1 O 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 2:25-cv-09056-MEMF-AS 11 ALFREDO PLACENSIA, an individual,

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO REMAND [DKT. NO. 14]

14

15 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, 16 inclusive, 17 Defendants.

18 19 20 Before the Court is a Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiff Alfredo Placensia. Dkt. No. 14. For 21 the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES the Motion to Remand. 22 23 24 25 26 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 I. Background 2 A. Factual Background 1 3 Plaintiff Alfredo Placensia is a resident of Adelanto, California. Dkt. No. 1-1 ¶¶ 1-2 4 (“Complaint” or “Compl.”). Defendant General Motors LLC (“GM”) is a limited liability company 5 incorporated and organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and is registered to conduct 6 business in California. Id. ¶¶ 3-4. Defendant is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, 7 and selling motor vehicles and motor vehicle components. Id. 8 On or around March 28, 2021, Placensia purchased a 2021 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 9 (“Subject Vehicle”) manufactured and/or distributed by GM. Id ¶¶ 6, 9. At the time Placensia 10 purchased the Subject Vehicle, he received express written warranties through which GM undertook 11 the duty to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the Subject Vehicle, or to provide 12 compensation if there were a failure in utility or performance for a specified time period. Id. ¶ 11. In 13 relevant part, the warranty provided that if a nonconformity developed during the applicable 14 warranty period, Placensia could deliver the Subject Vehicle to GM’s authorized service and repair 15 facilities, and it would be repaired. Id. 16 The Subject Vehicle developed defects covered by GM’s express written warranties, 17 including but not limited to engine defects. Id. ¶ 12. These defects substantially impair the use, 18 value, and/or safety of the Subject Vehicle to Placensia. Id. Placensia delivered the Subject Vehicle 19 to GM and/or its authorized service and repair facilities for diagnosis and repair of the defects. Id. ¶ 20 13. GM failed to service or repair the Subject Vehicle to conform to the express warranties and 21 subsequently failed to promptly replace the Subject Vehicle or make restitution to Placensia. Id. ¶¶ 22 14-15. 23 B. Procedural History 24 On April 4, 2025, Placensia filed his complaint against GM in the Superior Court of 25 California for the county of Los Angeles. See Compl. The Complaint contained five separate causes 26

27 1 Except as otherwise indicated, the following factual background is derived from Plaintiff’s Complaint. Dkt. No. 1-1 (“Complaint” or “Compl.”). The Court includes these allegations only as background and makes no 28 1 of action against GM: (1) Violation of Subdivision (D) of California Civil Code Section 1793.2; (2) 2 Violation of Subdivision (B) of California Civil Code Section 1793.2; (3) Violation of Subdivision 3 (A)(3) of California Civil Code Section 1793.2; (4) Violation of the Implied Warranty of 4 Merchantability (Civ. Code § 1791.1; § 1794); and (5) Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty 5 Act (15 U.S.C. § 2301-2312). Id. GM filed its answer on July 1, 2025. Dkt. No. 1-2. The first, 6 second, third, and fourth claims are brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act 7 (“Song-Beverly Act”). Cal. Civ. Code. § 1790 et. seq. 8 On September 10, 2025, GM filed its notice of removal to the Court on the grounds of 9 diversity jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 1 (“Notice”). Placensia filed his Motion to Remand on October 3, 10 2025, arguing that GM’s removal was untimely and substantively deficient, and thus remand is 11 necessary. See Dkt. No. 14 (“Motion” or “Mot.”). GM filed its Opposition on October 17, 2025. Dkt. 12 No. 17 (“Opposition” or “Opp.”). Placensia filed his Reply on October 24, 2025. Dkt. No. 18 13 (“Reply”). 14 II. Applicable Law 15 A. Motion to Remand 16 The “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.”Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, 17 Inc., 878 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2017)(internal quotation marks omitted). Civil actions may be 18 removed from state court if the federal court has original jurisdiction.SeeSyngenta Crop Prot., Inc. 19 v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 33 (2002)(“Under the plain terms of § 1441(a), in order properly to remove 20 [an] action pursuant to that provision, … original subject-matter jurisdiction [must] lie[ ] in the 21 federal courts.”). A plaintiff, as “master of the complaint, ‘gets to determine which substantive 22 claims to bring against which defendants … [to] establish—or not—the basis for a federal court's 23 subject-matter jurisdiction.’” California ex rel. Harrison v. Express Scripts, Inc., 154 F.4th 1069, 24 1077 (9th Cir. 2025) (quoting Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 35 (2025)). 25 The defendant has thirty days to remove a case after receipt of the complaint where the 26 grounds for removal are clear on the face of the complaint, or if not clear, thirty days after receipt of 27 some other document that shows the case is removable. Roth v. CHA Hollywood Med. Ctr., L.P., 720 28 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Section 1446(b)(1) and (b)(3) specify that a defendant must 1 remove a case within thirty days of receiving from the plaintiff either an initial pleading or some 2 other document, if that pleading or document shows the case is removable.”). If neither thirty-day 3 deadline is triggered, the defendant “may remove to federal court when it discovers, based on its 4 own investigation, that a case is removable.” Id. 5 When there is doubt regarding whether the right to removal exists, a case should 6 beremandedto state court.Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th 7 Cir. 2003)(citingGaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). Further, a removed case 8 must beremanded“[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks 9 subject matter jurisdiction.”28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 10 As a result, removal of a state action may be based on either diversity or federal question 11 jurisdiction. City of Chicago v. Int’l College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 163 (1997); Caterpillar Inc. 12 v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). The defendant seeking removal of an action from state court 13 bears the burden of establishing grounds for federal jurisdiction. Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. 14 Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 2010). Courts resolve all ambiguities “in favor of 15 remand to state court.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 16 Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). 17 Diversity jurisdiction exists where the suit is between citizens of different states and the 18 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 19 “[W]here it is unclear or ambiguous from the face of a state-court complaint whether the requisite 20 amount in controversy is pled,” the removing defendant must establish by a preponderance of the 21 evidence that the amount in controversy “more likely than not” exceeds $75,000. Guglielmino v. 22 McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007); Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 23 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). Under these circumstances, “both sides submit proof and the court 24 decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has 25 been satisfied.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 88 (2014) (citing 26 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B)) (emphasis added). To meet this standard, “[t]he parties may submit 27 evidence outside the complaint, including affidavits or declarations, or other summary-judgment- 28 type evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of removal.” Ibarra v. Manheim 1 Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2 Indeed, the parties must provide the court with “real evidence” that illustrates the “reality of what is 3 at stake in the litigation” to guide the court in its assessment. Id. at 1198.2 4 III. Discussion

5

A. GM’s Notice of Removal Was Timely Because the Complaint was Indeterminate

6 as to Subject Matter Jurisdiction. 7 Placensia first argues that GM’s removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. §1446(b) because it 8 was filed more than thirty days after it was served with the Complaint, rendering it procedurally 9 defective. See Mot. at 4. GM argues that neither thirty-day deadline under §1446(b) was triggered 10 because the Complaint was indeterminate as to citizenship and the amount in controversy, and only 11 after its own investigation did a non-speculative basis for removal become apparent, making its 12 removal timely. See generally Opp. Placensia’s argument focuses on the Magnuson-Moss Warranty 13 Act claim. See Mot. at 4-9. Placensia argues that because the MMWA claim is a federal cause of 14 action, this should have been sufficient to show grounds for removal on the basis of federal question 15 jurisdiction. See id. at 5. Although MMWA is a federal cause of action, for a federal court to hear it, 16 the amount in controversy must exceed $50,000. Kelly v. Fleetwood Enters., 377 F.3d 1034, 1037 17 (9th Cir. 2004). GM addresses both the MMWA claim and diversity jurisdiction, arguing that 18 because the Complaint was indeterminate as to the amount in controversy, there were no grounds 19 clear on the face of the Complaint triggering GM’s duty to remove. 20 i. Placensia’s complaint was indeterminate as to diversity jurisdiction. 21 22

23 2 GM argues that both Placensia’s reliance on Gaus v. Miles for the strict construction of removal statutes 24 applying to procedural exceptions and Placensia’s characterization of the burden to show subject matter jurisdiction as a heavy one are wrong. See Opp. at 1, 8. As to the burden of proof argument, the Ninth Circuit 25 explicitly clarified in Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co. that the burden of proof a defendant must show is a preponderance of the evidence. See Sanchez, 102 F.3d at 404. And as to the strict construction argument, the 26 Court finds that Breuer v. Jim’s Concrete of Brevard, Inc., does make clear that the strict construction of removal statutes is not intended to apply to removal statutes having to do with procedural exceptions. See 27 Breuer v. Jim’s Concrete of Brevard, Inc., 538 U.S. 691, 697-98 (2003) (finding that the strict construction of removal statutes called for in Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941), was superseded to 28 1 To trigger the thirty-day deadline under §1446(b)(1), the defendant must be served with a 2 complaint which clearly reveals the ground for removal. See Roth, 720 F.3d at 1123; Harris v. 3 Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 695 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he ground for removal must be 4 revealed affirmatively in the initial pleading in order for the first thirty-day clock under § 1446(b) to 5 begin.”). To trigger the second thirty-day deadline pathway under §1446(b)(3), the defendant must 6 be served with an amended pleading, motion, order, or other paper that makes a ground for removal 7 “unequivocally clear and certain.” Dietrich v. Boeing Co., 14 F.4th 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2021).3 8 Here, the Complaint does not reveal sufficient information to trigger removal on the basis of 9 diversity jurisdiction. Even assuming that Plasencia’s complaint made his citizenship clear, the 10 Complaint does not plead any specific amount at issue. See generally Compl. Placencia argues that 11 while he did not allege a specific dollar amount in controversy, the amount in controversy is 12 nevertheless ascertainable on the face of the Complaint. See Mot. at 5-8. He notes that he included 13 the civil case cover sheet, which indicated that the claim was being brought under the state court’s 14 unlimited jurisdiction, which is for damages over $35,000. This fact does little, as this checkbox 15 refers to the amount demanded, and does not distinguish actual damages from other penalties 16 demanded, including the two-times purchase price Placensia seeks. See id. at 8, 8 n.1. Thus, this 17 does not show the amount in controversy is met. 18 Placensia also highlights that his Complaint included (1) the Subject Vehicle’s make, model, 19 VIN, and year; and (2) damages sought, including restitution for the purchase of the Subject Vehicle, 20 incidental and consequential damages, civil penalties of two times actual damages, and attorney’s 21 fees. See id. at 7-8. This, he argues, given GM’s sophisticated knowledge as manufacturer of such 22 vehicles, was enough for GM to make a plausible allegation as to the amount in controversy, and 23

24 3 Neither party relies on nor refers to another document served by Placensia in this case, so this second 25 pathway is inapplicable here, as seemingly conceded by both parties. See Mot at 8-9; Opp. at 7. Furthermore, although GM admits Placensia served it with the RISC and payment history on September 2, 2025, this is not 26 the only document it relied on in finding that the amount in controversy is met, so the second pathway remains inapplicable. See Dkt. No. 17-1. Even if it were applicable, Placensia provided the RISC and payment 27 history on September 2, 2025. Id. GM filed the notice of removal on September 10, 2025, within thirty days of receipt of such documents. See Notice. Thus, even if the second thirty-day deadline were triggered, GM 28 1 thus triggered the first thirty-day deadline for removal. Id. at 6-8. But this “plausible allegation” 2 standard, as articulated in Dart, is the standard for assessing a defendant’s removal allegations, not 3 whether a defendant is obligated to remove a case within the thirty-day deadline. See Dart, 574 U.S. 4 at 89. Because GM could have plausibly alleged the amount in controversy does not mean the thirty- 5 day deadline was triggered. The Ninth Circuit addressed the question of what triggers the thirty-day 6 deadline in Harris, holding that the deadline only triggered by grounds for removal affirmatively 7 revealed, and has affirmed this holding since. See Harris, 425 F.3d at 695; Kuxhausen v. BMW Fin. 8 Servs. NA LLC, 707 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 2013) (applying the same principle to hold that the 9 defendant was “not obligated to supply information which [plaintiff] had omitted.”). 10 Also, GM’s subjective knowledge or ability to gather information is irrelevant; the focus is 11 on the information made available through the pleadings, and GM had no duty to investigate. Harris, 12 425 F.3d at 694 (“notice of removability under § 1446(b) is determined through examination of the 13 four corners of the applicable pleadings, not through subjective knowledge or a duty to make further 14 inquiry.”). Just because GM may be capable of determining the amount in controversy based on 15 information in the complaint, it does not mean it is then obligated to make such a determination and 16 remove within the thirty-day deadline. See id. at 697. 17 Because the Complaint does not make the amount in controversy clear on its face, it was 18 indeterminate as to diversity jurisdiction and did not trigger the first thirty-day deadline for removal.

19 ii. Placensia’s complaint was indeterminate as to federal question jurisdiction. 20 Placensia argues that the first §1446(b) thirty-day deadline was triggered because his 21 Complaint contained a Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”) claim. See Mot. at 5. The 22 Magnuson-Moss Act allows “a consumer who is damaged by the failure of a supplier, warrantor, or 23 service contractor to comply with any obligation under this chapter, or under a written warranty, 24 implied warranty, or service contract” to bring a “suit for damages and other legal and equitable 25 relief” in “any court of competent jurisdiction in any State.” 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1). Magnuson- 26 Moss also establishes that no such claim may be brought in the United States District Courts “if the 27 amount in controversy of any individual claim is less than the sum or value of $25” or “if the amount 28 in controversy is less than the sum or value of $50,000 (exclusive of interests and costs).” 15 U.S.C. 1 § 2310(d)(3)(A)-(B). Therefore, for federal courts to hear MMWA claims, the amount in controversy 2 must be at least $50,000. 15 U.S.C. §2031(3)(B). As established above, the amount in controversy is 3 not ascertainable on the face of the complaint. Therefore, given the MMWA requires the $50,000 4 threshold amount in controversy to be met, the first §1446(b) thirty-day deadline was not triggered 5 as to federal question jurisdiction.4 6 For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that GM has met its burden of showing 7 removal was timely. The Complaint did not make clear on its face that more than $50,000 or 8 $75,000 was at stake, and no other pleading or paper was filed that would fully clarify it. Therefore, 9 neither thirty-day removal deadline was triggered, and GM was allowed to remove upon discovering 10 valid grounds for removal through its own investigations. See Roth, 720 F.3d at 1123.

11

B. GM Has Shown by a Preponderance of the Evidence that Diversity Jurisdiction

12 Exists. 13 Placensia next argues that GM has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that 14 removal was proper. See Mot. at 9-11; see generally Reply. GM argues it has shown diversity 15 jurisdiction, rendering removal proper. See Notice at 2-6; see Opp. at 16-19. Diversity jurisdiction 16 exists where the suit is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds 17 $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Placensia does not challenge GM’s 18 citizenship allegations, where he is a citizen of California, and GM is a citizen of Michigan and 19 Delaware. Notice at 3. Thus, complete diversity exists. 20 However, Placensia contends that GM has failed to sufficiently show that the amount in 21 controversy has been met to establish subject matter jurisdiction. See Mot. at 9; see generally Reply. 22 GM argues that it has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy 23 exceeds $75,000. See Opp. at 16-19. Where the amount in controversy is unclear or ambiguous on 24 25 4 GM discusses the potential uncertainty with how courts in this circuit evaluate the amount in controversy under MMWA, with some strictly interpreting it such that remedies such as civil penalties would not be 26 included, and others interpreting it to include civil penalties. See Opp. at 10-11. However, the Court need not determine whether civil penalties would be included in the MMWA claim because it finds that Placensia’s 27 complaint was indeterminate as to any amount since it did not state any specific values for damages under any cause of action. There is then no way that even civil penalties alone would be enough to implicate the amount 28 1 the face of the complaint, the defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the 2 requisite amount is met. See Guglielmino, 506 F.3d at 699. A preponderance of the evidence means 3 it is more likely than not. Sanchez, 102 F.3d at 404. In determining the amount in controversy, the 4 defendant may rely on “a chain of reasoning that includes assumptions.” Arias v. Residence Inn by 5 Marriott, 936 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2019). But, “a defendant cannot establish removal jurisdiction 6 by mere speculation and conjecture, with unreasonable assumptions.” Ibarra, 775 F.3d at 1197. 7 Notably, in neither his Motion nor Reply, does Placensia contend that the amount in controversy is 8 less than $50,000 (or $75,000), and provides no evidence of such a claim, but rather solely argues 9 that GM has not met this preponderance of the evidence standard. 10 i. Actual Damages 11 Placencia argues that GM has failed to produce any evidence or specific facts regarding the 12 actual damages. See Mot. at 9-10; see Reply at 3-5. GM contends that is has satisfied its burden, 13 providing the Retail Installment Sale Contract (“RISC”), repair history, a loan payoff letter, and an 14 accompanying declaration from one of the attorneys on this case as evidence for its actual damages 15 calculation. See Opp. at 17-18; Dkt. Nos. 17-1, 17-4. The Court finds that these documents constitute 16 summary-judgment type of evidence and show and substantiate the values used in GM’s calculations 17 made under the Song-Beverly damages formula, which satisfies the preponderance of the evidence 18 standard. See Opp. at 17-18. 19 Restitution under the Song-Beverly Act is calculated by the amount directly attributable to 20 use, calculated by multiplying the actual price of the vehicle paid/payable by “a fraction having as its 21 denominator 120,000 and having as its numerator the number of miles traveled by the new motor 22 vehicle prior to the time the buyer first delivered the vehicle to the manufacturer or distributor.” Cal. 23 Civ. Code § 1793.2. The RISC provides that Placensia purchased the Subject Vehicle for $61,440.12 24 on March 28, 2021, with five miles on the odometer. See Opp. at 17; Ex. A, Dkt. No. 17-2 (“RISC”). 25 The vehicle had a cash price of $47,640.00. RISC. Next, based on its own investigatory efforts, GM 26 identified Placensia’s first apparent relevant presentation of defects, on February 9, 2022. See Salas 27 Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. B, Dkt. No. 17-3 (“Vehicle History Summary”). The Subject Vehicle’s odometer at 28 this time displayed 13,553 miles. Vehicle History Summary. Based on the five miles on the 1 odometer at the outset, GM calculated the mileage driven prior to discovery to thus be 13,548 miles. 2 See Opp. at 17. GM used this number to correctly calculate the mileage offset according to the 3 formula for restitution under the Song-Beverly Act, finding an offset amount of $5,378.60. Id. GM 4 identified applicable optional third-party offsets of $1,095. See Opp. at 17; Cal. Civ. Proc. § 871.27. 5 Finally, though Placensia did not appear to provide the entire history of loan repayment, based on the 6 RISC, GM estimated that Placencia has thirty-two months left of the $731.43 monthly payments 7 remaining as of the removal date. Id. GM asserts that based on discussions with Placensia’s counsel, 8 this matter is unlikely to resolve early, and thus it is reasonable to account for an additional twelve 9 monthly financing payments, which leads to an unpaid finances deduction value of $8,777.16, 10 bringing the total actual damages calculation to $46,189.36.5 11 The Court finds this to be a reasonable assumption, and not speculative, given the history of 12 litigation between GM and Plaintiff’s counsel. See Arias, 936 F.3d at 927 (“assumptions made part 13 of the defendant's chain of reasoning need not be proven; they instead must only have some 14 reasonable ground underlying them.”) (internal quotations omitted). Placensia argues in his Reply 15 that GM must cite specific facts to show offsets from payments made. See Reply at 3-4. However, 16 GM did rely on specific facts from the payment history, and thus the Court finds that it was entitled 17 to make a reasonable assumption based on this history and its experience litigating with Plaintiff’s 18 counsel. Therefore, based on the detailed calculations provided, with reasoned assumptions as to 19 certain values GM could not specifically procure, the Court finds that this value of $46,189.36 is 20 supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 21 ii. Civil Penalties 22 Placensia next contends that civil penalties are too speculative to include in the amount in 23 controversy calculation. Reply at 5. The Song-Beverly Act permits a plaintiff to obtain a civil 24 penalty of up to two times the amount of actual damages. Cal. Civ. Code § 1794.9(c). Placensia 25

26 5 There has been a change of law regarding offsets under the Beverly-Song Act. See Opp. at 14; A.B. 1755, 27 2023-24 Leg. Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2024). This amendment entitles defendants to additional offsets, including unpaid financing. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 871.27(f). Because this action was filed after January 1, 2025, 28 1 argues that, despite making a request for two times actual damages in his prayer for relief, this civil 2 penalties award is too speculative, and that GM did not provide any evidence to support it. Id. “The 3 amount in controversy is simply an estimate of the total amount in dispute, not a prospective 4 assessment of defendant's liability.” Lewis v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 400 (9th Cir. 5 2010). Therefore, “the amount in controversy includes all relief claimed at the time of removal to 6 which the plaintiff would be entitled if she prevails.” Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 888 F.3d 7 413, 418 (9th Cir. 2018).6 8 Here, the Court finds it appropriate to consider civil penalties. Placensia specifically 9 requested civil penalties two times the amount of actual damages in his prayer for relief, did not 10 deny that he is seeking such penalties in his Motion, and alleged GM willfully failed to comply with 11 the Song-Beverly obligations. See Compl. at 2-6; see generally Mot. GM provided sufficient 12 evidence of the actual damages, rendering the maximum civil penalties amount nonspeculative. See 13 Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(c) and (e). Placensia did not provide evidence to the contrary. See Arias, 936 14 F.3d at 925 (“[W]hen a defendant's assertion of the amount in controversy is challenged ... both sides 15 submit proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in- 16 controversy requirement has been satisfied.”). Given Placensia’s request for civil penalties and GM’s 17 non-speculative calculation of actual damages, the Court finds it is appropriate to include civil 18 penalties, bringing the estimated damages to $138,568.18. Opp. at 18. 19 iii. Attorney’s Fees 20

21 6 District courts are split on whether civil penalties under the Song-Beverly Act should be included in the 22 amount-in-controversy calculation. See e.g., Carillo v. FCA USA, LLC, 546 F. Supp. 3d 995, 1004 (C.D. Cal. 2021) (finding that two-times the amount of actual damages in civil penalties under the Song-Beverly Act 23 should be included in the amount in controversy calculation for the purpose of removal where a plaintiff alleges willfulness); Wang v. FCA US LLC, No. 24-2060, 2025 WL 1218745, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2025) 24 (finding that the plaintiffs’ arguments that civil penalties were speculative where they did not contest seeking them “border on frivolous”). But see, e.g., Estrada v. FC US LLC, No. 20-10453, 2021 WL 223249, at *3 25 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2021) (finding the defendant failed to carry its burden as to two times civil penalties because it did not explain why it would be awarded or provide any evidence); Barrett v. FCA US LLC, No. 26 21-243, 2021 WL 1263838, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2021) (refusing to include the defendant’s “estimate of speculative civil penalties or attorneys' fees to meet the amount in controversy”). The Court finds it 27 appropriate to consider civil penalties where the underlying actual damages has been found non-speculative, and the plaintiff has requested them in their complaint. See Opp. at 15-16; see also Reply at 6-9. To the extent 28 1 Finally, Placensia argues that GM’s arguments regarding attorney’s fees are not grounded in 2 any evidence and thus cannot be considered in the amount in controversy calculation. See Mot. at 3 10-11; see also Reply at 8-11. “[A] court must include future attorneys’ fees recoverable by statute 4 or contract when assessing whether the amount-in-controversy requirement is met.” Fritsch v. Swift 5 Transp. Co., LLC, 899 F.3d 785, 794 (9th Cir. 2018). However, the Ninth Circuit still requires that 6 “a removing defendant [] prove that the amount in controversy (including attorneys’ fees) exceeds 7 the jurisdictional threshold by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 795. Here, the Court finds 8 that GM has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that attorney’s fees should be 9 included, but because the amount in controversy has already been met, this finding does not render 10 removal improper. Unlike under actual damages where GM provided actual evidence to support its 11 careful calculations, here GM merely alleges what Placensia’s counsel has previously charged in 12 similar cases and provides a general estimate of “at least $15,000 in attorney’s fees” based on 13 expected work. See Opp. at 18-19. Even if GM’s estimates are accurate based on its experience 14 litigating against Placensia’s counsel, it is required to show this by a preponderance of the evidence. 15 It has not. Therefore, the Court finds that attorney’s fees are not part of the amount in controversy 16 calculation, rendering a final amount of $138,568.18. 17 Accordingly, because GM has satisfied the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the 18 evidence, the Court finds that GM’s removal was proper.

19 C. Placensia is Not Entitled to Attorney’s Fees, Incurred as a Result of GM’s 20 Alleged Untimely Removal. 21 When remanding a case, a court may, in its discretion, “require payment of just costs and any 22 actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 23 1447(c); see also Jordan v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 781 F.3d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir. 2015). Typically, 24 a court may only award fees and costs when “the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable 25 basis for seeking removal.” Jordan, 781 F.3d at 1184 (quoting Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 26 U.S. 132, 141 (2005)). Courts in the Ninth Circuit apply “an objectively reasonable standard by 27 looking to the clarity of the law at the time of removal.” Lussier v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 518 F.3d 28 1062, 1066 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Martin, 546 U.S. at 141). l Here, the Complaint did not provide certainty with respect to the amount of actual damages 2 | or civil penalties. GM would have to conclude that the attorney’s fees alone would surmount the 3 || $50,000 amount in controversy to remove on that basis. This is implausible at this early stage of the 4 | action, and the law on the issue is not clear enough to support an award of attorney's fees as a 5 || sanction to the losing litigant. See Lussier, 518 F.3d at 1066. Accordingly, the Court declines to 6 || exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to award Placensia attorney's fees and costs. 7 IV. Conclusion 8 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows: 9 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 14) is DENIED. 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 if ——— 14 Dated: December 2, 2025 15 MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28