The opinion
____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
J S -6
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:21-cv-00713-JLS-ADS Date: October 06, 2021
Title: Philip Bolden v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al
Present: HONORABLE JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Melissa Kunig N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:
Not Present Not Present
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND (Doc. 13)
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Philip Bolden and Advanced Marketing &
Distribution, Inc.’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) Motion to Remand. (Mot., Doc. 13; Mem.
Doc. 13-1.) Defendant opposed and Plaintiffs replied. (Docs. 23, 25.) The Court finds
this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b);
C.D. Cal. R. 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set for October 15, 2021 at 10:30 a.m., is
VACATED. Having considered the pleadings, the parties’ briefs, and for the reasons
stated below, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 12, 2021, in the Superior Court of California (County of Orange),
Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Mercedes-Benz”). (Ex.
A to Notice of Removal, Doc. 1-1.) Plaintiff Philip Bolden is a resident of the State of
California, Plaintiff Advanced Marketing & Distribution, Inc. is a California Corporation,
and Mercedes-Benz is a limited liability company the sole member of which is Daimler
North America Corporation, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Delaware with its principal place of business in Farmington Hills, Michigan. (Not. of
_____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
J S -6
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:21-cv-00713-JLS-ADS Date: October 06, 2021
Title: Philip Bolden v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al
Removal, Doc. 1, at 3.) Accordingly, Mercedes-Benz is not a citizen of the State of
California. (Id.)
In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that “[o]n or about November 6, 2020,
Defendants Manufacturer and Does 1 through 20 inclusive, manufactured and/or
distributed into the stream of commerce a new 2021 Mercedes-Benz E53, VIN
W1K1J6BBXMF151231 . . . for its eventual sale/lease in the State of California.”
(Compl. ¶ 4.) “On or about December 6, 2020, Plaintiffs leased, a new 2021 Mercedes-
Benz E53, for personal, family, and/or household purposes.” (Id. ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs
“delivered the Vehicle to the Manufacturer’s authorized service and repair facilities,
agents and/or dealers, on at least Three [sic] (3) separate occasions resulting in the
Vehicle being out of service by reason of repair of nonconformities.” (Id. ¶ 9.) Each
time Plaintiffs delivered the vehicle to be repaired, Defendants “represented to Plaintiffs
that they could and would conform the Vehicle to the applicable warranties, that in fact
they did conform the Vehicle to said warranties, and that all the defects, malfunctions,
misadjustments, and/or nonconformities have been repaired.” (Id. ¶ 12.) However, the
“[m]anufacturer or its representative failed to conform the Vehicle to the applicable
warranties because said defects, malfunctions, misadjustments, and/or nonconformities
continue to exist even after a reasonable number of attempts to repair was given.” (Id.)
Plaintiffs brought suit asserting two causes of action: (1) breach of implied
warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act; and (2) breach of
express warranty under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act. (Id. ¶¶ 14-33.) As a result of
the violations, Plaintiffs state that the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000, “exclusive
of interest and costs.” (Id. ¶ 13.) In their prayer for relief, Plaintiffs seek “replacement or
restitution, at Plaintiffs’ election,” “incidental damages,” “consequential damages,” “civil
penalty . . . in an amount not to exceed two times the amount of Plaintiffs’ actual
damages,” “actual attorney’s fees, reasonably incurred,” costs, “the difference between
the value of the Vehicle as accepted and the value the Vehicle would have had if it had
been as warranted,” pre-judgment, and other remedies provided by in the Commercial
Code and as the Court deems appropriate. (Id. at 9.)
_____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
J S -6
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:21-cv-00713-JLS-ADS Date: October 06, 2021
Title: Philip Bolden v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al
On April 16, 2021, Mercedes-Benz removed this suit to federal court. (Notice of
Removal, Doc. 1.) Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand the case to the Orange County
Superior Court on May 4, 2021. (Mot.) Plaintiffs argue that Mercedes-Benz has not
carried its burden to prove that removal was proper because it has not demonstrated that
it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy will be satisfied. (Mem. at 3-4.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Corral v. Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Therefore, “[i]t is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and
the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). For a defendant seeking to remove pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1441, which permits removal based on diversity and federal-question
jurisdiction, there exists a “strong presumption against removal.” Hunter v. Philip
Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
This “strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always
has the burden of establishing that removal is proper, and that the court resolves all
ambiguity in favor of remand to state court.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs argue that the Court should remand this action because the potential
recovery amounts relied on by Mercedes-Benz are too speculative to meet the amount in
controversy requirement of $75,000 for diversity jurisdiction. (Mem. at 4.) In particular,
Plaintiffs assert that Mercedes-Benz relies on the maximum civil penalty in calculating
the amount in controversy, but the maximum civil penalty is based on actual damages,
and actual damages remain speculative and unsubstantiated in the Notice of Removal.
(Mem. at 5.) Additionally, Plaintiffs contend that the attorneys’ fees cited by Mercedes-
Benz are too speculative to include towards the amount in controversy. (Mem. at 6.)
_____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
J S -6
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:21-cv-00713-JLS-ADS Date: October 06, 2021
Title: Philip Bolden v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al
Mercedes-Benz opposes, arguing that it has no burden to supply facts to support
the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. (Opp. at 4.) Mercedes-
Benz argues that potential civil penalties are not speculative and are properly included in
the controversy amount. (Opp. at 5.) Mercedes-Benz argues that California Civil Code
section 1794(c) and 1794(e) provide for a civil penalty up to two times the amount of
damages, which here, could add up to $174,358.86 based on the lease total, and it
estimates the amount in controversy could be much more taking into consideration
attorneys’ fees and other costs.1 (Opp. at 7.)
A federal court has diversity jurisdiction if the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000 and the parties to the action are citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a). Plaintiffs do not contest that the parties are diverse; rather, they challenge
whether Mercedes-Benz has established that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000
by a preponderance of the evidence. The amount in controversy “is determined by the
complaint operative at the time of removal and encompasses all relief a court may grant
on that complaint if the plaintiff is victorious.” Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 888
F.3d 413, 414-15 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Theis Rsch., Inc. v. Brown & Bain, 400 F.3d
659, 662 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he amount at stake in the underlying litigation . . . is the
amount in controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction[.]”). “If it is unclear what
amount of damages the plaintiff has sought . . . then the defendant bears the burden of
actually proving the facts to support jurisdiction, including the jurisdictional amount.”
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992). The “proper burden of proof”
in cases where the “complaint is unclear and does not specify ‘a total amount in
controversy,’” as is the case here, “is proof by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 2007).
Under the Song-Beverly Act, damages are measured by “the purchase price paid
by the buyer, less that amount directly attributable to use by the buyer prior to the
1 The Court grants Mercedes-Benz’s Request for Judicial Notice. (Defendant Mercedes-
Benz’s RJN, Doc. 24.)
_____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
J S -6
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:21-cv-00713-JLS-ADS Date: October 06, 2021
Title: Philip Bolden v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al
discovery of the nonconformity.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(d)(1). Additionally, the Act
specifies that “a buyer of a new motor vehicle shall include a lessee of a new motor
vehicle.” Id. § 1793.2(d)(2)(D). Courts in this district have held that when a plaintiff
leases a car, “the ‘price paid’ under the statute is not the MRSP, but only what Plaintiff
has paid under [the] lease.” D’Amico v. Ford Motor Co., 2020 WL 2614610, at *2 (C.D.
Cal. May 21, 2020) (citing Ghayaisi v. Subaru of Am., Inc., 2020 WL 1140451, at *1
(C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2020); Chavez v. FCA US LLC, 2020 WL 468909, at *2 (C.D. Cal.
Jan. 27, 2020)); see also Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc., 243 F. Supp.2d 1004, 1008
(N.D. Cal. 2002) (“Limiting Brady’s recovery to payments actually made is consistent
with the logic and purpose of the Song-Beverly Act . . . . Moreover, similar lemon laws
of other states either expressly, or have been interpreted to, require restitution only of
actual lease payments made by the lessee, and does not provide, for instance, for the
recovery of the full capitalized purchase price or current value of the lease by the
lessee.”).
Mercedes-Benz has failed to carry its burden to show by a preponderance of
evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Although Mercedes-Benz has
provided a copy of the lease agreement, it has provided no calculation as to the number of
payments and amount Plaintiffs actually paid pursuant to the terms of the lease. (See Ex.
B to Tahsildoost Decl. (“Lease Agreement”), Doc. 23-3.) It therefore has not offered
evidence to support its damages calculation or its estimate of potential civil penalties.
Even looking to the terms of the lease, and even assuming Plaintiffs made monthly
payments between signing the lease in December 2020 and filing the present action in
March 2021, there is no indication the amount in controversy is as high as Mercedes-
Benz claims. Plaintiffs owed $6,000 due at lease signing, and Plaintiffs’ monthly
payment was anticipated to be $1,096.46. (See Lease Agreement.) These totals suggest
that Plaintiffs’ damages are much lower than the $58,128.62 lease total figure cited
through Mercedes-Benz’s Opposition. Thus, Mercedes-Benz’s claimed amount in
controversy is speculative and unsupported.
_____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
J S -6
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:21-cv-00713-JLS-ADS Date: October 06, 2021
Title: Philip Bolden v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al
Lastly, Mercedes-Benz’s arguments that it can demonstrate that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 based on potential attorneys’ fees also fail. Mercedes-Benz
cites to other cases to support that a court would award an attorneys’ fees award of
“$47,500 at minimum.” (Opp. at 8; see also Ex. C, D, and E to RJN, Docs. 24, 24-1, 24-
2, 24-3.) However, Mercedes-Benz has failed to explain how those cases are similar to
this case or why an award of this amount would be appropriate here. See Berger v.
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 2021 WL 3013915, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 15, 2021).
Therefore, Mercedes-Benz’s estimate of attorneys’ fees is similarly unsupported.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand.
This action is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of California (County of
Orange), Case No. 30-2021-01189206-CU-BC-CJC.
Initials of Deputy Clerk: mku
_____________________________________________________________________________