Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff sued General Motors LLC in California state court under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, California's lemon law. General Motors removed the case to the Central District of California, invoking diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing only that General Motors had not shown an amount in controversy above the $75,000 threshold in 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a). The magistrate judge decided the motion without oral argument.
The complaint alleged that General Motors willfully violated the Act and sought a civil penalty of up to two times actual damages. The notice of removal relied on those allegations. General Motors estimated actual damages at $70,727.21, a figure Plaintiff did not contest, so actual damages alone fell below $75,000. Plaintiff argued that, because she challenged the penalty calculation, General Motors had to submit competent proof of its own willful misconduct and could not rely on her conclusory willfulness allegations. General Motors also pointed to Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees as an alternative route to the threshold.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the motion to remand. It recited that the removing party bears the burden of showing removal is proper and that removal jurisdiction is strictly construed in favor of remand. Under the Act, restitution is the price paid or payable less a mileage offset, and section 1794(c) allows a civil penalty of up to twice actual damages for willful violations. The court adopted the view of courts that have held the amount in controversy in these cases can include the maximum civil penalty where the plaintiff alleges willfulness, even cursorily. Doubling the uncontested $70,727.21 yields a penalty of about $141,454.42, for a combined amount of at least $212,181.63. The court therefore found that General Motors had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
The court rejected Plaintiff's contention that General Motors must independently prove its own willfulness once she disputed the calculation. It said it disagreed for the reasons in its earlier order in Rubio v. General Motors LLC, No. 2:26-cv-07583-SSC, Dkt. No. 25 (C.D. Cal. filed Oct. 8, 2026), a copy of which is in the record at ECF 22-1. That earlier order was not among the materials reviewed, so its fuller reasoning is not summarized here. Because the penalty-inclusive figure satisfied the threshold, the court did not reach the attorney's fees argument.
The ruling is limited. It denies remand, so the case stays in federal court. It does not decide whether General Motors violated the Act, whether any violation was willful, or whether a penalty will be awarded. It treats the pleaded penalty as part of the amount in controversy. The motion did not challenge diversity of citizenship, and the order is an interlocutory ruling rather than a final judgment.
Key Takeaways
- In this order, a cursory allegation of willfulness in a Song-Beverly complaint was enough for the court to count the maximum civil penalty toward the amount in controversy.
- The court did not require the removing manufacturer to submit its own evidence of willful misconduct after the plaintiff objected to reliance on her allegations, citing its earlier Rubio order.
- Uncontested actual damages of $70,727.21 plus a doubled penalty of about $141,454.42 produced at least $212,181.63, far above $75,000.
- The court did not decide whether attorney's fees alone could satisfy the jurisdictional threshold.
- Denying remand is not a ruling on liability, willfulness, or the amount of any penalty; those questions remain for the federal court.
Why It Matters
This is an in-chambers civil minutes order by a magistrate judge in a single case. As an unreported district court ruling, it carries no binding precedential weight. Its value is in showing how this judge approaches amount-in-controversy disputes in Song-Beverly removals: the court adopted the view of certain courts and treated the pleaded penalty as in controversy.
In practice, a plaintiff who pleads willfulness and a penalty of up to twice actual damages should expect this court to count that penalty when actual damages alone sit near the threshold. A removing defendant can rely on the complaint's allegations. Left open are how the court would treat a complaint with no willfulness allegation, the attorney's fees theory, and the reasoning in Rubio, which the order incorporates by reference.