Cindy Huerta v. General Motors, et al.

Summary

The Central District of California denied Cindy Huerta’s motion to remand her Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims against General Motors LLC. The court held that removal was timely because the amount in controversy was not apparent from the complaint or subsequent disclosures, and denied the request for attorneys’ fees as moot.

Holdings

1. The complaint did not make the amount in controversy ascertainable and therefore did not trigger the 30-day removal deadline under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
2. The vehicle sales agreement did not make removability unequivocally clear and certain and therefore did not trigger the second 30-day removal period under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3).
3. GM was permitted to remove based on its own investigation of jurisdictional facts because no pleading or other paper served by Huerta triggered a removal deadline.
4. Huerta was not entitled to attorneys' fees and costs because the removal was timely; the request was denied as moot.

Questions Presented

1. Whether GM's notice of removal was untimely because the complaint made the amount in controversy ascertainable and triggered the initial 30-day removal period under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
2. Whether service of the vehicle sales agreement constituted an 'other paper' that made removability unequivocally clear and certain and triggered the second 30-day removal period under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3).
3. Whether the amount-in-controversy requirements for the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and diversity jurisdiction were satisfied for purposes of removal.
4. Whether Huerta was entitled to attorneys' fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Disposition

other