# Opinion

> District Court, C.D. California · January 16, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11307951

## Case

- **Full name:** Ma Suarez v. Nissan North America, Inc., et al.
- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** January 16, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11307951

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that state law limiting plaintiffs’ 13 recovery to $750 prevented plaintiffs from showing that $10,000 amount-in- 14 controversy minimum for diversity jurisdiction had been met, thus requiring 15 dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

## Opinion text

1
2 JS-6
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MA SUAREZ, Case No. 2:25-cv-07178-MAA
12 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
13 v. MOTION TO REMAND (ECF No. 12)
14
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA,
15 INC., et al.,
16 Defendants.
17
18 I. INTRODUCTION
19 On May 16, 2025, Plaintiff Ma Suarez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in Los
20 Angeles Superior Court (“Superior Court”) against Defendant Nissan North
21 America, Inc. (“Defendant”) and ten Doe Defendants. (Compl., ECF No. 1-1.) On
22 August 4, 2025, Defendant removed the case to this Court (“Notice of Removal” or
23 “NOR”). (NOR, ECF No. 1.) On August 27, 2025, the case was transferred to the
24 calendar of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 9.) The
25 same day, the parties were notified of their deadline for declining consent to
26 proceed before the assigned United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 10.) No
27 party declined consent. (See ECF No. 13.)
28 ///
1 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (“Motion”), filed on
2 September 3, 2025. (ECF No. 12.) In support of the Motion, Plaintiff filed the
3 Declaration of Nicholas Lee (“Lee Declaration”). (ECF No. 12-1.) Defendant filed
4 an opposition to the Motion on October 30, 2025 (“Opposition”) (ECF No. 21),
5 supported by the Declaration of Sarah Garbuzov (“Garbuzov Declaration”) (ECF
6 No. 21-1). On November 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply in support of the Motion
7 (“Reply”) (ECF No. 22), supported by the Declaration of Roy Enav (“Enav
8 Declaration”) (ECF No. 22-1). Plaintiff also filed a Request for Judicial Notice
9 (“RJN”) in support of the Motion, asking the Court to take judicial notice of eleven
10 decisions by California district courts granting motions to remand, including nine
11 decisions from the Central District and two from the Northern District. (RJN, ECF
12 No. 22-2.) The RJN is GRANTED.1
13 The matter stands submitted. The hearing on the Motion, previously set for
14 October 8, 2025, was vacated on September 12, 2025. (ECF No. 15.) After
15 considering the papers filed in support and in opposition, the Court deems the
16 Motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b);
17 C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS
18 Plaintiff’s Motion in its entirety.
19 ///
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25
1 See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (“The court may judicially notice a fact that is not
26 subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined
27 from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”); Harris v. County
of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131–32 (9th Cir. 2012) (court may take judicial notice
28 of “documents on file in federal or state courts”).
1 II. BACKGROUND2
2 On or around July 13, 2023, Plaintiff purchased a 2023 Nissan Sentra
3 (“Subject Vehicle”). (Compl. ¶ 8.3) The sales contract reflected that the value of
4 the Subject Vehicle was approximately $59,999.04. (Id.) Defendant warranted the
5 Subject Vehicle. (Id. at ¶ 9.) The Subject Vehicle was delivered to Plaintiff “with
6 serious defects and nonconformities to warranty and developed other serious
7 defects and nonconformities to warranty including, but not limited to, engine,
8 electrical, and transmission system defects.” (Id. at ¶ 10.) Plaintiff presented the
9 Subject Vehicle for repairs on at least four occasions, as follows: (1) in February
10 2024, with approximately 13,722 miles on the odometer; (2) in March 2024, with
11 approximately 15,435 miles on the odometer; (3) in September 2024, with
12 approximately 29,833 miles on the odometer; and (4) in March 2025, with
13 approximately 42,105 miles on the odometer. (Id. at ¶¶ 11–14.) Plaintiff brought
14 suit, alleging three causes of action for violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer
15 Warranty Act, California Civil Code sections 1790 et seq. (Id. at ¶¶ 20–61.) The
16 Complaint was personally served on Defendant on May 22, 2025. (Lee Decl. ¶ 6.)
17 Defendant filed its Answer in Superior Court on July 2, 2025. (Id. at ¶ 7.)
18 Defendant removed the case to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction,
19 alleging that Plaintiff is a citizen of California, Defendant is a citizen of Delaware
20 and Tennessee, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.4 (NOR 2–3.)
21 Defendant asserted that removal was timely because the Complaint was
22 indeterminate as to the amount in controversy. (Id. at 7–8.) Plaintiff moves to
23

24 2 The Court summarizes the allegations and claims in the Complaint. In doing so,
25 the Court neither opines on the veracity or merit of Plaintiff’s allegations and
claims nor makes any findings of fact.
26 3 Pinpoint citations of docketed documents refer to paragraphs, or where none, to
27 the page numbers in the ECF-generated headers.
4 The citizenship of the Doe Defendants is disregarded when determining removal
28 jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1).
1 remand on the ground that removal was untimely, as it was clear from the
2 Complaint that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. (Mot. 7–8.)
3
4 III. LEGAL STANDARD
5 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v.
6 Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 26 (2025); Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,
7 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “They possess only that power authorized by
8 Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. “It is to be presumed that a
9 cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction . . . and the burden of establishing the
10 contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id.
11 “The general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), provides that ‘any civil
12 action’ over which a federal court would have original jurisdiction may be removed
13 to federal court by ‘the defendant or the defendants.’” Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.
14 Jackson, 587 U.S. 435, 437 (2019). “The propriety of removal thus depends on
15 whether the case originally could have been filed in federal court.” City of Chicago
16 v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 163 (1997). “In 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
17 1332(a), Congress granted federal courts jurisdiction over two general types of
18 cases: cases that ‘aris[e] under’ federal law, § 1331, and cases in which the amount
19 in controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is diversity of citizenship among the
20 parties, § 1332(a).” Home Depot U.S.A., 587 U.S. at 437. “These jurisdictional
21 grants are known as ‘federal-question jurisdiction’ and ‘diversity jurisdiction,’
22 respectively. Each serves a distinct purpose: Federal-question jurisdiction affords
23 parties a federal forum in which ‘to vindicate federal rights,’ whereas diversity
24 jurisdiction provides ‘a neutral forum’ for parties from different States.” Id. at 437–
25 38 (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552
26 (2005)).
27 “The right of removal is entirely a creature of statute and ‘a suit commenced
28 in a state court must remain there until cause is shown for its transfer under some
1 act of Congress.’” Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002)
2 (quoting Great N. Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 280 (1918)). Generally, the
3 “statutory procedures for removal are to be strictly construed.” Id. Remand may be
4 ordered either for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for any defect in removal
5 procedure. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
6 The removal procedure for civil actions is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1446
7 (“Section 1446”). “Section 1446(b) provides the rules governing the timeliness of
8 removal. The default rule is that the party seeking removal must remove ‘within 30
9 days after the receipt . . . of a copy of the initial pleading.’” Blumberger v. Tilley,
10 115 F.4th 1113, 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Section 1446(b)(1)), cert. denied,
11 145 S. Ct. 2818 (2025). However, “[t]he 30-day clock under § 1446(b)(1) begins to
12 run ‘only when that pleading affirmatively reveals on its face the facts necessary for
13 federal court jurisdiction.’” Id. (quoting Rea v. Michaels Stores Inc., 742 F.3d
14 1234, 1238 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (emphasis in original)). “[N]otice of
15 removability under § 1446(b) is determined through examination of the four corners
16 of the applicable pleadings, not through subjective knowledge or a duty to make
17 further inquiry.” Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 694 (9th Cir.
18 2005). Thus, a complaint that is “indeterminate” regarding the essential
19 jurisdictional facts is not enough to trigger Section 1446(b)(1)’s thirty-day removal
20 period; “the ground for removal must be revealed affirmatively in the initial
21 pleading in order for the first thirty-day clock under § 1446(b) to begin.” Id. at 695.
22 If the case as “‘stated by the initial pleading is not removable,’ a party may
23 remove a case within 30 days ‘[after receipt] of a copy of an amended pleading,
24 motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is
25 one which is or has become removable.’” Blumberger, 115 F.4th at 1122 (quoting
26 Section 1446(b)(3)). Here, even greater clarity is required: the Ninth Circuit has
27 held “that ‘an amended pleading, motion, order, or other paper must make a ground
28 for removal unequivocally clear and certain’ to trigger § 1446(b)(3)’s temporal
1 limitation.” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting Dietrich v. Boeing Co., 14 F.4th 1089,
2 1095 (9th Cir. 2021)). Further, while such an “other paper” served by a plaintiff
3 will trigger the thirty-day deadline, a defendant’s subjective knowledge will not.
4 Roth v. CHA Hollywood Med. Ctr., L.P., 720 F.3d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 2013).
5 Thus, Sections “1441 and 1446, read together, permit a defendant to remove outside
6 the two thirty-day periods on the basis of its own information, provided that it has
7 not run afoul of either of the thirty-day deadlines” found in Section 1446(b)(1) and
8 (3) or, in a diversity case, of the one-year deadline imposed by Section 1446(c)(1).
9 Roth, 720 F.3d at 1125–26.
10 For removals based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), both
11 the diversity of the parties and the amount in controversy must appear determinate
12 on the face of the complaint or “other paper” at issue in order to trigger one of these
13 thirty-day deadlines. See Harris, 425 F.3d at 695 (finding that removal more than
14 thirty days after service of complaint was timely when complaint, on its face, “did
15 not affirmatively reveal information to trigger removal based on diversity
16 jurisdiction because the initial pleading only stated [co-defendant’s] 1972
17 residency, not his citizenship, and certainly not his citizenship as of the filing of the
18 complaint” in 2003); Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 885 (9th
19 Cir. 2010) (“Because the face of the initial pleading—[the plaintiff’s] superior court
20 complaint—lacked any indication of the amount in controversy, it did not
21 trigger . . . thirty-day removal period.”).
22 The Ninth Circuit has explained that the amount in controversy is the
23 “amount at stake in the underlying litigation.” Gonzales v. CarMax Auto
24 Superstores, LLC, 840 F.3d 644, 648 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Theis Rsch., Inc. v.
25 Brown & Bain, 400 F.3d 659, 662 (9th Cir. 2005)). “[T]his includes any result of
26 the litigation, excluding interests and costs, that ‘entail[s] a payment’ by the
27 defendant.” Id. (quoting Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 701
28 (9th Cir. 2007)). Among other items, the amount in controversy includes damages
1 (compensatory, punitive, or otherwise), the costs of complying with an injunction,
2 and attorneys’ fees awarded under fee-shifting statutes or contract. See id. at 648–
3 59 (citing Chabner v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 1042, 1046 n.3 (9th
4 Cir. 2000)); see also Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2005)
5 (citing Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1155–56 (9th Cir. 1998)).
6 A “defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation
7 that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart
8 Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). “Evidence
9 establishing the amount is required by § 1446(c)(2)(B) only when the plaintiff
10 contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s allegation.” Id.; see also Arias v.
11 Residence Inn by Marriott, 936 F.3d 920, 924–25 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding notice of
12 removal sufficient when it “alleged that the amount-in-controversy requirement was
13 satisfied,” “discussed each of the claims alleged in the complaint[,] and explained
14 the components of [the defendant’s] estimate of the amount in controversy,” thus
15 providing “a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal”). This is true
16 even in cases not invoking federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act
17 of 2005 (“CAFA”). See Acad. of Country Music v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 991 F.3d 1059,
18 1060–61 (9th Cir. 2021) (vacating district court’s sua sponte remand of case in
19 which notice of removal alleged that amount in controversy exceeded $75,000);
20 California by & through Harrison v. Express Scripts, Inc., 154 F.4th 1069, 1080
21 (9th Cir. 2025) (noting, in case removed on the basis of federal officer jurisdiction,
22 that only “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal” required in notice
23 of removal). Though the removal statutes are more strictly construed in non-CAFA
24 cases, “the fact that the party removing a case to a federal district court has the
25 burden of proving that the district court has jurisdiction does not mean that the
26 notice of removal must in and of itself meet this burden.” Academy of Country
27 Music, 991 F.3d at 1068.
28 ///
1 For removals based on federal question jurisdiction, “the determination of
2 jurisdiction is based only on the allegations in the plaintiff’s ‘well-pleaded
3 complaint’—not on any issue the defendant may raise.” Royal Canin U.S.A., 604
4 U.S. at 26. “That longstanding rule makes the complaint—the plaintiff’s own
5 claims and allegations—the key . . . .” Id.
6 Whatever type of jurisdiction is asserted, the notice of removal must allege
7 facts to support it, not simply legal conclusions. Harrison, 154 F.4th at 1080.
8 “Because [the] ‘short and plain statement’ requirement of the removal statute
9 ‘tracks the general pleading requirement stated in Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of
10 Civil Procedure,’ the same pleading standards applicable to complaints under Rule
11 8 also apply to the jurisdictional allegations in a notice of removal.” Id. (quoting
12 Dart Cherokee, 574 U.S. at 87). Similarly, a “remand motion challenging removal
13 jurisdiction is evaluated the same as a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
14 motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.” DeFiore v. SOC LLC, 85
15 F.4th 546, 552 (9th Cir. 2023). Thus, “where the moving party does not contest the
16 removal notice’s factual allegations but instead asserts that those allegations are
17 facially insufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction,” those allegations are accepted as
18 true, and all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the remover. Id. In
19 contrast, when a “motion to remand raises a factual challenge by ‘contest[ing] the
20 truth of the [remover’s] factual allegations . . . the remover ‘must support her
21 jurisdictional allegations with ‘‘competent proof.”’” Id. at 552–53 (quoting Leite v.
22 Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014)). At that point, “[t]he remover
23 ‘bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that each of the
24 requirements for subject-matter jurisdiction has been met.’” Id. at 553 (quoting
25 Leite, 749 F.3d at 1121). A “plaintiff can contest the amount in controversy by
26 making either a ‘facial’ or ‘factual’ attack on the defendant’s jurisdictional
27 allegations. Harris v. KM Indus., Inc., 980 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir. 2020).
28 ///
1 IV. DISCUSSION
2 A. The Removal Was Not Timely
3 In the Notice of Removal, Defendant contends that this Court has subject
4 matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as there is complete diversity of
5 the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (NOR 2–3.)
6 Specifically, Defendant calculates the amount in controversy to include, at a
7 minimum, actual damages of $52,999.04 (equal to the purchase price of the Subject
8 Vehicle—$59,999.04—minus offsets in the amount of $7,000.00), plus civil
9 penalties in the amount of two times actual damages, or $105,998.08, for an amount
10 in controversy of at least $158,997.12. (NOR 4.) This, without more, is sufficient
11 to exceed the $75,000 amount-in-controversy floor for diversity jurisdiction.
12 However, Defendant bolsters its jurisdictional argument by adding $5,000 in
13 attorneys’ fees to the amount in controversy (NOR 5), as the Complaint seeks
14 attorneys’ fees (Compl. 11 (Prayer for Relief ¶ 7)). Thus, the Notice of Removal
15 includes “a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the
16 jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee, 574 U.S. at 89.
17 In seeking remand, Plaintiff does not contend that the facts of this case do not
18 support the existence of diversity jurisdiction. Rather, Plaintiff argues that those
19 facts were evident from the face of the Complaint, making Defendant’s removal
20 more than thirty days after service of the Complaint untimely. ( See Mot. 4.)
21 If a complaint “affirmatively reveals on its face the facts necessary for federal
22 court jurisdiction,” then removal must indeed be effected within thirty days of
23 service. Harris, 425 F.3d at 691 (internal quotations omitted). If not, then removal
24 during that first thirty days is not required—even if the case is, in fact, removable,
25 and the additional information necessary to demonstrate its removability is already
26 within the defendant’s possession. Dietrich, 14 F.4th at 1094 (drawing distinction
27 between “facts sufficient to allow removal [and] facts sufficient to require removal
28 within thirty days” and noting “that a defendant may remove before it must do so”
1 (emphasis in original)). A defendant does not have any obligation to conduct an
2 investigation of its own files within thirty days to determine if it might have
3 information that could reveal that the case is removable. Harris, 425 F.3d at 693
4 (rejecting contention that “the burden lies with the defendant to investigate the
5 necessary jurisdictional facts within the first thirty days of receiving an
6 indeterminate complaint”). In the instant case, therefore, Defendant argues that the
7 Complaint does not reveal on its face sufficient information to determine if the
8 amount in controversy satisfied the jurisdictional minimum, claiming that “[i]t was
9 Nissan’s own factual investigation regarding Plaintiff’s likely actual damages—
10 including the requisite set-offs—not the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint that led
11 Nissan to conclude the amount in controversy is met and that federal subject matter
12 jurisdiction exists.” (Opp’n 10.) Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that “the
13 removability of the matter was clearly ascertainable from Plaintiff’s Complaint.”
14 (Mot. 8.)
15 So, did the Complaint, “on its face,” within its “four corners,” reveal facts
16 that would satisfy the amount in controversy minimum? Blumberger, 115 F.4th at
17 1122; Harris, 425 F.3d at 694. The Court is aware that this is far from the first case
18 in this district in which a motion to remand has challenged the timeliness of
19 removal by a car manufacturer of a complaint with virtually identical allegations
20 and causes of action. The Court is also aware that it is difficult to harmonize the
21 resulting decisions, which have reached opposite outcomes on virtually identical
22 facts. Compare, e.g., Larios v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 2:25-CV-05095-AJR, 2025
23 WL 2402250, at *5–7 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2025); Calderon v. Nissan N. Am., Inc.,
24 No. CV 25-05137-AS, 2025 WL 2267923, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2025); and
25 Rosiles v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 2:25-CV-02680-AB-AGR, 2025 WL 1782538,
26 at *2–3 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2025) with Ayad v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 2:25-CV-
27 4152-RAO, 2025 WL 2490849, at *2–4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2025); Crescencio v.
28 Ford Motor Co., No. CV 24-10946-MWF (BFMX), 2025 WL 1122096, at *2–4
1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2025); and Covarrubias v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:25-CV-00328-
2 JLS-MAA, 2025 WL 907544, at *2–3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2025).
3 The Court therefore returns to the statute, which reads in relevant part as
4 follows:
5 If removal of a civil action is sought on the basis of the jurisdiction
conferred by section 1332(a), the sum demanded in good faith in the
6
initial pleading shall be deemed to be the amount in controversy,
7 except that--
(A) the notice of removal may assert the amount in controversy
8
if the initial pleading seeks--
9 (i) nonmonetary relief; or
10 (ii) a money judgment, but the State practice either does
not permit demand for a specific sum or permits recovery
11
of damages in excess of the amount demanded; and
12 (B) removal of the action is proper on the basis of an amount in
controversy asserted under subparagraph (A) if the district court
13
finds, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in
14 controversy exceeds the amount specified in section 1332(a).
15 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2). Thus, if a removing defendant relies on the amount alleged
16 in good faith by the plaintiff, that “shall be deemed to be the amount in
17 controversy.” Id. If, on the other hand, the defendant does not rely on the
18 complaint’s allegations regarding the amount demanded, but rather asserts a
19 different sum as the amount in controversy, the defendant may have to prove, by a
20 preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the
21 minimum amount. Id. In other words, the plain language of the statute suggests
22 that, if a removing defendant relies on the plaintiff’s own good faith allegations
23 regarding how much money is at stake, the defendant does not bear the burden of
24 proving those allegations, but may simply rely on them.
25 Here, the Complaint alleges that the value of the Subject Vehicle was
26 approximately $59,999.04 and asserts that Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, “actual
27 damages,” “rescission of the purchase contract and restitution of all monies
28 expended,” and “civil penalt[ies] in the amount of two times Plaintiff’s actual
1 damages.” (Compl. ¶ 8, 11 (Prayer for Relief ¶¶ 1–2, 5).) Thus, even without a
2 calculator, and certainly without reference to any information outside the
3 Complaint, “the sum demanded in good faith in the initial pleading” is self-
4 evidently at least three times $59,999.04, or very nearly $180,000.00. And
5 “[m]ultiplying figures clearly stated in a complaint” falls within the duty that
6 “requires a defendant to apply a reasonable amount of intelligence in ascertaining
7 removability.” Kuxhausen v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA LLC, 707 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th
8 Cir. 2013) (internal quotations omitted). According to the plain language of 28
9 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2), therefore, this “shall be deemed to be the amount in
10 controversy.”
11 The Complaint here is not so vague as to require Defendant to consult its own
12 files or to conduct an investigation in order to see that Plaintiff is demanding a sum
13 far in excess of the jurisdictional minimum. On its face, without reference to any
14 other document, the Complaint clearly alleges an amount in controversy of, at a
15 minimum, $179,997.12. Thus, the Complaint “affirmatively reveals on its face the
16 facts necessary for federal court jurisdiction,” requiring removal to be effected
17 within thirty days of service. Harris, 425 F.3d at 691. The thirty-day removal
18 clock therefore began to run when Defendant was served on May 22, 2025, making
19 removal on August 4, 2025 untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
20 Defendant argues that the thirty-day clock was not triggered by the
21 Complaint because the amount in controversy was “indeterminate,” as the true
22 amount of Plaintiff’s actual damages would by law require reductions, or offsets,
23 against the purchase price of the Subject Vehicle.5 (Opp’n 11–17.) As the Ninth
24 Circuit has stated, however, “[t]he general rule is that the amount in controversy
25 represents ‘an estimate of the total amount in dispute, not a prospective assessment
26
27 5 As listed by Defendant, these offsets include a mileage offset, negative equity,
manufacturer’s rebate, third-party optional equipment, and unpaid financing. (Opp’n
28 12.)
1 of defendant’s liability.’” Kuxhausen, 707 F.3d at 1140 n.2 (quoting Lewis v.
2 Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 400 (9th Cir.2010)). Arguing about the
3 details of what Plaintiff’s actual damages might eventually turn out to be obscures
4 what is, in fact, the rather simple command of the removal statute: if a defendant
5 can, simply by looking at the complaint, see that a state court case is alleged to
6 involve a dispute between the citizens of different states regarding a sum of money
7 greater than $75,000, that defendant needs to move quickly if it wants to remove the
8 case to federal court. As this was exactly the situation presented by the instant
9 Complaint, Defendant should have moved faster, and filed its Notice of Removal
10 within thirty days of receiving the Complaint. “For good reason, § 1446(b)(1) and
11 (b)(3) place strict limits on a defendant who is put on notice of removability by a
12 plaintiff. A defendant should not be able to ignore pleadings or other documents
13 from which removability may be ascertained . . . .” Roth, 729 F.3d at 1125.
14 The Court is sympathetic to Defendant’s concern that it needs to conduct an
15 investigation into all possible offsets prior to removal because it may be called upon
16 to defend that removal, once in federal court, before judges who have widely varied
17 opinions regarding the appropriateness of removal of these cases. (See Opp’n 10,
18 15.) But the possibility of a removed case being assigned to a judge who will
19 immediately set an Order to Show Cause that the jurisdictional requirements are
20 satisfied, see, e.g., Valdez v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 2:25-CV-00775-RGK-SHK,
21 2025 WL 1843323, at *1–2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2025), cannot exempt a defendant
22 from complying with the statutory requirement that cases removable on the face of
23 the complaint must be removed within thirty days of service.
24 Plaintiff here has included a demand for the value of the Subject Vehicle,
25 $59,999.04, plus twice that in civil penalties. (Compl. ¶ 8, 11 (Prayer for Relief
26 ¶¶ 1–2, 5).) “[T]he sum demanded in good faith in the initial pleading shall be
27 deemed to be the amount in controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2). Defendant
28 should therefore be able to rely on this amount to remove a case—which means that
1 Defendant should have relied on it here to remove within thirty days of receiving
2 the Complaint. If Plaintiff were arguing that the amount now in controversy is
3 actually below $75,000, or if the Court had any reason to suspect that the amount
4 alleged in the Complaint had not been alleged in good faith, or that it was legally
5 impossible for the Plaintiff to obtain enough of the claimed sum to satisfy the
6 amount in controversy requirement, thus raising doubts about the Court’s subject
7 matter jurisdiction, more would be required. But Plaintiff most definitely has not
8 claimed that the relief sought is less than $75,000, and the Court has not been
9 presented with any basis for suspecting that it might be legally impossible for
10 Plaintiff to obtain enough of the relief to which a claim is asserted in the Complaint
11 to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. See Morris v. Hotel Riviera, Inc.,
12 704 F.2d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1983) (finding that state law limiting plaintiffs’
13 recovery to $750 prevented plaintiffs from showing that $10,000 amount-in-
14 controversy minimum for diversity jurisdiction had been met, thus requiring
15 dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).
16 The sheer number of similar cases in this district in which this issue has been
17 litigated serves to complicate what should be a relatively simple question. The
18 parties and the Court here all agree that diversity jurisdiction exists, and that the
19 amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. The fact that diversity
20 jurisdiction exists was evident from the Complaint, as it clearly demands a sum in
21 excess of the jurisdictional minimum. The removal statute therefore requires that a
22 notice of removal must be filed within thirty days of Defendant’s receipt of the
23 complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
24 Because facts sufficient to support diversity jurisdiction, including the
25 amount in controversy, were alleged in the Complaint, Defendant was required to
26 remove within thirty days of being served with it. And because Defendant did not
27 file its Notice of Removal within that thirty-day period, the removal was untimely.
28 ///
1 B. Plaintiff Did Not Waive the Right to Seek Remand
2 While the issue discussed above has been raised in many similar cases in this
3 district, Defendant raises another argument that may be unique to this case. It
4 appears that Plaintiff contacted two different plaintiffs’ law firms that often
5 represent plaintiffs with similar vehicle-related claims—and each of those firms
6 filed a case in Superior Court raising similar claims concerning the same Subject
7 Vehicle, both of which were then removed to this Court. Compare Ma Suarez v.
8 Nissan North America, Inc., et al., 2:25-cv-06103-MAA (C.D. Cal.) (the “6103
9 Case”). After the duplicative cases were discovered, the parties stipulated to
10 dismiss the 6103 Case. Suarez, 2:25-cv-06103-MAA (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2025),
11 ECF No. 17.
12 Defendant now argues that, since no motion to remand was filed in the 6103
13 Case, Plaintiff has waived the right to seek remand in the instant case, arguing that
14 “it would go against fundamental principles of fairness to allow Plaintiff to engage
15 in affirmative conduct reflecting assent to federal jurisdiction on the one hand, and
16 then move to remand in another, identical, hand.” (Opp’n 8.) This “affirmative
17 conduct” is asserted to be Plaintiff’s failure to submit a statement declining to
18 consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction in the 6103 Case, while also discussing
19 settlement. (Id. at 7–8.) As to the first, Plaintiff did not, in fact, take “affirmative
20 action in [the 6103 Case] by consenting to magistrate jurisdiction,” since the
21 Court’s Magistrate Judge Direct Assignment Program is an opt-out program (see
22 ECF No. 10), and Plaintiff’s consent was registered by a lack of action, not by any
23 affirmative step on Plaintiff’s part. See Suarez, 2:25-cv-06103-MAA (C.D. Cal.
24 July 16, 2025), ECF No. 8. As to the second, whether the parties may be discussing
25 settlement has no bearing on whether the statutory requirements for removal have
26 been satisfied or whether a defect in the removal procedure might give Plaintiff
27 grounds for a remand motion.
28 ///
1 The two cases Defendant cites in support of this argument do not support a
2 contrary finding. Defendant first cites Smith v. Mylan Inc., 761 F.3d 1042, 1045
3 (9th Cir. 2014), for the proposition that a plaintiff can waive a procedural
4 irregularity in removal by not filing a motion to remand. (Opp’n 7.) In Smith,
5 however, the plaintiff never filed a motion for remand—the district court had
6 remanded the case sua sponte on the grounds that removal was untimely, and the
7 Circuit reversed, holding that the timeliness of removal was not jurisdictional, and
8 thus could be waived by a plaintiff who chose not to file a motion to remand.
9 Smith, 761 F.3d at 1045. Here, of course, Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand
10 (ECF No. 12), which was timely filed within thirty days of the filing of the notice of
11 removal, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The other case Defendant cites is a case from this
12 district that is more than 50 years old. Transp. Indem. Co. v. Fin. Tr. Co., 339 F.
13 Supp. 405, 408 (C.D. Cal. 1972).6 The Transport Indemnity court, while noting
14 that “certain conduct on the part of the Plaintiff, which conduct is sometimes
15 referred to as ‘waiver’ and sometimes referred to as ‘estoppel’, does preclude the
16 Plaintiff from objecting to a late removal petition,” held that the plaintiff in that
17 case had not engaged in such conduct. Id. at 408–09. This holding was based
18 largely on the finding that “defense counsel” had not “reasonably relied to his
19 detriment on the representations of his opponent.” Id. at 409. Nor has the instant
20 Defendant pointed to any action of Plaintiff on which Defendant, or Defendant’s
21 counsel, “reasonably relied to his detriment,” such that Plaintiff should now be
22 estopped from seeking remand of this case Id.
23 Accordingly, the Court does not find that Plaintiff waived the right to seek
24 remand of this case.
25

26 6 The main holding of this case, for which Defendant does not cite it—that the
27 second of two defendants served at different times could not remove a case if the
first defendant had not done so within thirty days after being served with the
28 complaint—is no longer good law. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(B)-(C).
1] Vv. CONCLUSION
2 On the basis of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion. This
3 || action is REMANDED to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
4
5 IT IS SO ORDERED. :

|| DATED. _ 1/16/2026
g HONORABLE MARIA A. AUDERO
9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11307951. Public record. Not legal advice.