Kenneth Tate v. General Motors LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Kenneth Tate’s motion to remand a lemon law action removed by General Motors LLC on diversity-jurisdiction grounds. The court held that the removal was timely because the initial pleading did not affirmatively reveal the jurisdictional amount, and that GM plausibly alleged complete diversity and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.

Holdings

1. A notice of removal is not untimely when the initial pleading does not affirmatively reveal on its face the facts necessary for federal jurisdiction; the thirty-day removal period does not begin until a pleading or qualifying paper makes removability clear.
2. Alleging a Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim alone does not establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction; the initial pleading must also reveal that the Act's $50,000 amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied.
3. When a plaintiff makes only a facial challenge to the amount-in-controversy allegations in a notice of removal, the removing defendant need only make a plausible allegation and need not support it with evidence.
4. General Motors plausibly alleged complete diversity and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, thereby establishing diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Questions Presented

1. Whether General Motors's notice of removal was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446.
2. Whether Tate's complaint affirmatively revealed facts establishing federal-question jurisdiction under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act or diversity jurisdiction such that the removal period began upon receipt of the initial pleading.
3. Whether General Motors plausibly alleged complete diversity of citizenship.
4. Whether General Motors plausibly alleged an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000 for diversity jurisdiction.
5. Whether Tate's challenge to the amount in controversy was a facial rather than factual attack requiring evidentiary support from General Motors.

Disposition

other