Christopher Lloyd Mitchel v. Ford Motor Company et al.

Mitchel v. Ford Motor Co. · United States District Court for the Central District of California · September 11, 2025 · No. 5:25-cv-01466-DOC-DTB

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California grants Plaintiff Christopher Lloyd Mitchel’s motion to remand a Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act action against Ford Motor Company. The court concludes that Ford failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, and therefore finds no diversity jurisdiction. The case is remanded to the Superior Court of Riverside County, California.

Holdings

  1. Ford failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, so the district court lacked diversity jurisdiction.
  2. The court declined to include speculative civil penalties or attorney's fees in determining whether the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court had diversity subject matter jurisdiction when the complaint did not allege more than $75,000 in damages and Ford's supported economic-damages calculation was $63,636.42.
  2. Whether speculative civil penalties and attorney's fees could be included to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement.

Disposition

remanded

Cases Cited (17)

  • Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988)(followed)
  • Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005)(followed)
  • Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007)(followed)
  • St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-89 (1938)(followed)
  • Crum v. Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
  • Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
  • Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 403-04 (9th Cir. 1996)(followed)
  • Richmond v. Allstate Ins. Co., 897 F. Supp. 447, 450 (S.D. Cal. 1995)(followed)
  • Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, Inc., 730 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1148-49 (C.D. Cal. 2010)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 17.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…