Christina Gonzalez v. FCA US LLC
5:19-cv-00967
C.D. Cal.Mar 24, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Christina Gonzalez purchased a new vehicle for about $35,000 and alleges repeated defects (engine overheating, thermostat and head gasket failure, oil leaks, battery issues) that persisted despite multiple repair attempts.
- She sued FCA US LLC in California state court asserting breach of implied and express warranties under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
- Defendant removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction; the Notice of Removal described FCA US LLC as a Delaware LLC with a principal place of business in Michigan and later identified its LLC membership chain to a Netherlands entity.
- The Court ordered Defendant to show cause about LLC citizenship; Defendant submitted member information establishing diversity and Plaintiff did not contest Plaintiff's own California citizenship.
- Plaintiff argued remand on three grounds: lack of complete diversity (and an intent to add a non-diverse dealer), that the amount in controversy should not include Song-Beverly civil penalties, and comity concerns favoring state court.
- The Court denied remand (finding complete diversity and that the amount-in-controversy requirement was met) and denied Defendant’s Rule 11 fee request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Complete diversity / LLC citizenship | Gonzalez contested diversity generally and suggested intent to add a California dealer (non-diverse). | FCA showed the full LLC membership chain establishing diversity at time of removal; no joinder motion sought by Gonzalez. | Court found complete diversity satisfied; plaintiff made no showing under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) to add a non-diverse defendant. |
| Amount in controversy (Song-Beverly) | Civil penalties should not be counted because inclusion would make most vehicle cases removable. | Amount in controversy includes actual damages, statutory civil penalties (up to 2x), and attorneys’ fees; vehicle price $35,000 yields sufficient amount. | Court held civil penalties and attorneys’ fees may be considered; amount in controversy satisfied. |
| Comity / abstention | Song-Beverly claims are better resolved in state court; comity favors remand. | Federal courts have a duty to exercise jurisdiction when properly invoked; diversity statute does not permit discretionary declination. | Court rejected comity argument and declined to remand on that basis. |
| Rule 11 attorneys’ fees request by defendant | N/A (Plaintiff) | FCA sought fees claiming remand motion frivolous. | Court denied Rule 11 sanctions; plaintiff’s remand arguments were unsuccessful but not objectively unreasonable or made for improper purpose. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (removal proper only if federal court would have original jurisdiction)
- Int’l Primate Prot. League v. Adm’rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 500 U.S. 72 (remand if court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (complete diversity requirement)
- Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894 (LLC citizenship requires identifying members)
- Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927 (punitive damages are part of amount in controversy)
- Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (amount in controversy may include punitive/civil penalties)
- Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083 (removal statutes construed narrowly against removability)
- Luther v. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, 533 F.3d 1031 (defendant bears burden to establish removability)
- Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241 (doubts about removal resolved in favor of remand)
- Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (limits on declining jurisdiction; federal obligation to exercise jurisdiction)
- Snodgrass v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 147 F.3d 1163 (federal courts generally must exercise jurisdiction when appropriate)
- BNSF Ry. Co. v. O’Dea, 572 F.3d 785 (diversity statute does not permit discretionary declination like supplemental jurisdiction)
- Truesdell v. S. Cal. Permanente Med. Grp., 209 F.R.D. 169 (Rule 11’s objective-reasonableness standard)