Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ledelldra Leson Brooks filed three Song-Beverly Act claims against General Motors LLC in California Superior Court, Fresno County, on June 2, 2026. The claims concerned express warranty, implied warranty, and California Civil Code section 1793.2(b). Brooks sought damages, rescission, restitution, a civil penalty of twice her actual damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. General Motors removed the action to the Eastern District of California on July 16, 2026, and Brooks moved for remand on August 13.
The assigned district judge referred the motion for findings and recommendations, and Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone heard argument on November 4, 2026. The parties did not dispute their diversity or the estimated deductions from the vehicle's purchase price. The sole jurisdictional dispute was whether General Motors had shown more than $75,000 in controversy. Brooks also asked the court to judicially notice ten federal decisions addressing amount-in-controversy calculations in removed Song-Beverly cases; the court granted that request.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that General Motors bore the burden of establishing removal jurisdiction and that ambiguities favored remand. Because the jurisdictional amount was not facially apparent from the state complaint, General Motors had to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. Its assumptions could rest on the complaint's allegations and needed reasonable grounds, but did not have to be proven as though the underlying claims were being tried.
Using the alleged $49,889.95 purchase price for a 2023 Cadillac CT5 and $3,464 in undisputed deductions, the court accepted $46,425.95 as reasonable estimated actual damages. It then found that Brooks's allegations of willful noncompliance and her express request for the maximum statutory civil penalty placed that relief at stake. The court therefore accepted a penalty calculation of $92,851.90, twice the actual-damages estimate. It also accepted General Motors's conservative $5,000 attorneys' fees estimate, based on statutory fee recovery, Brooks's fee request, and the company's experience in more than 2,000 similar cases with her counsel.
The combined amount was $144,277.85. The court noted that actual damages and civil penalties alone satisfied the jurisdictional threshold even without the fee estimate. It recommended that the assigned district judge deny Brooks's motion to remand. This was a recommendation, not the district judge's final ruling: the parties had fourteen days after service to object, and the district judge would review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Key Takeaways
- A removing defendant may use reasonable assumptions grounded in the complaint without proving the plaintiff's underlying damages case.
- The court treated Brooks's express request for the maximum Song-Beverly civil penalty as placing that penalty within the amount in controversy.
- Statutory attorneys' fees were included, but the court said the $75,000 threshold was satisfied even without the estimated $5,000 in fees.
- The accepted calculation totaled $144,277.85, consisting of $46,425.95 in actual damages, $92,851.90 in civil penalties, and $5,000 in attorneys' fees.
- The November 6, 2026 filing recommended denial of remand and left the decision to the assigned district judge following the objection process.
Why It Matters
The recommendation applies Ninth Circuit amount-in-controversy principles to a consumer warranty action by focusing on the relief Brooks requested if she prevailed, rather than requiring General Motors to prove that she would recover every item. It also explains why the court found one district court's approach to pleaded Song-Beverly civil penalties more persuasive than a contrary approach.
The decision distinguishes the jurisdictional inquiry from the merits: including a requested civil penalty or fee estimate does not establish willfulness, liability, or the amount ultimately recoverable. Its immediate consequence is procedural, and the recommendation remains subject to objections and district-judge review.