Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04219/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04219-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 355
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOHN P. AND MARY JARRETT, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES, INC., et

al., 

Defendants.

__________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-4219 PVT

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO

STATE COURT

On January 12, 2006, this court issued an Order to Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be

Remanded to State Court.1 The parties have filed their responses to that order. Based on the

papers filed by the parties and the file herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case be, and hereby is, REMANDED to the Superior

Court of California in and for the County of Santa Clara. The clerk shall close the file.

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq. provides for federal

jurisdiction over certain consumer warranty claims where the amount in controversy is at least

$50,000 (exclusive of interest and costs). See, 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3)(B). Neither Plaintiffs nor

Defendants have demonstrated that the amount in controversy exceeded $50,000 at the time the

action was removed. 

Where, as here, a plaintiff seeks a refund of a vehicle’s purchase price in exchange for

return of the vehicle, the amount in controversy for purposes of the Act is determined by

Case 5:05-cv-04219-PVT Document 33 Filed 01/26/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 The use value could easily reduce the amount in controversy below the jurisdictional limit.

Although the parties both argue in favor of using the wholesale value of the motor home, the retail value

of the motor home is more likely the proper measure. The wholesale value would eliminate the portion

of the motor home’s value that was lost the minute the owners drove it off the lot. That diminution in

value is not caused by any breach of warranty, and thus should not be taken into account as part of the

amount in controversy determination. The “current value” should reflect only the difference between

how much the owners in fact paid for the motor home, and the lesser amount a reasonable buyer would

pay at the time of removal in light of any remaining defects. 

Subtracting the retail value of $185,320 from Plaintiffs’ out of pocket costs of $247,210 results

in $61,890, just $11,890 over the jurisdictional limit. It appears from the file herein that Plaintiffs

owned and used the motor home for over 4 years, driving it almost 16,000 miles in the first year alone.

Dividing $11,890 by 48 months comes out to about $250 per month. It is quite possible that the cost

to lease a similar motor home would have been more than that. Thus, use value may well have exceeded

$11,890, leaving less than $50,000 in controversy.

ORDER, page 2

subtracting from the cost of the vehicle the current value of the vehicle and the use value the

plaintiff obtained from the vehicle. See, e.g., Schimmer v. Jaguar Cars, Inc., 384 F.3d 402,

406-406 (7th Cir. 2004). Plaintiffs and Defendants have both submitted calculations subtracting

the asserted value of the vehicle–a motor home–from the Plaintiffs’ costs in connection with the

vehicle. Despite the fact this court’s prior order indicated use value was necessary to the

calculation, neither party presented any evidence regarding the use value Plaintiffs obtained from

the vehicle. From the customer complaint exhibits attached to Plaintiffs’ original complaint, it

appears Plaintiffs drove the motor home over 15,950 miles between the time they purchased it on

January 28, 2002, and February 18, 2003. There appears to be no information regarding how much

they have driven the motor home since then. Because the amount of use Plaintiffs obtained from the

motor home was substantial in just the first year alone, the amount in controversy cannot be

determined without knowing the value of the total use value Plaintiffs obtained during the entire time

they owned the motor home.2

The Ninth Circuit has a “strong presumption” against removal and will reject federal

jurisdiction “if there is any doubt as to the right of removal.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566

(9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). Because of the parties’ failure to submit information regarding

the use value Plaintiffs obtained, there is doubt as to Defendants’ right to removal of the case and

remand is warranted.

Dated: 1/26/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-04219-PVT Document 33 Filed 01/26/06 Page 2 of 2