DISCUSSION

Maniquis purchased a 2019 Chevrolet Sonic, VIN 1G1JD5SBXK4137889. Compl. at ¶¶ 6, 9. The purchase price of the vehicle based upon the Retail Installment Sale Contract (“RISC”) is $39,363.75. Opp. at 11; Decl. of Naoki Kaneko ISO Opp. (“Kaneko Decl.”) at ¶ 2 [Doc. # 18- 1]. Maniquis purchased the new vehicle on or around October 26, 2019, from a person or entity engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing, selling, or leasing consumer goods. Compl. at ¶¶ 9–10; Kaneko Decl., Exhibit A [Doc. # 18-2 at 2]. Maniquis alleges General Motors’ violations were willful. Compl. at ¶¶ 17, 24, 28.

The Song-Beverly Act allows plaintiffs to recover both actual damages and up to two times the amount of actual damages in civil penalties if they can establish that the defendant’s violation was willful. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1793.2(d)(2)(B), 1794(c). Civil penalties under the Song-Beverly Act are included in the amount in controversy. See Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 1009 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “In measuring the amount in controversy, a court must assume that the allegations of the complaint are true and that a jury will return a verdict for the plaintiff on all claims made in the complaint.” Korn v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., 536 F. Supp. 2d 1199, 1205 (E.D. Cal. 2008). The relevant inquiry is thus “what amount is put ‘in controversy’ by the plaintiff’s complaint, not what a defendant will actually owe.” Id. at 1205. Based on the purchase price and civil penalties alone, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.3

General Motors has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins.

3 $39,363.75 + ($39,363.75 x 2) = $118,091.25.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV-25-7315-DMG (PVCx) Date October 30, 2025

Title Joselyn Patricia Maniquis v. General Motors, LLC, et al. Page 3 of 3

Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). Courts may consider facts in the removal petition as well as “summary-judgement-type evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of removal.” Id. The RISC is sufficient evidence of actual damages. As for penalties, Maniquis’ own allegations of willful violations and request for civil penalties are sufficient. Accord Tadevosyan v. Kia Am., Inc., No. CV 24-11232-DMG (JCX), 2025 WL 1425545, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2025) (including civil penalties in the amount of controversy based on similar allegations).

Courts disagree on whether Song-Beverly Act offsets go to the amount in controversy. See Nicolas Puno v. Gen. Motors LLC, et al., No. CV 25-7365-DMG (PDX), 2025 WL 2986674, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2025); see also Larios v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. CV 25-05095-AJR, 2025 WL 2402250, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2025) (collecting and comparing cases). Even if this Court considers the offsets in this action, the amount in controversy still exceeds $75,000. General Motors calculates $5,667.72 in mileage offsets and $5,895.00 in third-party contract and rebate offsets. Opp. at 11; Kaneko Decl. at ¶ 3. In support, General Motors attaches the vehicle’s repair history. Kaneko Decl., Exhibit B [Doc. # 18-3]. General Motors has made a non-speculative showing of these offsets. See Reply at 9–11. Considering offsets, Maniquis’ actual damages total $27,801.03. Opp. at 11. The combination of Maniquis’ actual damages and civil penalties, even including offsets, exceeds $75,000.4

Accordingly, General Motors’ removal of this action to this Court was proper.5

III.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Maniquis’ MTR. The hearing set for October 31, 2025 is VACATED.

4 $27,801.03 + ($27,801.03 x 2) = $83,403.09.

5 Because the amount in controversy is satisfied through consideration of Maniquis’ actual damages and civil penalties under the Song-Beverly Act, the Court need not address the issue of attorneys’ fees. MTR at 18–21; Reply at 11–13. Moreover, General Motors did not remove this action based upon federal question jurisdiction under the MMWA, therefore the Court need not address it.