Cassi v. General Motors LLC
2:23-cv-01801-WBS-JDP
E.D. Cal.Oct 31, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Jim Cassi sued General Motors, LLC in California state court alleging violations of the Song‑Beverly Act, common‑law fraud, and the UCL.
- GM removed the action to federal court on diversity jurisdiction; GM is incorporated in Delaware with principal place of business in Michigan.
- Plaintiff lives in Modesto, California; counsel produced a lease showing a California address.
- The court found complete diversity and a plausible amount in controversy exceeding $75,000 based on roughly $6,000 in lease payments, a Song‑Beverly statutory penalty (double damages), likely attorneys’ fees, and potential punitive damages.
- Plaintiff moved to remand; GM opposed and also moved to dismiss plaintiff’s fraud and fraudulent‑prong UCL claims for failure to plead with particularity under Rule 9(b).
- The court denied the remand motion, overruled plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to GM’s declarations, granted GM’s motion to dismiss the fraud claims, and gave Cassi leave to amend within 20 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Removability: diversity of citizenship | Cassi is a California resident but sought remand to state court | GM is a Delaware LLC with principal place in Michigan; removal proper | Denied remand; complete diversity established and federal jurisdiction proper |
| Amount in controversy meets $75,000 | Actual damages low (~$6,000); remand favored | Combined recovery (double Song‑Beverly penalty, attorneys’ fees, punitive) plausibly exceeds $75k | Amount in controversy plausibly exceeds $75,000; removal proper |
| Adequacy of fraud pleadings under Rule 9(b) | Fraud claims as pled are sufficient or should survive | Fraud allegations lack the who/what/when/where/how required by Rule 9(b) | Fraud and fraudulent‑prong UCL claims dismissed for failure to plead with particularity; leave to amend granted |
| Evidentiary objections to GM’s declarations | GM’s declarations lack foundation and are conclusory | Declarations (counsel’s) are sufficient to show corporate citizenship | Objections overruled; declarations admissible for jurisdictional showing |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradley Min. Co. v. Boice, 194 F.2d 80 (9th Cir. 1951) (residence as evidence of citizenship)
- Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2006) (LLC citizenship is citizenship of its members)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014) (plausible amount in controversy allegation suffices for removal)
- Vess v. Ciba‑Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) (fraud claims must plead who/what/when/where/how under Rule 9(b))
- Simmons v. PCR Tech., 209 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (use of analogous jury verdicts to estimate punitive damages)