I. INTRODUCTION

On November 27, 2023, Amaliya Gevorkyan (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in state court against BMW Financial Services NA, LLC (“Defendant’’) and Finchey Corporation of California (the “Dealership”), asserting claims for: (1) fraud and deceit; (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) violation of Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.; (4) violation of Business and Professions Code §§ 17500, et seq.; and (5) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. (ECF No. 1-1.) The claims arise from a dispute over the terms of a lease agreement. On May 29, 2024, the Dealership was dismissed from the action. Consequently, on June 21, 2024, Defendant removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1.) On July 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request to dismiss her fraud and deceit claim as well as strike her request for punitive damages, which the Court granted on July 25, 2024. (ECF Nos. 9, 20.) On July 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 18.) For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion. Il. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges the following facts in her Complaint: On September 27, 2019, Plaintiff went to the Dealership to lease a new 2019 BMW X1 SDrive28i Coupe (the “Vehicle”). During the lease negotiations, the Dealership represented that monthly lease payments would be deducted from the principal balance, allowing Plaintiff to build equity in the Vehicle, and that Plaintiff may elect to purchase the Vehicle for its residual value. These representations later turned out to be false. On March 20, 2022, the Vehicle was deemed a total loss following a car accident. On May 4, 2022, State Farm issued an insurance payout of CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JS6

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. 2:24-cv-05235-RGK-JC Date September 16, 2024 Title Amaliya Gevorkyan v. BMW Financial Services NA, LLC $34,326.56 exclusively to Defendant. At the time of the accident, Plaintiff built 12,375.84 worth of equity in the Vehicle resulting from her monthly lease payments. Defendant refused to remit the equity from the $34,326.56 payout to Plaintiff. Ii. JUDICIAL STANDARD Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, district courts shall have original jurisdiction over any civil action in which the parties are citizens of different states, and the action involves an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. The defendant removing the case to federal court bears the burden of establishing the jurisdictional facts, namely the amount in controversy and complete diversity of the parties. Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 682-83 (9th Cir. 2006). When a plaintiff contests a jurisdictional fact, the defendant must establish that fact by a preponderance of the evidence. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566—67 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)). Courts must “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction” and must remand an action “if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Id. at 566.

IV. DISCUSSION

Although the Complaint affirmatively alleges an amount in controversy, the Court rejects the calculation of damages from which it results, and finds this jurisdictional requirement lacking. The amount in controversy requirement is “presumptively satisfied” when the complaint clearly alleges an amount in controversy greater than $75,000. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2008). To defeat removal in such cases, the removing must prove to a “legal certainty” that amount in controversy cannot possibly exceed the jurisdictional threshold. Paw/ Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-89 (1938); Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 402 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, the Complaint explicitly sought recovery in the amount $124,379.23. (Compl. § 141.) In this manner, Plaintiff provided an unambiguous amount in controversy that presumptively satisfied the jurisdictional requirement for removal. However, this presumption falls short because upon review of the pleadings, it appears legally certain that the amount in controversy falls below the jurisdictional

Plaintiff's initial calculation of damages 1s misguided and incongruent with the claim presented. Plaintiff's $124,379.23 figure appears to be the sum of actual damages at $12,375.84, plus punitive damages worth nine times the actual damages at $111,382.56, and costs at $620.83. The underlying claims, however, do not warrant a punitive damages award worth nine times the actual damages. The Court finds no authority to support such an incredible award. Excluding this absurd award, Plaintiff's CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JS6

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. 2:24-cv-05235-RGK-JC Date September 16, 2024 Title Amaliya Gevorkyan v. BMW Financial Services NA, LLC remaining damages fall well short of the $75,000 threshold. Thus, it was legally certain that the pleadings at the time of removal could not yield an amount in controversy over $75,000, and the Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion, and REMANDS the matter to state court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ec: LASC, 23GDCV02496

Initials of Preparer JRE/sf

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 3 of 3