Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04219/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04219-0/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 TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED

TO STATE COURT; AND VACATING

HEARING DATE ON PENDING

MOTIONS

On January 10, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees, Expenses &

Costs, and a Motion for Award of Prejudgment Interest.1 Based on the moving papers and the file

herein, the court finds it appropriate to issue this order:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing set for February 14, 2006 is hereby VACATED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than January 24, 2006, any party asserting that

this court has subject matter jurisdiction shall submit a brief and supporting declarations

demonstrating that the amount in controversy exceeded $50,000 at the time the action was removed.

Defendants removed this case to federal court based on Plaintiffs’ federal claim under the

Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act. Jurisdiction under that Act requires that the amount in controversy

Case 5:05-cv-04219-PVT Document 28 Filed 01/12/06 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 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 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)

(applying Illinois law to claim under Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act). In Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Fees

Motion, they indicate that they were “out of pocket” $242,000, not including interest, costs or

attorneys fees. They also indicate that the current retail value of the subject vehicle was approximately

$192,800 shortly before they amended their complaint to add a claim under the Magnusson-Moss

Warranty Act, in response to which Defendants removed the action to federal court. Subtracting the

current value of the vehicle from the Plaintiffs’ out of pocket damages leaves less than $50,000 in

controversy. Although there is no information regarding the use value Plaintiffs obtained from the

vehicle, that amount will only further reduce the amount in controversy. Thus, it appears this court

lacks jurisdiction and the matter must be remanded to state court.

ORDER, page 2

exceed $50,000 (exclusive of interests and costs). See, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2310(d)(3). Other than the

interest and costs (including attorneys fees) that do not count towards the amount in controversy,

Plaintiffs’ amended complaint sought only “return of their purchase [sic] and incidental and

consequential damages, which exceed $25,000.” And it appears from the information in Plaintiffs’

memorandum in support of their motion for attorneys fees (the “Attorneys Fees Motion”) that the

actual amount in controversy may not meet the jurisdictional limit.

2

Dated: 1/12/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-04219-PVT Document 28 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 2