Liliana Ramirez v. Nissan North America, Inc.

facts supporting such an award. As to attorneys’ fees, district courts within the Ninth Circuit are split with respect to including prospective attorneys’ fees in the amount in controversy, and some courts have CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of

JS6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. 2:23-cv-02538-RGK-PVC Date April 5, 2023 Title Liliana Ramirez v. Nissan North America, Inc. declined to do so. See, e.g., MIC Philberts Invs. v. Am. Cas. Co. Of Reading, Pa., 2012 WL 2118239, at *5 (E.D. Cal. June 11, 2012). In those cases, the courts have found that attorneys’ fees are in the control of the client and counsel and may be avoided or accrue over time depending on legal strategy. See Grieff v. Brigandi Coin Co., 2014 WL 2608209, at *3 (W.D. Wash. June 11, 2014). The Court finds those holdings well-reasoned and finds that prospective attorneys’ fees are also too speculative to include in the amount in controversy. Finally, any allegations relating to punitive damages are also speculative. Therefore, the Court finds that…