Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Enedina Montiel Torres sued General Motors LLC in California state court under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, California's lemon law. The complaint alleges that General Motors willfully violated the Act and seeks restitution, a civil penalty of up to two times actual damages, and attorney's fees. General Motors removed the case to the Central District of California on diversity grounds, relying on those allegations to cross the $75,000 threshold of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Torres moved to remand, arguing only that General Motors had not shown the required amount in controversy. She did not dispute the defendant's estimate of actual damages, $74,829.25, which falls just under the threshold. Her position was that, once she challenged the calculation, General Motors had to prove its own willful misconduct with competent evidence rather than rely on her conclusory allegations. The court decided the motion on the papers without oral argument.
Under the Act, a buyer may recover the price paid or payable, reduced by a mileage offset for use before the vehicle was first delivered for repair, and may recover a civil penalty of up to two times actual damages if the violation was willful. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1793.2(d)(2)(B)–(C), 1794(c).
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Christensen denied the motion in a short in-chambers civil minutes order. The court adopted the view of courts holding that the amount in controversy in these cases can include the maximum civil penalty where the plaintiff alleges willfulness, even cursorily. Doubling the uncontested $74,829.25 restitution figure yields a penalty of about $149,658.50, for a combined amount of at least $224,487.75. Because the maximum penalty counts, the court found that the defendant showed by a preponderance of the evidence that the threshold is met.
The court rejected the argument that General Motors had to submit its own proof of willfulness once Torres challenged the calculation, relying on its reasoning 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 here. Because the penalty analysis resolved the issue, the court did not reach whether attorney's fees would also satisfy the threshold.
The order decides only subject matter jurisdiction at the removal stage. The case stays in federal court, and nothing in it decides whether the violation was in fact willful or what damages or penalties, if any, Torres may ultimately recover. The restitution figure and penalty amount are jurisdictional estimates, not findings on liability.
Key Takeaways
- In this court's view, a Song-Beverly plaintiff's allegation of willfulness, even a cursory one, allows the maximum civil penalty to be counted toward the amount in controversy.
- A removing manufacturer may rely on the complaint's own willfulness allegations and need not submit separate evidence of its own misconduct.
- Where actual damages fall just below $75,000, as the uncontested figure of $74,829.25 did here, adding a penalty of up to twice that amount readily establishes the jurisdictional threshold.
- The court did not decide whether attorney's fees alone would satisfy the threshold, so that question remains open.
- The ruling is an in-chambers district court order that incorporates reasoning from a separate order in another case, so its weight depends on that reasoning and it does not bind other judges.
Why It Matters
The order shows how one Central District magistrate judge approaches a recurring removal dispute in lemon law cases. Because a civil penalty can triple the recoverable amount when combined with restitution, counting it can move vehicle cases that sit just below $75,000 into federal court, and a plaintiff who pleads willfulness in the state complaint thereby supplies the defendant's basis for removal. A plaintiff who wants to stay in state court cannot rely on demanding separate proof of willfulness from the defendant.
The ruling is limited. It is a district court order on a remand motion, it relies on a companion order from another case rather than a full explanation here, and it does not address attorney's fees or the merits of willfulness. By framing its holding as adopting the view of certain courts, it also signals that the question is contested, so parties should check how other judges in the district have ruled.