Jose Palomino v. General Motors, LLC et al.

Summary

The Central District of California denied Jose Palomino’s motion to remand his Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act action against General Motors LLC. The court held that removal based on diversity jurisdiction was proper because General Motors plausibly alleged actual damages of $40,363.42 and potential civil penalties of twice that amount, resulting in an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The court did not reach the parties’ arguments concerning attorney’s fees.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff's challenge to removal allegations is a facial attack when the plaintiff provides neither competing evidence nor a reasoned argument undermining the alleged jurisdictional facts.
2. On a facial attack, a notice of removal sufficiently establishes the amount in controversy when it contains plausible allegations that the jurisdictional threshold is exceeded; evidentiary proof is not required at that stage.
3. When a plaintiff seeks Song-Beverly civil penalties and alleges willful conduct, potential civil penalties of up to twice the actual damages may be included in calculating the amount in controversy, without requiring the removing defendant to prove liability.

Questions Presented

1. Whether General Motors adequately established the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction.
2. Whether Palomino's challenge to the jurisdictional allegations constituted a facial or factual attack.
3. Whether estimated Song-Beverly civil penalties could be included in the amount in controversy without proof that General Motors was liable or acted willfully.
4. Whether the action should be remanded to state court.

Disposition

denied