United States District Court, C.D. California
Bruce A. Aronson, et al.
v.
FCA US, LLC, et al.
PRESENT: HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
PROCEEDINGS
(IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND
[filed 12/2/2019; Docket No. 24];
ORDER
GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS FCA U.S.
LLC'S AND SAN FERNANDO MOTOR COMPANY DBA RYDELL CHRYSLER
DODGE JEEP RAM ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS RYDELL CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP
RAM'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS [filed
12/6/2019; Docket No. 25]
On
December 2, 2019, Plaintiffs Bruce A. Aronson and Secure Tech
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Motion to
Remand. On December 16, 2019, Defendants FCA U.S. LLC
(“FCA”) and San Fernando Motor Company dba Rydell
Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram (“Rydell”) (collectively,
“Defendants”) filed their Opposition. On December
23, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Reply.
On
December 6, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings. On December 16, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their
Opposition, and on December 17, 2019, filed a Notice of
Errata with a corrected Opposition. On December 23, 2019,
Defendants filed a Reply.
Pursuant
to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local
Rule 7-15, the Court finds that these matters are appropriate
for decision without oral argument. The hearing calendared
for January 6, 2020 is hereby vacated and the matters taken
off calendar. After considering the moving, opposing, and
reply papers, and the arguments therein, the Court rules as
follows:
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May
18, 2019, Plaintiffs purchased a 2015 Ram 2500 ProMaster
Cargo Van (the “Subject Vehicle”) from
Woody's Automotive Group in the State of Missouri.
Complaint ¶ 8; Declaration of Amy Maclear, Exhibit A.
According to the Complaint, “Plaintiff received an
express written warranty in which Defendant FCA undertook to
preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the
Vehicle or to provide compensation if there is a failure in
utility or performance for a specified period of time.”
Complaint at ¶ 9. “The warranty provided, in
relevant part, that in the event a defect developed with the
Vehicle during the warranty period, Plaintiff could deliver
the Vehicle for repair services to Defendant's FCA
representative and the Vehicle would be repaired.”
Complaint at ¶ 10. Plaintiffs allege that, during the
warranty period, the Subject Vehicle contained or developed
defects that substantially impaired the use, value, and
safety of the Subject Vehicle. Id. FCA and its
representatives in California, including its authorized
dealership, Rydell, have allegedly been unable to repair the
Subject Vehicle after a reasonable number of repair
opportunities.
On
September 30, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against
Defendants in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging
claims for violation of California's Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1790,
et seq. (First Through Fifth Causes of Action),
violation of the Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
(“MMWA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et
seq. (Sixth Cause of Action), and for Negligent Repair
(“Seventh Cause of Action”). On October 31, 2019,
Defendants filed a Notice of Removal, alleging that this
Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1331 and 1332(a).
II.
MOTION TO REMAND
A.
Legal Standard
A
motion to remand is the proper procedure for challenging
removal. See N. Cal. Dist. Council of Laborers v.
Pittsburg-Des Moines Steel Co., 69 F.3d 1034, 1038 (9th
Cir. 1995). The removal statute is strictly construed, and
any doubt about the right of removal is resolved in favor of
remand. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566
(9th Cir. 1992); see also Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix,
Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1999). Consequently,
if a plaintiff challenges the defendant's removal of a
case, the defendant bears the burden of establishing the
propriety of the removal. See Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566;
see also Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th
Cir. 1996) (citations and quotations omitted) ("Because
of the Congressional purpose to restrict the jurisdiction of
the federal courts on removal, the statute is strictly
construed, and federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there
is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first
instance.").
B.
Discussion
“[T]he
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act creates a federal private cause of
action for a warrantor's failure to comply with the terms
of a written warranty.” Milicevic v. Fletcher Jones
Imports, Ltd., 402 F.3d 912, 917 (9th Cir. 2005). A
claim cannot be brought in federal court under MMWA, however,
“if the amount in controversy is less than the sum or
value of $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). “Where, as
here, it is unclear or ambiguous from the face of a
state-court complaint whether the requisite amount in
controversy is pled, the removing defendant bears the burden
of establishing, by a preponderance of the ...