Melendez bought a 2018 Subaru VRX for $37,541.19 and alleges multiple defects (body, TPMS, transmission, wipers, engine/emissions).
Plaintiff presented the vehicle for repair and alleges Subaru failed to fix the defects.
Plaintiff sued in Ventura County Superior Court under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, seeking actual damages, restitution, incidental/consequential damages, attorneys’ fees, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties up to twice actual damages.
Complaint alleges total recoverable sums exceed $25,000 (but does not plead an amount approaching the federal diversity threshold).
Subaru removed the action to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction; Melendez moved to remand.
The district court found Subaru failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and remanded the case to state court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether actual damages under the SBA establish the $75,000 amount-in-controversy	Melendez: complaint does not show amount meets federal threshold	Subaru: purchase price ($37,541.19) constitutes actual damages	Court: purchase price alone is speculative without evidence of mileage-offset, finance charges, or other proof; Subaru failed to establish actual damages amount
Whether potential civil penalties (up to 2x actual damages) may be included	Melendez: civil penalties speculative and willfulness not adequately alleged	Subaru: availability of civil penalties could push amount over $75,000	Court: civil penalties speculative because Subaru presented no evidence of willfulness or analogous awards; cannot assume maximum penalty
Whether attorneys’ fees should be included in the amount in controversy	Melendez: fees uncertain and not pleaded to reach threshold	Subaru: fees recoverable under statute could be included	Court: fees may be included in principle but Subaru offered no evidence or estimate; court declined to include them

United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799 (9th Cir. 2008) (removing party bears burden of establishing federal jurisdiction)
Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2007) (defendant must prove amount in controversy by preponderance when complaint is ambiguous)
Luther v. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, 533 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2008) (doubts about removability resolved against removal)
Fritsch v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, 899 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2018) (future attorneys’ fees recoverable by statute must be included in amount-in-controversy analysis when supported by evidence)

Decision: Motion to Remand granted; case remanded to Ventura County Superior Court.