Gangluff v. Kasper Toyota Scion, 3:19-cv-00521

Background

Plaintiff Sandra Gangluff bought a used 2011 Toyota Corolla from Kasper Toyota Scion in April 2014 for $22,000 and alleges she was overcharged compared to MSRP and NADA clean retail value.
The vehicle was sold with a “Warranty Forever!” lifetime warranty through National Warranty Administration Network/National Automotive Experts; Gangluff alleges the warranty was not honored after service delays and transmission failure.
Gangluff also purchased optional-fee items (MVP maintenance and gap insurance) she contends rendered the warranty not truly free; gap insurance later failed to cover a total-loss claim, leaving her with a balance owed.
She filed a putative class action in Erie County, Ohio, asserting state consumer-protection claims, state common-law breach of warranty, fraud, and an individual Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) claim; defendants removed to federal court.
Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing defendants failed to show federal jurisdiction: (1) the MMWA’s class-action provision requires at least 100 named plaintiffs if the action is “brought as a class action,” and (2) the MMWA requires an amount in controversy of more than $50,000.
The court granted remand because defendants did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that at least $50,000 was in controversy; defendants’ removal pleading lacked factual quantification and could not rely on their opposition brief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal jurisdiction exists under the MMWA’s $50,000 amount-in-controversy requirement	Gangluff: amount in controversy not met; only the MMWA claim counts (and it does not reach $50,000)	Defendants: MMWA jurisdiction satisfied because overall damages (including state-law damages) presumptively exceed $50,000	Held: Remand — defendants failed to carry burden to show $50,000 in controversy; removal notice lacked specific facts quantifying damages
Whether state-law damages can be aggregated/considered in determining the MMWA amount-in-controversy	Gangluff: state-law claims should not be used to satisfy MMWA threshold	Defendants: may consider state-law claims/damages when computing amount in controversy	Held: Court did not resolve the split; remand was required regardless because defendants failed to prove $50,000 even if state claims were counted
Whether §2310(d)(3)(C)’s 100-named-plaintiff requirement applies	Gangluff: complaint is a class action and names fewer than 100 plaintiffs, so MMWA jurisdiction lacking	Defendants: the MMWA claim is individual, so the 100-plaintiff rule does not apply	Held: Court noted the statute could apply but did not need to decide; remand granted on amount-in-controversy ground in any event
Whether a defendant may rely on post-removal briefing to supply jurisdictional facts absent such facts in the notice of removal	Gangluff: removal notice insufficient; opposing brief cannot cure absence	Defendants: argued facts in their opposition show threshold met	Held: Court rejected reliance on opposition brief; jurisdictional burden rests on removal pleading and must include specific facts

Key Cases Cited

Golden v. Gorno Bros., Inc., 410 F.3d 879 (6th Cir.) (treats amount in controversy according to remedy sought under MMWA context)
Harnden v. Jayco, Inc., 496 F.3d 579 (6th Cir.) (considers state-law contract remedy when it directly supplies the measure of damages for MMWA amount-in-controversy)
Schultz v. Gen. R.V. Ctr., 512 F.3d 754 (6th Cir.) (explains MMWA’s unique jurisdictional $50,000 requirement)
Hayes v. Equitable Energy Res. Co., 266 F.3d 560 (6th Cir.) (placing burden on removing party to prove amount in controversy by preponderance)
Mays v. City of Flint, 871 F.3d 437 (6th Cir.) (post-removal briefing is not part of the pleadings and cannot substitute for facts in the removal notice)
Crouch v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 720 F.3d 333 (6th Cir.) (same principle that a party’s brief cannot supply missing jurisdictional allegations)