Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted Jonathan Brancati’s motion to remand his Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act action against Ford Motor Company to California state court. The court held that Ford failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 because civil penalties and attorneys’ fees could not be included on the evidence presented. The court also vacated the scheduled hearing and directed the clerk to close the federal case.
Holdings
- The amount in controversy was not facially evident because the complaint did not specify a monetary value, and the civil case cover sheet's statement that the amount demanded exceeded $35,000 did not establish a sufficiently specific amount in controversy.
- The appropriate initial measure of actual damages was the vehicle's total cash price of $40,125, reduced by the statutory mileage offset, resulting in $35,106.03 in alleged actual damages.
- The court would not include a civil penalty in the amount-in-controversy calculation merely because Brancati alleged a willful violation; Ford had to provide evidence supporting the likelihood and potential amount of such an award.
- Ford did not establish that recoverable attorney fees were more likely than not to bring the amount in controversy above $75,000.
- Ford failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000; therefore, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and the action had to be remanded.
Questions Presented
- Whether Ford established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
- Whether the vehicle's actual purchase price, potential Song-Beverly civil penalty, and recoverable attorney fees established the jurisdictional amount.
- Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action.
Disposition
remanded
Cases Cited (23)
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)(followed)
- Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013)(followed)
- In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litigation, 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008)(followed)
- Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
- Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996)(followed)
- Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 683-85 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
- Calif. ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004)(followed)
- Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009)(followed)
- Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 402-04 (9th Cir. 1996)(followed)
- Fritsch v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, 899 F.3d 785, 790, 793-95 (9th Cir. 2018)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 23.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…