Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01278/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01278-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 195
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KRISTI ROEHM,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 18cv1278 JM(JMA)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

v. REMAND

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Kristi Roehm moves to remand this action to the Superior Court of

California for the County of San Diego. Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”)

opposes the motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the court finds the matters

presented appropriate for resolution without oral argument. For the reasons set forth

below, the court denies the motion to remand.

BACKGROUND

In a complaint filed on August 28, 2017, in the Superior Court of California for

the County of San Diego, Plaintiff alleged five causes of action under the

Song–Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1790 et seq., a sixth cause

of action under the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301–2312, and a

seventh cause of action claiming fraud by omission. (ECF 1). The Complaint alleges

1

that damages exceeded $25,000. 

 The statutory claims are frequently referred to as “lemon laws.” 1

- 1 - 18cv1278

Case 3:18-cv-01278-JM-JMA Document 19 Filed 09/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
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

Plaintiff’s claims arise from her June 20, 2012 purchase of a 2011 Ford Edge

(the “Vehicle”), manufactured by Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that during the warranty

period the Vehicle contained or developed defects related to the Vehicle’s brake and

sync systems. (Compl. ¶8). Allegedly, Ford has been unable to service or repair the

Vehicle to conform to applicable express warranties. 

On April 24, 2018, Ford made an offer to settle Plaintiff’s claims for $75,001. 

(Notice of Removal ¶18). On May 18, 2018, Plaintiff rejected the offer and, on

June 14, 2018, Ford removed the action to this court based upon diversity jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff now moves to remand the action.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standards

A state court civil action may be removed to federal court if the district court had

“original jurisdiction” over the matter. 28 U.S.C. §1441(a). Defendant, as the party

who invokes federal removal jurisdiction, has the burden of demonstrating the

existence of federal jurisdiction at the time of removal. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc. 980

F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); Visendi v. Bank of America, N.A., 733 F.3d 863, 868

(9th Cir. 2013). Any doubts regarding removal jurisdiction are construed against

defendant and in favor of remanding the case to state court. See Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. 

The burden of demonstrating subject matter jurisdiction at the time the Notice of

Removal is filed remains with defendant. See Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical

Co., 443 F.3d 676, 682-83 (9th Cir. 2006) (defendant retainsthe burden of establishing

federal jurisdiction, including the amount in controversy).

The Motion to Remand

Plaintiff contendsthat Ford failsto satisfy the prerequisites for original diversity

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a): the $75,000 amount in controversy and

complete diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff also contends that Ford is judicially

estopped from seeking to remove the action and that the Notice of Removal was

untimely filed.

- 2 - 18cv1278

Case 3:18-cv-01278-JM-JMA Document 19 Filed 09/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
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

The Amount in Controversy

Plaintiff contendsthat Ford has failed to establish that the amount in controversy

exceeds the $75,000 threshold amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §1332(a). For removal cases, the amount in controversy is determined based

upon the complaint at the time of removal. Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. In the event the

initial complaint does not support the amount in controversy required to establish

diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §1446(c)(3)(A) providesthat “other paper” supportive

of diversity jurisdiction will trigger the 30-day removal period.

While Ford could have removed the action based upon the federal claims alleged

in the complaint, it did not do so. Instead, on April 24, 2018, Ford offered to settle 2

Plaintiff’s lemon law claims for $75,001. Upon rejection of the settlement offer, Ford

timely removed the action to this court based upon diversity jurisdiction.

Here, as set forth in the Notice of Removal, Ford satisfies the amount in

controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. §1332(a) by showing that Plaintiff rejected the

offer to settle Plaintiff’s claims for $75,001. See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co.,

LLC v. Owens, -– U.S. -–, 135 S.Ct. 547, 552-54 (2014). After rejection of the

settlement offer, there is no serious dispute that the amount in controversy exceeds the

jurisdictional amount. Without discussing whether the $75,001 amount in controversy

is satisfied, Plaintiff generally argues that the settlement offer was unenforceable

because the settlement offer was “vague, ambiguous, and invalid.” (Motion at p.6:16). 

 Plaintiff contends that the settlement offer was invalid

because it did not indicate whether Ford would accept liability, did not

provide for the entry ofjudgment, did not indicate whether Plaintiff would

be deemed the prevailing party for the purposes of the lawsuit, did not

indicate whether Defendant would brand the Vehicle as a lemon (as

required under the Song-Beverly Act), did not specify the timing of the

exchange, did not specify the timing of payment, and, most important,

conditioned the settlement on the acceptance of a vague and ambiguous

release whose terms Ford never disclosed.

(Motion at o.6:17-23). These arguments miss the mark. Whether the settlement offer

The court notes that the state court complaint alleged that damages exceeded 2

the sum of $25,000. (Compl. ¶11).

- 3 - 18cv1278

Case 3:18-cv-01278-JM-JMA Document 19 Filed 09/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
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

constitutes a binding contract is a separate and distinct issue from whether the $75,001

settlement offer satisfies the amount in controversy requirement.3

In sum, subject to further showing, the amount in controversy requirement of

28 U.S.C. §1332(a) is satisfied.

Diversity of the Parties

Plaintiff contends that Ford fails to demonstrate that Plaintiff is a citizen of

California, and, therefore, complete diversity is lacking. Plaintiff represents that the

complaint “makes no reference to Plaintiff’s citizenship or domicile” and simply

alleges that Plaintiff is a resident of San Diego County, California. (Motion at p.9:12-

13). While residence is not necessarily the same as domicile, the “place where a person

lives is taken to be his [or her] domicile until facts adduced establish the contrary.” 

Anderson v. Watt, 138 U.S. 694, 706 (1891).

Here, based upon the Complaint’s allegations, the Notice of Removal, and for

purposes of the present motion, Plaintiff is a citizen of California and, therefore, the

citizenship of the parties is diverse. In the event Plaintiff was not a citizen of

California at the time of removal, a simple declaration to that effect would suffice to

destroy diversity. However, Plaintiff fails to submit any evidentiary materials

suggesting that she is not a citizen of California for diversity purposes. 

In sum, subject to a further showing, the parties are diverse.

Judicial Estoppel

Plaintiff seeks to preclude Ford from removing this action based upon the

doctrine of judicial estoppel. Plaintiff contendsthat in two other lemon law cases, Ford

removed the complaints based upon similar amount in controversy allegations, but did

To the extent Plaintiff contends that Ford’s Notice of Removal must contain

3

evidentiary materials supportive of the amount in controversy, the court rejects that

notion because a notice of removal need only “contain[] a short and plain statement of

the grounds for removal.” 28 U.S.C. §1446(a). When the amount in controversy is

challenged, the defendant has the burden to show, “by the preponderance of evidence,

that the amount in controversy exceeds” the jurisdictional threshold. 28 U.S.C.

§1446(c)(2)(B). In the event discovery reveals that diversity jurisdiction is lacking,

Plaintiff may bring an appropriate motion.

- 4 - 18cv1278

Case 3:18-cv-01278-JM-JMA Document 19 Filed 09/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
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

not do so here. In the two other cases identified by Plaintiff, Ford removed the actions

within 30 days of service of the complaints and alleged that the amount in controversy

exceeded $75,000, although the complaint only alleged that damages exceeded

$25,000. The court gives short shrift to this argument. 

Judicial estoppel, “generally prevents a party from prevailing in one phase of a

case on an argument and then relying on a contradictory argument to prevail in another

phase.” Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211, 227, n. 8 (2000). Because the doctrine “is

intended to protect the integrity of the judicial process, it is an equitable doctrine

invoked by a court at its discretion.” Russell v. Rolfs, 893 F.2d 1033, 1037 (C.A.9

1990). 

Here, judicial estoppel is simply not applicable because (1) Ford has not taken

inconsistent positions in this case; (2) Ford is entitled to pursue independent litigation

strategies in different cases; and (3) Plaintiff fails to identify any prejudice.

In sum, judicial estoppel does not apply under the circumstances of this case.

Timeliness of the Notice of Removal

Plaintiff contends that Ford could have made the “settlement offer at the

beginning of the litigation.” (Motion at p.12:5). The court rejects this argument

because it lacks legal support.

In sum, the court denies the motion to remand.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 21, 2018

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

- 5 - 18cv1278

Case 3:18-cv-01278-JM-JMA Document 19 Filed 09/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5