Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Danny Rodriguez alleges that around March 11, 2022 he bought a 2022 GMC Sierra 1500 that developed engine and exhaust defects, making it nonconforming with the express and implied warranties of General Motors LLC. He further alleges that General Motors failed to repair or replace the truck after he delivered it for repair. On September 15, 2025, he sued in Sacramento County Superior Court on four causes of action under California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. These are allegations only; the order makes no findings on the merits.
General Motors answered in state court on October 15, 2025, and removed the case on November 25, 2025, invoking diversity jurisdiction. Rodriguez moved to remand on December 23, 2025, arguing that removal was untimely under both 30-day windows in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) and that the amount in controversy was not shown to exceed $75,000. General Motors missed its opposition deadline, and the court issued an order to show cause. After General Motors filed a late opposition on March 30, 2026, the court discharged that order, considered the opposition, and later received Rodriguez's reply. Complete diversity of citizenship was not disputed, and the court decided the motion on the papers without a hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the motion to remand, holding that removal was timely and that the amount in controversy exceeded the threshold. On timeliness, the complaint alleged only that Rodriguez resided in Vacaville, California, and said nothing about his domicile or citizenship. Removability therefore was not apparent from the face of the complaint, and the first 30-day period never began.
Rodriguez argued that he gave General Motors the sales contract and repair history on July 6, 2025, which started the second 30-day period. Relying on Carvalho v. Equifax, the court held that a document received before the initial pleading cannot be an 'other paper,' because a case cannot be removed before it exists. Since neither 30-day period was triggered and General Motors removed within one year of the complaint, removal was timely.
On the amount in controversy, General Motors bore the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. It estimated a $51,500 cash price, less a $21,710 mileage offset and $10,827 in other offsets for optional third-party contracts, for actual damages of $40,683.44. The order does not show every step of that arithmetic. The court accepted the figure, noting that General Motors attached the sales contract and repair history, accounted for the statutory mileage offset, and that Rodriguez offered no alternative calculation. Because the complaint alleges willful conduct and seeks a civil penalty of twice actual damages, the court counted potential penalties of up to $81,366.88 under Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(c), for a total of $122,050.32. The court did not reach attorneys' fees. It ordered the parties to file a joint scheduling status report within 30 days.
Key Takeaways
- A complaint that pleads only a plaintiff's residency, without domicile or citizenship, does not make a case removable on its face and does not start the first 30-day removal clock.
- Documents a defendant received before the complaint was filed cannot be an 'other paper' that starts the second 30-day removal period under Carvalho.
- If neither 30-day period was triggered, a defendant may still remove within one year of the complaint based on its own information.
- In a Song-Beverly removal, the defendant may support actual damages with the sales contract and repair history and must account for the statutory mileage offset; a plaintiff who offers no competing calculation is poorly placed to challenge it.
- Potential civil penalties of up to twice actual damages count toward the amount in controversy where the complaint alleges willful violations and requests that penalty.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court order, so it carries persuasive weight only and does not bind other courts. It applies Ninth Circuit authority to a common fact pattern in lemon-law cases removed by manufacturers, and it relies on several recent Eastern District of California decisions involving General Motors.
The order is interlocutory. Denying remand is not a final judgment, and the case proceeds in federal court on Rodriguez's Song-Beverly claims. The merits, including whether any violation was willful, remain undecided. The $122,050.32 figure is only a jurisdictional estimate of what is at stake, not a finding that Rodriguez will recover damages or penalties. Attorneys' fees as a component of the amount in controversy were left unaddressed.