DISCUSSION

The court’s review of the NOR and the attached state court Complaint indicates that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case because the requirements for the exercise of diversity jurisdiction are met. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. First, complete diversity between the parties is present here. Plaintiff is a citizen of California, (Dkt. 15, Motion at 3) (“On or around February 28, 2018, Plaintiff, a citizen of California, purchased a new 2018 Dodge Charger[.]”), and FCA is not. (See Dkt. 1, NOR at ¶ 7). Because the parties are “citizens of different states[,]” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), diversity of citizenship is present here. Second, defendant has shown that the amount in controversy is more than $75,000. Plaintiff seeks “restitution of the amount actually paid or payable under the contract,” consequential and incidental damages, and a civil penalty “in an amount not to exceed two times Plaintiff’s actual damages.” (Dkt. 1-1, Complaint at ¶¶ 31-33). Here, the “actual price paid or payable by [plaintiff,]” id. § 1793.2(d)(2)(B), is $40,824.40, which includes the financed amount of $35,724.40 and a down payment of $5,100.00. (Dkt. 16-3, Exh. 2, RISC); Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(d)(2)(B)-(C). Taking into account any reduction for use as provided under the Song- Beverly Act, see Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(d)(2)(C), yields an actual damages amount of $34,474.50. (See Dkt. 1, NOR at ¶ 11, n. 2; see, generally, Dkt. 15, Motion; Dkt. 17, Reply). Given plaintiff’s request for civil penalties, (Dkt. 1-1, Complaint at ¶ 31), which equates to “two times the amount of actual damages[,]” Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(c), the amount in controversy is approximately $103,422.50, satisfying the jurisdictional minimum for the exercise of diversity jurisdiction.2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 2 Plaintiff’s arguments for remand are unpersuasive. With respect to plaintiff’s argument

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-1036 FMO (JCx) Date May 18, 2020 Title Jason Fellows v. FCA US, LLC

This order is not intended for publication. Nor is it intended to be included in or submitted to any online service such as Westlaw or Lexis.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Document No. 15) is denied without prejudice. 00 : 00 Initials of Preparer vdr

v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976)), and thus remand is inappropriate here. For purposes of the instant Motion, plaintiff’s stated intent to add a nondiverse defendant is irrelevant. If plaintiff subsequently names a California defendant, he may move for remand at that point. See 28