Page ID #:818

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-6237 JGB (PVCx) Date March 3, 2022 Title Martha Herrera-Martinez v. Kia Motors America Inc. et al.

Present: The Honorable JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MAYNOR GALVEZ Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None None

Proceedings: Order REMANDING Case to Los Angeles County Superior Court (IN CHAMBERS)

Before the Court is a Notice of Removal filed by Defendants Kia Motors America, Inc and Kia of Carson (collectively, “Defendants”). (“Removing Defendant” or “FCA”). (“Removal Notice,” Dkt. No. 1.) After considering the Removal Notice and Response to the OSC, the Court sua sponte REMANDS the case to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

I. BACKGROUND

On June 8, 2020, Martha Herrera-Martinez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Kia Motors America, Inc. and Kia of Carson (“Defendants”) in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. (“Complaint,” Dkt. No. 1-1.) The Complaint asserts four causes of action: (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Act; (2) breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Act; (3) breach of express warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; and (4) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. (Id.)

Defendants removed on July 20, 2020, alleging federal question jurisdiction under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. (“Removal,” Dkt. No. 1.) On February 11, 2022, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter Page 1 of 5 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk MG Page ID #:819

jurisdiction. (“OSC,” Dkt. No. 84.) On February 20, 2022, Defendants timely replied to the OSC. (“Response to OSC,” Dkt. No. 85.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove a matter to federal court where the district court would have original jurisdiction. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, “possessing only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013). As such, a defendant may remove civil actions in which a federal question exists or in which complete diversity of citizenship between the parties exists and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.

The Ninth Circuit “strictly construe[s] the removal statute against removal jurisdiction,” and “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Jackson v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 2014 WL 5514142, *6 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2014). The court must resolve doubts regarding removability in favor of remanding the case to state court. Id.

The district court may remand the case sua sponte or on the motion of a party. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir.1988) (citing Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)). “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

“Doubt arising from inartful, ambiguous, or technically defective pleadings should be resolved in favor of remand.” Charlin v. Allstate Ins. Co., 19 F. Supp. 2d 1137, 1140 (C.D. Cal. 1998). Further, a court “must resolve all material ambiguities in state law in plaintiff’s favor” on a motion to remand. Macey v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 220 F. Supp. 2d 1116, 1117 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “When there are real ambiguities among the relevant state law authorities, federal courts that are considering motions to remand should avoid purporting to decide how state courts would construe those authorities. (Id. at 1118.)

III. DISCUSSION

A. Actual Damages

Defendants argue that the Court holds federal question jurisdiction over this action under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”). (See Removal Notice.) A federal question claim brought under the MMWA requires that the amount in controversy exceeds “$50,000 (exclusive of interests and costs) computed on the basis of all claims to be determined in this suit.” 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3)(B). If the Complaint does not allege that the amount in controversy has been met, the removing defendant must allege in its notice of removal that the Page 2 of 5 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk MG Page ID #:820

amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 87-88 (2014).

The Court finds that the amount in controversy is not facially evident. Plaintiff alleges the following as to the vehicle’s price: “On or about May 24, 2015, Plaintiff purchased, for personal, family, and/or household purposes, the Vehicle, for a total consideration of more than $25,000. The Purchase Contract is in the possession of the Defendants.” Complaint ¶ 5. Thus, Defendants bear the burden of establishing that the amount in controversy has been met.

Under the Song-Beverly Act, any restitution “must be reduced by the amount directly attributable to use (as measured by miles driven) by the consumer prior to the first repair (or attempted repair) of the problem as pro-rated against a base of 120,000 miles.” Alvarado, 2017 WL 2495495, at *4; Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(d)(2)(C). The mileage offset formula under Cal. Civ. Code section 1793.2(d)(2)(C):

𝑁 𝑥 𝑐𝑎𝑠ℎ 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑣𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒 120,000

(N = number of miles driven before first repair related to the alleged noncomformity)

Defendants contend that the mileage attributed to Plaintiff’s use of the car at the time of the first repair is 67,198 miles. They offer four actual damages figures using Cal. Civ. Code section 1793.2(d)(2)(C)’s mileage offset formula to allege that the $50,000 amount in controversy threshold is met:1 Page ID #:821 Page ID #:822

Although Defendants have not alleged any facts for the Court to conclude that a two-time civil penalty is likely, assuming they had, $13,069.89 x 2 equals $26,139.78. With an additional $13,069.89, the total damages amount is only $39,209.67. This is far below the jurisdictional requirement of $50,000.

The Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and REMANDS to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The Clerk is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.