The opinion
Case 8:21-cv-01318-JLS-ADS Document 38 Filed 05/05/22 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:662
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:21-cv-01318-JLS-ADS Date: May 05, 2022
Title: Yvonne Roa v. FCA US LLC et al
Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
D. Rojas N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:
Not Present Not Present
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
REMAND (Doc. 24)
Before the Court is a Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiff Yvonne Roa. (Mot.,
Doc. 24.) Defendant FCA US, LLC opposed, and Plaintiff did not reply. (Opp., Doc.
33.) The Court took the matter under submission. For the following reasons, the Court
now DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
In the Superior Court of California (County of Orange), Plaintiff filed a Complaint
against FCA US, LLC and Tuttle-Click’s Tustin Chrysler Jeep Dodge (“Tuttle-Click”).
(Declaration of Hailey M. Rogerson (“Rogerson Decl.”) ¶ 4, Doc. 1-2; Ex. A
(Complaint), Doc. 1-3.) Plaintiff is a resident of California. (Ex. A (Complaint) at ¶ 2,
Doc. 1-3.) Defendant FCA US, LLC “is a corporation organized and in existence under
the laws of the State of Delaware” with its “principal place of business . . . in the State of
Michigan.” (Id. ¶ 4.) Tuttle-Click was dismissed by Plaintiffs on July 8, 2021.
(Rogerson Decl. ¶ 8, Doc. 1-2.)
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 1
Case 8:21-cv-01318-JLS-ADS Document 38 Filed 05/05/22 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:663
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:21-cv-01318-JLS-ADS Date: May 05, 2022
Title: Yvonne Roa v. FCA US LLC et al
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that “[o]n or about September 5, 2016, [she]
purchased a 2016 Jeep Wrangler . . . , which was manufactured and or distributed by
Defendant FCA.” (Ex. A (Complaint) at ¶ 7, Doc. 1-3.) Plaintiff alleges that “[d]uring
the warranty period, the Vehicle contained or developed defects, including but not limited
to, defects related to the electrical system; defects related to the totally integrated power
module (‘TIPM’),” and “defects causing a failure to start.” (Id. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff further
alleges that “[s]aid defects substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the Vehicle.”
(Id.) Accordingly, Plaintiff brought suit alleging California Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act claims and a fraudulent concealment claim against FCA. (See ¶¶ 116-133,
139-157.)
Plaintiff asserts that, as a result of the alleged violations, she “suffered damages in
a sum to be proven at trial in an amount that is not less than $25,001.00.” (Id. ¶ 10.)
Plaintiff also seeks, among other things, “a civil penalty in the amount of two times
Plaintiff’s actual damages pursuant to Civil Code section 1794.” (Id. Prayer for Relief.)
Defendant alleges that “[i]f Plaintiff were to prevail on her Song-Beverly claims, she
could be awarded damages well in excess of $75,000.00.” (Rogerson Decl. ¶ 13, Doc. 1-
2.) Defendant notes that Plaintiff’s actual damages are “at least $61,831.68, which is a
conservative estimate, and before the consideration of double civil penalties, attorney’s
fees, incidental, consequential, and punitive damages, all of which Plaintiff also seeks in
this litigation.” (Opp. at 1, Doc. 33.) As support for its actual damages calculation,
Defendant cites to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Responses to Defendant FCA US LLC’s First
Set of Interrogatories wherein Plaintiff estimated her actual damages as “$69,010.68.”
(Ex. 1 (to the Declaration of Ali Azemoon) at PDF Page 5, Doc. 33-2.) Specifically, in
her responses, Plaintiff notes that she seeks “[a]pproximately $61,831.68” in restitution
(“the sale price of the vehicle ($22,900.02 paid on lease plus $38,931.66 paid to purchase
through financing)”) and $7,179 in “[i]nsurance premiums.” (Id.)
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 2
Case 8:21-cv-01318-JLS-ADS Document 38 Filed 05/05/22 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:664
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:21-cv-01318-JLS-ADS Date: May 05, 2022
Title: Yvonne Roa v. FCA US LLC et al
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). 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
Plaintiff argues that this Court should remand this action because “Defendant has
fallen far short of carrying its heavy burden of proof of showing that removal was proper
because Defendant’s Notice of Removal fails to establish the amount in controversy
exceeds $75.000.” (Mem. at 4, Doc. 24-1.) 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. Plaintiff does not contest that the parties are
diverse; rather, she challenges whether Defendant has established that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 by a preponderance of the evidence. “[T]he 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
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 3
Case 8:21-cv-01318-JLS-ADS Document 38 Filed 05/05/22 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:665
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:21-cv-01318-JLS-ADS Date: May 05, 2022
Title: Yvonne Roa v. FCA US LLC et al
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) (emphasis omitted). 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).
Here, Defendant has met its burden in establishing that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000 by a preponderance of the evidence. Defendant notes that Plaintiff
estimates her actual damages in this case as “[a]pproximately $69,010.68,” as noted in
her Supplemental Responses to Defendant FCA US LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories.”
(Ex. 1 (to the Declaration of Ali Azemoon) at PDF Page 5, Doc. 33-2.) Specifically,
Defendant notes that Plaintiff seeks $61,831.68 in restitution, which Plaintiff states
encompasses the “$22,900.02 paid on lease plus $38,931.66 paid to purchase through
financing.” (Id.) Plaintiff also seeks $7,179 in “[i]nsurance premiums” bringing her
estimate of actual damages to $69,010.68. (Id.) Defendant has also demonstrated that it
considered mileage offsets in calculating Plaintiff’s damages under the Act. See Cal. Civ.
Code § 1793.2(d)(1); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(d)(2). Defendant notes that “the
mileage offset, when calculated most favorably to Plaintiff, is $164.991 (resulting in a
1 Defendant notes that “Plaintiff first brought in the vehicle for repair on September 19,
2016, at 547 miles when the Vehicle failed to start,” which Plaintiff “identified as a
nonconforming defect in Plaintiff’s Complaint.” (Notice of Removal ¶ 33, Doc. 1.) Defendant
contends that “[u]sing the Song Beverly offset calculation, 532 miles, divided by 120,000 miles,
and then multiplied by the purchase price of the Subject Vehicle ($37,216.36), obtains the offset
figure of $164.99.” (Id. ¶ 34.) Defendant also notes an offset figure of $15,356.40 “based on a
presentation which occurred on or about December 12, 2019, at 49,531 miles” as alleged in the
Complaint. (Opp. at 13, Doc. 33; Complaint.)
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 4
Case 8:21-cv-01318-JLS-ADS Document 38 Filed 05/05/22 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:666
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:21-cv-01318-JLS-ADS Date: May 05, 2022
Title: Yvonne Roa v. FCA US LLC et al
total damages calculation of $61,666.69 before all other damages requests are taken into
account) and “[w]hen calculated in a most favorable way to FCA,” as “$15,356.40.”
(Opp. at 13, Doc. 33.) Defendant contends that with either mileage offset, the amount in
controversy more likely than not exceeds $75,000 as Plaintiff also seeks a “civil penalty
in the amount of two times Plaintiff’s actual damages.” (Ex. A (Complaint) at p. 25,
Doc. 1-3; Opp. at 13-14, Doc. 33); Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(c) (providing that “a civil
penalty . . . shall not exceed two times the amount of actual damages”).
Plaintiff offers several arguments as to why Defendant’s amount-in-controversy
calculations are speculative; none are persuasive here. Plaintiff notes that “it is
insufficient” for Defendant “to merely point to Plaintiff’s purchase agreement . . . to
establish the amount of actual damages in controversy,” as “Defendant must also provide
essential facts about the purchase price and use of the Subject Vehicle.” (Mem. at 8,
Doc. 24-1.) However, Defendant has not merely relied upon Plaintiff’s purchase
agreement, as Defendant has pointed to Plaintiff’s own estimate of her actual damages,
such as her statement that she seeks to recover the “$22,900.02” paid on the lease plus
$38,931.66 paid to purchase through financing.” (Ex. 1 (to the Declaration of Ali
Azemoon) at PDF Page 5, Doc. 33-2.) Plaintiff also contends that Defendant’s mileage
offset calculations are speculative because the mileage offset is determined by
“identify[ing] the first repair attempt for the substantially impairing” defect and that
“FCA never identifies the substantially impairing defect, and fails to acknowledge that
Plaintiff’s operative Complaint alleges a multitude of various defects, with the ‘failing to
start’ issue as only one of the alleged defects.” (Mem. at 9, Doc. 24-1.) However, even
assuming Plaintiff’s assuming legal contentions are correct, Defendant has provided in its
Opposition two calculations of the mileage offset (one Defendant contends, and Plaintiff
has not disputed, is most favorable to Plaintiff and the other most favorable to
Defendant). (See, e.g., Opp. at 13, Doc. 33; Ex. A (Complaint) at ¶¶ 107-108, Doc. 1-3.)
Moreover, Defendant has sufficiently demonstrated that neither amount reduces the
amount-in-controversy below $75,000. (See Opp. at 13-14, Doc. 33.)
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 5
Case 8:21-cv-01318-JLS-ADS Document 38 Filed 05/05/22 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:667
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:21-cv-01318-JLS-ADS Date: May 05, 2022
Title: Yvonne Roa v. FCA US LLC et al
In sum, Defendant has met its burden in showing that the amount-in-controversy
exceeds $75,000 by a preponderance of the evidence.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
Initials of Deputy Clerk: droj
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 6