Liliana Vallejo v. General Motors LLC
2:19-cv-10631
C.D. Cal.Mar 11, 2020Background:
- Plaintiffs Liliana Vallejo and Carlos Cervantes purchased a vehicle from General Motors, LLC and Santa Paula Chevrolet and allege it was defective.
- Plaintiffs sued in Los Angeles County Superior Court in Nov. 2019 asserting state-law warranty and related claims; the original complaint included a Magnuson-Moss (federal) claim.
- GM removed the action to federal court on Dec. 16, 2019; Plaintiffs then filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) dropping the Magnuson-Moss claim and adding Santa Paula Chevrolet.
- Plaintiffs’ state pleadings allege "damages in a sum not less than $25,001" and seek civil penalties (up to twice actual damages) and attorneys’ fees, but do not itemize amounts.
- Defendants relied on (1) diversity jurisdiction by asserting the amount-in-controversy exceeds $75,000 (combining alleged damages, potential civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees) and (2) federal-question jurisdiction based on the original Magnuson-Moss claim.
- The Court found defendants offered only conclusory assertions and no evidentiary showing that the jurisdictional amount was met and that the FAC contains no federal claim, and therefore granted remand.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether diversity jurisdiction exists (amount in controversy > $75,000) | Complaint only alleges "not less than $25,001" (state practice to qualify as unlimited civil case); no showing of >$75k | Amount exceeds $75k by combining $25,001, potential civil penalties (up to 2x actual damages), and attorneys' fees | No diversity jurisdiction; defendant failed to prove amount-in-controversy by preponderance (remand) |
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists after plaintiffs amended to drop Magnuson-Moss | Plaintiffs may amend to omit federal claim; FAC asserts only state-law claims | Removal was premised on the original federal claim (Magnuson-Moss) | No federal-question jurisdiction; Ninth Circuit permits plaintiffs to amend to remove federal claim and defeat jurisdiction |
| Whether supplemental jurisdiction supports remaining state claims | Without original federal jurisdiction, no supplemental jurisdiction | Defendants argued removal still proper based on original federal claim and diversity | No supplemental jurisdiction because there is no hook of original federal jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) (federal courts have removal jurisdiction over cases that could originally have been filed in federal court)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (strong presumption against removal; defendant bears burden to show removal proper)
- Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2007) (when complaint does not specify damages, defendant must prove by preponderance that amount-in-controversy exceeds threshold)
- Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1997) (removal cannot rest on conclusory allegations about amount in controversy)
- Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC, 899 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2018) (defendant must provide evidence to include future attorneys' fees in amount-in-controversy calculation)
- Baddie v. Berkeley Farms, Inc., 64 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 1995) (plaintiff may amend state-court complaint to drop federal claim after removal to defeat federal jurisdiction)
- Herman Family Revocable Tr. v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2001) (supplemental jurisdiction requires an independent original jurisdictional hook)