Ethelbert Clay Sr. v. General Motors, LLC

No. 2:25-cv-07962-AH-(MARx) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2025) · United States District Court for the Central District of California · December 15, 2025 · No. 2:25-cv-07962-AH-(MARx)

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California grants Plaintiff Ethelbert Clay Sr.’s motion to remand his Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and related claims against General Motors LLC. The court concludes that Defendant established estimated actual damages and civil penalties totaling $62,204.64 but did not sufficiently establish attorney’s fees, leaving the amount in controversy below the $75,000 diversity-jurisdiction threshold. The case is remanded to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, and the federal case is closed.

Holdings

  1. The Court may account for Song-Beverly Act use offsets and other statutory offsets when estimating the amount in controversy. Defendant established estimated actual damages of $20,734.88.
  2. Defendant established that $41,469.76 in Song-Beverly civil penalties was in controversy because Plaintiff expressly sought a penalty of two times actual damages and the record showed multiple repair presentations.
  3. Defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiff's attorney's fees would exceed the amount needed to satisfy the jurisdictional threshold.
  4. Defendant did not establish that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000; therefore, the Court lacked a sufficient basis to retain diversity jurisdiction and granted the motion to remand.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Defendant established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 for diversity jurisdiction.
  2. Whether the estimated restitution damages, civil penalties, and attorney's fees could be included in calculating the amount in controversy.
  3. Whether the case should be remanded because the jurisdictional amount was not established.

Disposition

remanded

Cases Cited (13)

  • Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)(followed)
  • Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC, 899 F.3d 785, 793, 795 (9th Cir. 2018)(followed)
  • Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Covarrubias v. Ford Motor Co., 2025 WL 907544, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2025)(followed)
  • Schneider v. Ford Motor Co., 756 F. App'x 699, 701 n.3 (9th Cir. 2018)(followed)
  • Godoy v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 2024 WL 4682310, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2024)(followed)
  • Mitchell v. Blue Bird Body Co., 80 Cal. App. 4th 32, 38 (2000)(followed)
  • Savall v. FCA US LLC, 2021 WL 1661051, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2021)(acknowledged)
  • Castillo v. FCA USA, LLC, 2019 WL 6607006, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2019)(followed)
  • Lopez v. Kia Am., Inc., 693 F. Supp. 3d 1063, 1068 (C.D. Cal. 2023)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 13.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…