Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Alicia Berumen sued Nissan North America, Inc. in Sacramento County Superior Court on February 10, 2026. She alleges that a 2025 Nissan Sentra she bought on October 4, 2025 developed electrical-system defects that Nissan did not fix, and she pleads three causes of action under California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The complaint alleges a purchase price of $47,507.71 and a first repair visit in October 2025 at about 967 miles. She seeks rescission, restitution of all monies expended, and a civil penalty of two times her actual damages. These are allegations only, and the court made no findings on the warranty claims.
Nissan was served on February 11, 2026 and answered in state court on March 2, 2026. On June 5, 2026 it removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds. Berumen moved to remand on July 2, 2026, arguing that removal was untimely. Nissan opposed. It argued that the complaint was indeterminate about the amount in controversy because it omitted offsets such as mileage and loan payments, and that its own preliminary investigation, not service, started the removal clock. Complete diversity was undisputed: Berumen is a California citizen and Nissan is a citizen of Delaware and Tennessee. The court also noted that Berumen's papers misstated the service date, and it relied on the proof of service showing February 11.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the motion to remand. Under 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(1), a defendant has 30 days after receiving the initial pleading to remove, and removability is judged from the four corners of that pleading. The court explained that the "unequivocally clear and certain" standard from Dietrich v. Boeing applies only to the second pathway under 1446(b)(3), which is triggered by later-served papers. The first period asks whether the complaint affirmatively states the basis for removal.
Applying that framework, the court found that the purchase price, the early repair at under 1,000 miles, and the request for civil penalties let Nissan reasonably conclude that any mileage or loan offsets would be nominal. Doubling the purchase price for penalties gives up to $97,015.42, for a total of about $142,523.13, well above $75,000. Nissan did not explain what its preliminary investigation revealed or when. It also did not submit the sales contract, repair history, or loan information to show that it could not calculate damages from the complaint. The court held that the 30-day period began on service on February 11, 2026, so the June 5 removal was untimely.
The court did not decide the parties' competing arguments about how the amount in controversy should be calculated. It remanded to Sacramento County Superior Court under 28 U.S.C. 1447(c), as the order states, "for lack of subject matter jurisdiction," and directed the clerk to close the federal case.
Key Takeaways
- When a complaint pleads the vehicle's purchase price and seeks civil penalties of up to twice actual damages, the 30-day removal period under 1446(b)(1) can begin on service, even if the complaint states no total dollar figure.
- The "unequivocally clear and certain" standard governs removal based on later-served papers under 1446(b)(3). It does not raise the bar for the first removal period.
- A defendant who says its own investigation started the removal clock should be ready to show what it learned, when it learned it, and why the complaint alone was inadequate. Nissan offered none of this.
- A defendant that argues missing offsets made damages incalculable should submit the sales contract, repair history, or loan records. Nissan submitted none, and the court treated that omission as undercutting its argument.
- The ruling returns the case to state court without any decision on the merits of the Song-Beverly claims.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court order, so it is not binding precedent. It is persuasive authority at most, and it relies largely on other district court decisions applying the Ninth Circuit's Harris and Dietrich framework to lemon-law complaints. Its practical lesson for removing defendants in Song-Beverly cases is to evaluate removability promptly after service, using the price, repair timing, and penalty allegations in the complaint.
Nothing about the underlying dispute was resolved. The court made no finding on whether the vehicle was defective or on actual damages, and it did not decide whether the amount in controversy was in fact met. Those questions, along with the warranty claims themselves, now proceed in Sacramento County Superior Court, where Nissan has already answered.