Case 2:21-cv-05894-MEMF-JEM Document 38 Filed 03/14/22 Page1lof4 Page ID #:376

l JS-6 3 5 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | GILMA MORENO and ANTONIO CANTOR, Case No.: 2:21-cv-05894-MEMF(JEMx) 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

REMAND [ECF NO. 11]

13 V. 14 15 | FCAUSLLC,a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 20 Before the Court is Plaintiffs Gilma Moreno and Antonio Cantor’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion for 21 | Remand (“Motion”). ECF No. 11. Defendant FCA US LLC (“FCA”) filed an opposition and 22 | Plaintiffs filed a reply. ECF No. 26 (“Opposition”); ECF No. 27 (“Reply”). On March 14, 2022, the 23 | Court found these matters appropriate for resolution without oral argument and vacated the hearing 24 || set for March 17, 2022. ECF No. 37; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Local Rule 7-15. For the reasons 95 | stated herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion. 26 4 /// QT yh 28 ///

Case 2:21-cv-05894-MEMF-JEM Document 38 Filed 03/14/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:377

1 I. Background 2 a. Factual Background 3 Plaintiffs allege they entered into a warranty contract with FCA on February 2, 2019, 4 covering the purchase of a used 2019 Ram 1500 vehicle (the “Vehicle”). ECF No. 1, Exhibit B 5 (“Complaint”) at ¶ 14. Plaintiffs allege, however, that the Vehicle manifested defects and 6 nonconformities to warranty within the applicable express warranty period, including but not limited 7 defects in the electrical and transmission systems. Id. at ¶ 15. 8 Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs assert two causes of actions: (1) breach of express 9 warranty, in violation of the Song-Beverly Act; and (2) breach of implied warranty, in violation of 10 the Song-Beverly Act. Id. 11 b. Procedural History 12 On June 17, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a state court action against FCA in Los Angeles County 13 Superior Court. Id. On July 21, 2021, Defendant FCA filed a notice to remove this action, pursuant 14 to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441(b). ECF No. 1 (“Notice”). Plaintiffs now petition the Court to 15 remand this action on the basis that FCA’s Notice of Removal is insufficient to establish subject 16 matter jurisdiction. Mot. at 2. 17 II. Legal Standard 18 A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the district court has original 19 jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a district court has original 20 jurisdiction over civil actions where the suit is between citizens of different states and the amount in 21 controversy—exclusive of interest and costs—exceeds $75,000. 22 The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction and must file 23 a notice of removal “containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal.” Dart 24 Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 88 (2014) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 25 1446(a)). In Dart, the Supreme Court explained that “a defendant’s notice of removal need include 26 only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold” and 27 need not contain evidentiary submissions. Dart, 574 U.S. at 81. Evidence establishing the amount in 28 controversy is required, however, when the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s 2 Case 2:21-cv-05894-MEMF-JEM Document 38 Filed 03/14/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:378

1 allegation. Id. at 88. “In such a case, both sides submit proof and the court decides, by a 2 preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied.” 3 Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B)) (emphasis added). To meet this standard, “[t]he parties may 4 submit evidence outside the complaint, including affidavits or declarations, or other summary- 5 judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of removal.” Ibarra v. 6 Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks 7 omitted). Indeed, the parties must provide the court with “real evidence” that illustrates the “reality 8 of what is at stake in the litigation” to guide the court in its assessment. Id. at 1198. 9 III. Discussion 10 In its Notice of Removal, FCA plausibly alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds the 11 jurisdictional amount, considering the total sale price of the Vehicle, the civil penalties pled by 12 Plaintiff, and the estimated costs of attorney fees. Notice at 5–6. If the Notice had gone uncontested, 13 FCA’s calculations would have likely been sufficient to demonstrate jurisdiction. That is not the case 14 here. Like in Dart, Plaintiffs’ motion to remand challenges the amount in controversy, thereby 15 necessitating the submission of supporting evidence. See Dart, 574 at 88. 16 Attached to its Notice of Removal, FCA submits a true and correct copy of the Purchase 17 Contract for the Vehicle, listing the total sale price. ECF No. 1-7. As Plaintiffs observe in their reply, 18 FCA, however, fails to provide any other evidence to substantiate its calculations. ECF No. 27 19 (“Reply”) at 3–4. Without a more robust evidentiary record, the Court is unable to determine 20 whether FCA has alleged the threshold amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. 21 Finally, in its opposition, FCA requests leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery. Opp. at 13–14. 22 The decision to grant jurisdictional discovery lies within the discretionary power of the court. See 23 Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chm. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 692 (9th Cir. 2006). FCA anticipates that “targeted 24 interrogatories and/or requests for admission regarding Plaintiffs’ alleged damages” would “be 25 sufficient to elicit evidence to confirm the amount in controversy.” Opp. at 14. The Court agrees that 26 it is possible such evidence might permit a court to find the amount in controversy by the 27 preponderance of the evidence. There is no indication, however, that FCA cannot and could not 28 access evidence confirming the amount in controversy without the requested discovery. 3 Case 2:21-cv-05894-MEMF-JEM Document 38 Filed 03/14/22 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:379

1 Accordingly, the Court DENIES FCA’s belated request for jurisdictional discovery, particularly in

2 the absence of a properly noticed motion.

3 IV. Conclusion

4 In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand. This order

5 closes the case.

6

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

9 Dated: March 14, 2022 ___________________________________

10 MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG

11 United States District Judge

12

13

14

15

16

17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4