30 F.4th 1144
9th Cir.2022Background
- Plaintiff Nicholas Shoner filed a putative class action against Carrier alleging his air conditioner was defective and asserting Michigan express and implied warranty claims plus a federal Magnuson‑Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) claim.
- The district court exercised CAFA jurisdiction over the state claims; the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the state claims in a separate memorandum disposition.
- The MMWA bars federal jurisdiction unless the amount in controversy for an individual claim is at least $50,000 (15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3)(B)); Shoner’s actual damages were about $1,266.
- Shoner argued that anticipated attorneys’ fees could be included in the MMWA amount in controversy to surpass $50,000.
- The Ninth Circuit held that attorneys’ fees are not automatically excluded as “costs” under the MMWA and may be included in the amount in controversy only if an underlying law authorizes fee recovery; because Michigan warranty statutes do not authorize fees and the Michigan Consumer Protection Act bars fees in class actions, Shoner could not count fees and the federal court lacked jurisdiction over his MMWA claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attorneys’ fees count toward the MMWA $50,000 amount‑in‑controversy (i.e., are excluded as “costs”) | Fees may be included to meet the jurisdictional threshold | Fees are "costs" excluded from the MMWA threshold | Attorneys’ fees are not necessarily "costs" excluded; they may be included in the amount in controversy if available under applicable state fee‑shifting law |
| Whether Michigan law entitles Shoner to recover attorneys’ fees for claims in this suit | Shoner pointed to his Michigan Consumer Protection Act claim as a fee source | Carrier noted Michigan warranty statutes do not award fees and MCPA forbids fees in class actions | Michigan warranty statutes do not authorize fees, and MCPA bars fees in class actions; Shoner cannot recover fees here |
| Whether the federal court had subject‑matter jurisdiction over Shoner’s MMWA claim | Including fees would make the claim reach $50,000 and confer jurisdiction | The amount in controversy is below $50,000 so no federal jurisdiction | Because fees cannot be counted here, the MMWA claim cannot meet $50,000 and the district court lacked jurisdiction; vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss |
Key Cases Cited
- Saval v. BL Ltd., 710 F.2d 1027 (4th Cir. 1983) (held attorneys’ fees are “costs” excluded from the MMWA amount‑in‑controversy)
- Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1998) (when statute authorizes fees, prospective fees may be included in amount in controversy)
- Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., 899 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2018) (amount in controversy includes prospective attorney fees authorized by law)
- Gonzales v. CarMax Auto Superstores, 840 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 2016) (amount in controversy covers relief that entails a payment by defendant)
- Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2007) (clarifies the ‘‘entails a payment’’ standard for amount in controversy)
- St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938) (pleadings generally control amount‑in‑controversy unless legal certainty to the contrary)
- Kelly v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 377 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2004) (Ninth Circuit guidance on MMWA jurisdictional analysis)
- Ansari v. Bella Auto. Grp., Inc., 145 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 1998) (circuit decision concluding attorneys’ fees are excluded from MMWA amount‑in‑controversy)