484 F.Supp.3d 862
C.D. Cal.2020Background
- Plaintiff Nancy Nadeen Zamora bought (after leasing) a BMW vehicle she alleges abnormally shuts down and could not be repaired after a reasonable number of attempts.
- Zamora sued in Los Angeles Superior Court under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act seeking actual damages (vehicle price > $40,000), a civil penalty of two times actual damages (alleged > $81,000), and attorney’s fees.
- BMW removed the action to federal court invoking diversity jurisdiction; BMW is an LLC whose sole member is a Delaware corporation with principal place of business in New Jersey.
- BMW produced evidence of Zamora’s California domicile (California-issued SSN, CA driver’s license, long-term CA residences, purchase/service in CA).
- BMW alleged the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 given Zamora’s claim for restitution of the purchase price plus statutory civil penalties; Zamora contested removal and moved to remand and for fees.
- The Court denied remand and denied Zamora’s request for attorney’s fees, finding complete diversity and that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 and that removal was objectively reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diversity of citizenship | Zamora contends BMW failed to establish her domicile in California | BMW showed evidence indicating Zamora is domiciled in California and that BMW (LLC) is citizen of DE and NJ | Court held complete diversity exists (Zamora CA; BMW DE & NJ) |
| Amount in controversy | Amount asserted by BMW is speculative; argues remand required | BMW points to complaint seeking restitution (> $40,000) and a statutory civil penalty of two times damages (puts controversy > $75,000) | Court held BMW met its burden; amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 |
| Attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) | Zamora seeks fees for removal and litigation costs | BMW argued removal was objectively reasonable based on diversity and amount allegations | Court denied fees because BMW had an objectively reasonable basis to remove |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (strong presumption against removal; defendant bears burden to show removal proper)
- Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2006) (LLC is a citizen of every state of its members)
- Kanter v. Warner‑Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) (domicile is residence with intent to remain or return)
- Mondragon v. Capital One Auto Fin., 736 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2013) (a person’s residence is prima facie evidence of domicile)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014) (notice of removal need only plausibly allege amount in controversy; burden shifts when contested)
- Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) (attorney’s fees under §1447(c) only when removal was objectively unreasonable)