United States District Court, C.D. California
Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
(IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Plaintiffs Motion to Remand (DE
11, 2019, Matthew D. Greene ("Plaintiff7) filed a
putative class action complaint against Harley-Davidson Motor
Company Operations, Inc. ("HDMCOI"),
Harley-Davidson, Inc. ("HDI"), and Harley-Davidson
Motor Company, Inc. ("HDMCI") (collectively,
"Defendants") in the Superior Court for the State
of California, County of Riverside. Plaintiff alleges the
following claims: (1) false advertising in violation of
California Business & Professions Code §§ 17500
et seq.; (2) violations of the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California Civil Code
§§ 1770 et seq.; (3) breach of express
warranty in violation of California Commercial Code §
2313(1)(A); (4) negligent misrepresentation in violation of
California Civil Code §§ 1572, 1709, and 1710; (5)
fraud and deceit in violation of California Civil Code
§§ 1572, 1709, and 1710; (6) quasi-contract/unjust
enrichment; (7) aiding and abetting in violation of common
law and/or California Vehicle Code § 11700.3; and (8)
unfair competition in violation of California Business &
Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.
August 28, 2019, HDMCOI removed the action to federal court.
HDMCOFs notice of removal asserts that this Court has subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2),
before the Court is Plaintiffs Amended Motion to Remand
("Motion"). For the following reasons, the Court
GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion.
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following:
2015, Plaintiff was interested in buying a new
Harley-Davidson motorcycle. Before making his purchase,
Plaintiff researched the features and pricing of particular
motorcycles by reviewing Defendants' website, catalogs,
and brochures. Plaintiff also reviewed the motorcycle price
hang tags attached to new motorcycles at the Riverside
Harley-Davidson ("RHD") dealership. Defendants'
advertising represented that the manufacturer suggested
retail prices ("MSRP") "exclude dealer setup,
taxes, title and licensing and are subject to change."
(Compl. ¶ 17, Ex. A, ECF No. 1-3.) Plaintiff therefore
anticipated that any Harley-Davidson dealer would impose a
dealer setup charge.
13, 2015, Plaintiff purchased a motorcycle at the RHD
dealership for $23, 799.63. Consistent with Defendants'
advertising, the motorcycles on display at RHD had price hang
tags which stated that the price does not include freight and
dealer setup. The total price of Plaintiff s motorcycle
included a $1, 399 charge for freight and "prep,"
of which it was later determined that $964 was for dealer
prep, and $435 was for freight.
Plaintiff did not know it at the time. Defendants reimbursed
RHD for performing dealer setup, which meant that
Defendants' advertised MSRP prices actually included
dealer setup. RHD did not perform any additional
"prep" tasks which would warrant an additional
dealer setup charge.
August 23, 2017, more than two years after Plaintiffs
purchase. Defendants began disclosing that
"Harley-Davidson reimburses dealers for performing
manufacturer-specified pre-delivery inspection and setup
tasks." (Compl. ¶ 24.) Had Plaintiff known this
when he purchased his motorcycle in 2015, he would not have
agreed to pay the "prep" charge.