Jason Fellows v. FCA US, LLC

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,…