UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:23-cv-05703-JLS-JC Date: September 28, 2023 Title: Angela Kazanchyan et al v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al

Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Gabby Garcia N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendant:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE REMAND

Plaintiff Angela Kazanchyan filed this action in Los Angeles County Superior Court. (Compl., Doc. 1-1.) Defendants Volkswagen Group of America and Jones BH Acquisition, LLC removed, asserting that this Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Notice of Removal, Doc. 1.)

To fall within federal courts’ diversity jurisdiction, an action’s amount in controversy must “exceed[] the sum or value of $75,000.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). When a Defendant removes to federal court, its “notice of removal . . . must ‘contain[] a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal,” including the amount in controversy. Moe v. GEICO Indem. Co., 73 F.4th 757, 761 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 87, (2014)). Where the plaintiff’s state-court complaint includes a damages demand, that amount, if made in good faith, “shall be deemed to be the amount in controversy.” Id. § 1446(c)(2). Where the plaintiff’s complaint “does not specify the damages sought, the defendant ordinarily may satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement by making a plausible assertion of the amount at issue in its notice of removal.” Moe, 73 F.4th at 761.

“[T]he defendant’s amount-in-controversy allegation should be accepted when not contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the court.” Id. (quoting Dart, 574 U.S. at 87). ______________________________________________________________________________

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:23-cv-05703-JLS-JC Date: September 28, 2023 Title: Angela Kazanchyan et al v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al

“But when the asserted amount in controversy is challenged or questioned, more is required. The Supreme Court has made clear that whether the amount is contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the court, evidence establishing the amount is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B). Both sides must have an opportunity to submit proof, and the defendant has the burden to show that the amount-in-controversy requirement is met by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (cleaned up).

In this lemon-law case, Plaintiff alleges that she paid $19,029.65 to lease a vehicle with undisclosed defects. (Compl., Doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 8, 12.) Under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Plaintiff can recover actual damages—which must be offset to account for the value of Plaintiff’s use of the vehicle—and civil penalties “not exceed[ing] two times the amount of actual damages.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(a), (c) (actual damages and civil penalties); see id. § 1793.2(d)(2)(C)–(D) (method for offsetting damages). Even without first offsetting the $19,029.65 amount to account for Plaintiff’s use of the vehicle, the damages and civil penalties amount to only $57,088.95, which falls short of the amount-in-controversy requirement. Therefore, the Court sua sponte questions whether the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied here.

Defendant is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than seven (7) days from the date of this Order, why the Court should not remand this action to Los Angeles County Superior Court. Plaintiff has seven (7) days thereafter to submit any response. No further briefing is permitted. Following submission of the parties’ briefing, which shall not exceed ten (10) pages, the matter will be deemed under submission and the Court will thereafter issue an order.

Initials of Deputy Clerk: gga

______________________________________________________________________________

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 2