Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Hesham Mankarious alleges that on March 14, 2024 he leased a new 2024 Porsche Macan distributed by Porsche Cars North America, Inc. He further alleges that the vehicle failed repeatedly, showed assembly and design defects, and was not repaired after a reasonable number of attempts. These are complaint allegations, not findings. On May 29, 2026 he sued in Los Angeles County Superior Court for breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. He seeks incidental and consequential damages, a civil penalty, and attorneys' fees.
On July 15, 2026 the defendant removed the case, asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a). Diversity of citizenship was undisputed: plaintiff is a California citizen and the defendant is a citizen of Delaware and Georgia. Plaintiff moved to remand on September 9, 2026, arguing that the defendant had not shown more than $75,000 in controversy. Plaintiff's own evidence showed a total lease obligation of $43,027.34, made up of a $7,500 initial payment and 38 monthly payments of $934.93. He had paid $33,678.04 of that as of July 2026. The vehicle had 18 miles at delivery and was first presented for repair at 14,575 miles. The court decided the motion on the papers and vacated the October 19, 2026 hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the motion, concluding that the defendant showed by a preponderance of the evidence that more than $75,000 is in controversy. It began with the settled rules that removal is strictly construed, doubts favor remand, and the removing defendant carries the burden. Under the Song-Beverly Act, actual damages are the price paid or payable plus collateral charges and incidental damages, less an offset for use before the first delivery for repair. The court used the full $43,027.34 payable under the lease as the starting point, relying on a Central District decision. It subtracted an $8,443.06 offset, calculated from 14,557 miles and the lease's agreed-upon vehicle value of $69,600 as required by Carver v. Volkswagen Group of America. That left actual damages of $34,584.28. The order recites 14,575 miles elsewhere and does not reconcile the two figures.
The court then added civil penalties. Plaintiff alleged willful violations and sought penalties of up to twice actual damages. The court found a reasonable calculation to be $69,168.56, citing Canesco v. Ford Motor Co. for the point that a defendant need not prove a case against itself on penalty liability. Actual damages and penalties together came to $103,752.84 before attorneys' fees. In a footnote the court added that prospective fees under a fee-shifting statute belong in the calculation and would only increase the total, but it set no fee figure.
The court also gave an alternative ground. Its standing order required each side to lodge a proposed statement of decision, and neither side did. Citing Local Rule 7-12 and the standing order's warning that failure would result in the motion being granted or denied, the court denied the motion on this basis as well, because of plaintiff's failure.
Key Takeaways
- A removing defendant in a Song-Beverly case can meet the $75,000 threshold by a preponderance of the evidence even where the lease obligation is only about $43,000.
- The court treated the full lease price payable as the damages base and applied the statutory mileage offset using the lease's agreed-upon vehicle value, not the lessee's total payments.
- Where the complaint alleges willful violations and seeks the maximum penalty, a court may count a penalty of twice actual damages toward the amount in controversy without requiring the defendant to prove willfulness.
- Prospective attorneys' fees count toward the jurisdictional amount, but this court relied on damages and penalties alone and did not quantify fees.
- Failure to lodge a proposed statement of decision required by a judge's standing order can independently support denial of a motion.
Why It Matters
This is a short in-chambers order from a single district judge, so it carries no binding precedential weight. Its value is as a worked example of how Central District courts compute the amount in controversy in lease-based lemon law removals. The order adopts the lease price payable as the base, uses the agreed-upon value for the offset, and counts the civil penalty at its statutory maximum when plaintiff pleads willfulness. Lessees seeking remand cannot rely on modest lease totals if the complaint seeks full penalties.
The ruling decides only jurisdiction. The case remains in federal court, and the court did not decide whether the vehicle is a lemon, whether any violation was willful, or what damages, penalties, or fees will ultimately be awarded. The order is interlocutory and is not a final judgment. The alternative denial also shows that noncompliance with chambers-specific filing requirements can cost a party the motion.