Case 5:22-cv-00310-RGK-SP Document 13 Filed 04/28/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:86

JS6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. 5:22-CV-00310-RGK-SP Date April 28, 2022 Title ARMANDO TAVIZON et al v. FORD MOTOR CO., et al cc: San Bernardino County Superior Court, CIVSB2132733 Present: The R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Honorable Joseph Remigio (Not Present) Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Order Remanding Action to State Court On November 23, 2021, Armando Tavizon and Jalissa Tavison (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Ford Motor Company (“Defendant”) alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act. On February 18, 2022, Defendant removed the action to federal court alleging jurisdiction on the grounds of diversity of citizenship. Upon review of Defendant’s Notice of Removal, the Court hereby remands the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to 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 involved an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. After a plaintiff files a case in state court, the defendant attempting to remove the case to federal court bears the burden of proving the amount in controversy requirement has been met. Lowdermilk v. United States Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2007). If the complaint does not allege that the amount in controversy has been met, the removing defendant must plausibly allege in its notice of removal that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 553-54(2014). Whether or not the plaintiff challenges these allegations, a court may still insist that the jurisdictional requirement has been established by a preponderance of the evidence. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566–67 (9th Cir. 1992). In the complaint, Plaintiff seeks damages, including compensatory damages, restitution, statutory remedies, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act. In support of its removal, Defendant calculates that based on the vehicle price of 46,275.61 and $92,551.22 in civil (i.e, two times actual damages), the amount in controversy is already exceeds the jurisdictional minimum, not including attorneys’ fees. However, while the Song-Beverly Warranty Act allows a plaintiff to recover the full purchase price of the car, this amount must be reduced to account for any use by plaintiff prior to the first repair CV-90 (06/04 ) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2 Case 5:22-cv-00310-RGK-SP Document 13 Filed 04/28/22 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:87

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. 5:22-CV-00310-RGK-SP Date April 28, 2022 Title ARMANDO TAVIZON et al v. FORD MOTOR CO., et al of the vehicle. See Tokmakova v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., 2012 WL 12952629, at * 2–3. Here, there is there no indication as to how many miles Plaintiff drove the car prior to the first repair. Without such facts, the Court is left with considerable doubt as to the amount in controversy. Accord Tokmakova, 2012 WL 12952629, at *3. Further, a plaintiff’s recovery is limited to the actual payment amount to the seller. See Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 1008 (N.D. Cal. 2002). The Installment Contract, executed in the latter part of 2018, indicates a down payment of $1,500 with the balance to be paid over six years. (Espinosa Decl., Ex. D.) With $1,500 as a starting point, the Court finds it implausible that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. As Defendant points out, Plaintiff would be entitled to civil penalties and attorneys’ fees if the action succeeds. As to attorneys’ fees, the Court finds this to be speculative. Moreover, given the deficiencies of Defendant’s calculations with respect to actual damages, civil penalties, which are based on actual damages, are similarly deficient. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to plausibly allege that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional requirement. In light of the foregoing, the action is hereby remanded to state court for all further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

: Initials of Preparer jre/v

CV-90 (06/04 ) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 2