Fernando Brito v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
I.
INTRODUCTION
On March 14, 2024, plaintiffs Fernando Brito and Jeronimo Brito (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Motion to Remand (“Motion”) this action to state court arguing defendant Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (“Defendant”) “does not appear to be able to meet its burden of proving that this Court has removal jurisdiction[.]” Dkt. 16 at 3. On March 21, 2024, Defendant filed an Opposition to the Motion and a Request for Judicial Notice.1 Dkts. 17, 18. On March 28, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Reply. Dkt. 19. The matter thus stands submitted.
The Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument. See FED. R. CIV. P. 78(b); L.R. 7-15. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs Motion to Remand is DENIED. Additionally, in light of the Court’s Order vacating the April 11, 2024 hearing, dkt. 20, Plaintiffs’ Request for Remote Appearance, dkt. 22, is DENIED AS MOOT.
II.
BACKGROUND
On January 4, 2024, Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a Complaint in Riverside Superior Court. Dkt. 1-1. The Complaint alleges claims under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Business and Professions Code Section 17200. Dkt. 1-1 at 4. …