The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable S. James Otero, United States District Judge
Priority Send Enter Closed JS-5/JS-6 Scan Only
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Victor Paul Cruz Courtroom Clerk
COUNSEL PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: Not Present Not Present Court Reporter COUNSEL PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT: Not Present
PROCEEDINGS (in chambers): ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.'s ("Volkwagen" or "Defendant") Notice of Removal ("Notice"). On May 29, 2012, Defendant removed this action to federal court on diversity grounds. For the following reasons, the Court REMANDS this action to Los Angeles County Superior Court.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Svetlana Tokmakova ("Plaintiff") is an individual residing in the City of North Hollywood. (Notice Ex. 1 ("Compl.") ¶ 1, May 29, 2012, ECF No. 1.) Volkswagen is a New Jersey corporation. (Compl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff filed her Complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court on April 25, 2012.
The Complaint alleges the following facts. On April 21, 2007, Plaintiff purchased a 2006 Volkswagen Passat (the "Vehicle") from Keyes Audi. (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 7.) Purchase of the Vehicle was accompanied by an express warranty from Volkswagen. (Compl. ¶ 8.) Volkswagen agreed to "preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the Vehicle or provide compensation if there was a failure in such utility or performance." (Compl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff received the Vehicle "with serious defects and non-conformities to the warranty[,] and [the Vehicle] developed other serious defects and non-conformities to [the] warranty." (Compl. ¶ 9.) As a result, Plaintiff alleges violations of both the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Civil Code sections 1790 et seq., and the Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(3). (Compl. ¶¶ 11-38.)
On May 29, 2012, Defendant removed the case to federal court on diversity jurisdiction grounds. See generally Notice.) Defendant asserts that the parties are diverse and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Notice ¶¶ 7-9.)
An action may be removed by the defendant to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). In order for diversity jurisdiction to exist, no plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as any defendant and the amount in controversy ...