The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ESPERANZA HERNANDEZ, Case No. 5:24-cv-02501-SB-SHK
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
FCA US, LLC, REMAND [DKT. NO. 15]
Defendant.
Plaintiff Esperanza Hernandez filed this lemon-law case in the Riverside
County Superior Court after she purchased an allegedly defective 2019 Jeep
Cherokee. Defendant FCA US, LLC removed the case, asserting diversity
jurisdiction. Plaintiff moves to remand, arguing that Defendant has failed to
establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The Court finds this
matter suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.
Defendant bears the burden of proving that removal was proper. Abrego
Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006). There is a
“strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction,” and “[f]ederal jurisdiction
must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first
instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Where the
amount in controversy is uncertain on the face of the complaint and contested by
the plaintiff, the removing defendant must show by a preponderance of the
evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Dart
Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 87–88 (2014). To do
so, the defendant “must provide evidence establishing that it is ‘more likely than
not’ that the amount in controversy exceeds that amount.” Sanchez v. Monumental
Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996).
Defendant relies heavily on the complaint’s statement that Plaintiff suffered
damages “in an amount that is not less than $35,001.00,” Dkt. No. 1-2 ¶ 34,
coupled with her request for civil penalties “up to two times the amount of actual
damages,” Dkt. No. 18 at 4.1 More specifically, Defendant argues that the alleged
amount ($35,001.00) should be interpreted as covering only actual damages, and
that when doubled to account for civil penalties ($70,002.00), the combined total
satisfies the jurisdictional requirement. Id. at 7. Plaintiff, on the other hand,
contends that the amount stated in the complaint refers to the entire amount of
relief at stake, including civil penalties. While the complaint is not a model of
clarity, Defendant overstates the significance of the allegation—which clearly is
intended to allege only that the entire amount in controversy exceeds the $35,000
threshold to qualify as an unlimited civil case in state court. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code
§ 85(a) (defining a limited civil case as one in which “[t]he amount in controversy
does not exceed thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000)”).
Many courts have rejected arguments presuming that a similar allegation of
damages in the complaint is an assertion of actual damages to which the civil
penalty multiplier may be applied. E.g., Rodriguez v. Ford Motor Co., No. 5:22-
CV-01056-SSS, 2022 WL 4653660, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2022) (“Faced with
pleadings virtually identical to those at issue here, some courts in the Central
District have agreed that ‘damages’ could plausibly refer to both actual damages
and other monetary remedies sought such that the amount in controversy cannot be
readily determined from the face of the complaint.”); id. (adopting this approach
but finding that defendant otherwise satisfied its burden to prove the amount in
controversy by a preponderance of the evidence); Mahlmeister v. FCA US LLC,
No. 21-CV-00564-AB, 2021 WL 1662578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2021) (“The
Court finds that the Complaint is ambiguous as to total damages and returns to
Defendant’s burden of proof to establish proper removal.”); Steeg v. Ford Motor
Co., No. 19-CV-05833-LHK, 2020 WL 2121508, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2020)
(finding that defendants “have only demonstrated by a preponderance of the
evidence that the amount of damages, including civil penalties, is at least
$25,000.01”2).
1 The complaint asserts entitlement to “a civil penalty of two times Plaintiff’s
actual damages.” Dkt. No. 1-2 ¶¶ 53, 54, 60, 63. Instead of invoking these
allegations, Defendant in its notice of removal relied on Plaintiff’s discovery
admission that she seeks “up to two times the amount of actual damages.” Dkt.
No. 1 ¶ 5 (emphasis added). Because Defendant has not established the amount of
actual damages, the distinction is immaterial here.
2 The amount-in-controversy threshold for limited civil cases in Cal. Civ. Proc.
Code § 85(a) was increased from $25,000 to $35,000 effective January 1, 2024.
This Court previously rejected the argument that a similar allegation of
“damages” in an amount “not less than $25,001.00” could include all relief sought.
Rahman v. FCA US LLC, No. 2:21-CV-02584-SB, 2021 WL 2285102, at *2 (C.D.
Cal. June 4, 2021). On further reflection, the Court is unpersuaded that its analysis
in Rahman was correct. The Court relied on language from Washington County
Unified Sewerage Agency v. First State Ins. Co., 81 F.3d 171 (9th Cir. 1996), an
unpublished decision that generally distinguished between damages and civil
penalties. But Washington County involved an insurance dispute over whether,
under Oregon law, the inclusion of the word “damages” in the applicable policy
extended coverage to a complaint seeking only civil penalties. The panel did not
address the jurisdictional significance of the type of allegation presented here.
Rahman’s reliance on Washington County was therefore misplaced.3
Given that the obvious purpose of the complaint’s statement of damages is
to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement for an unlimited state case,
Plaintiff’s claim of damages “not less than $35,001” is not a clear statement of
actual damages. At the very least, this allegation is ambiguous and insufficient to
establish the requisite amount in controversy on the face of the complaint.
Because it is unclear whether the $35,001 sum includes civil penalties, Defendant
must prove that the jurisdictional threshold is met by a preponderance of the
evidence.
Beyond the complaint, Defendant cites the vehicle’s purchase price to
establish the amount of damages but fails to account for the statutory mileage
offset, despite the age of the vehicle and the complaint’s acknowledgment that the
offset applies. See Dkt. No. 1-2 ¶ 29 (“Under the Act, Plaintiff is entitled to
reimbursement of the price paid for the vehicle less that amount directly
attributable to use by the Plaintiff prior to the first presentation to an authorized
repair facility for a nonconformity.”) (emphasis added). Without that information,
the purchase price alone does not establish Plaintiff’s measure of damages, making
any estimation of actual damages speculative. Because Defendant has not
3 Rahman also observed that the California Supreme Court distinguished between
damages and civil penalties. 2021 WL 2285102, at *2 (citing Kirzhner v.
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 9 Cal. 5th 966, 984 (2020) (“The [Song-Beverly] Act
does not indicate that a buyer may recover only civil penalties—and not
damages”)). In the following two sentences, however, Kirzhner describes civil
penalties as one part of “a ‘two-tier system of damages’ for willful and negligent
violations,” undermining any suggestion that a reference to “damages” necessarily
excludes civil penalties. 9 Cal. 5th at 984.
established Plaintiff’s actual damages, its reliance on civil penalties at twice that
amount is unavailing.
Nor has Defendant provided nonspeculative evidence of the attorney’s fees
likely to be incurred in this case. See Steeg, 2020 WL 2121508, at *4 (finding
insufficient a declaration of the amount of fees requested in another case because
the defendant neglected to show that “the instant case is comparable”). Defendant
relies on the same fee declaration it submitted in Rahman. There, the Court found
the declaration nonspeculative “given the very active litigation in this action before
(and now after) removal.” 2021 WL 2285102, at *3. No similar history is present
here, and Defendant has not provided any analysis suggesting—let alone
establishing by a preponderance of the evidence—that attorney’s fees are likely to
exceed $56,000 in this case, as Defendant suggests. See Mahlmeister, 2021 WL
1662578, at *3 (finding conclusory declaration about expected attorney’s fees
insufficient where defendant did not “explain how this amount is determined, what
factors about this specific case make these calculations more likely than not, or
how other similar cases have resulted in fees that satisfy the amount in
controversy”).
Particularly in light of the strong presumption against removal and the rule
that all uncertainty must be resolved in favor of remand, Defendant has not met its
burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. Accordingly, the Court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, and Plaintiff’s motion to remand is granted. The case is remanded to
the Riverside County Superior Court.
Date: February 13, 2025 ___________________________
Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.
United States District Judge