Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02011/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02011-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332nr Diversity-Notice of Removal

---

1

3:17-CV-2011-CAB-BLM

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

IAN MCDONALD,

Plaintiff,

v.

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:17-CV-2011-CAB-BLM

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

REMAND AND REMANDING CASE 

TO STATE COURT

[Doc. No. 6]

On July 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint in state court seeking damages arising 

out of alleged defects to a 2012 BMW 650I vehicle that Plaintiff purchased in 2011. The 

complaint asserts violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code 

1794 et seq., breach of express written warranty, breach of the implied warranty of 

merchantability, fraud, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The complaint 

alleges that Plaintiff suffered damages exceeding $25,000, alleges that Plaintiff is entitled 

to civil penalties of two times actual damages [Doc. No. 1-2 at ¶¶ 11-14], and also prays 

for attorney’s fees and punitive damages [Id. at 14-15].

Plaintiff served the state court complaint on Defendant BMW of North America, 

LLC (“BMW”) on July 24, 2017. On September 29, 2017, BMW removed the complaint 

Case 3:17-cv-02011-CAB-BLM Document 14 Filed 11/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:17-CV-2011-CAB-BLM

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

to this court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff now moves to remand on the 

grounds that BMW’s removal was untimely. As the Ninth Circuit has explained:

The mechanics and requirements for removal are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 

1446. Section 1446(b) “identifies two thirty-day periods for removing a case.” 

Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 885 (9th Cir. 2010). 

“The first thirty-day removal period is triggered if the case stated by the initial 

pleading is removable on its face.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

“The second thirty-day removal period is triggered if the initial pleading does 

not indicate that the case is removable, and the defendant receives ‘a copy of 

an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper’ from which removability 

may first be ascertained.” Id. (quoting § 1446(b)).

Kuxhausen v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA, LLC, 707 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2013). In its notice 

of removal and in opposition to the instant motion, BMW argues that the complaint was 

not removable on its face because it does not state the purchase price of Plaintiff’s vehicle

or otherwise state the amount Plaintiff seeks in damages. Thus, BMW contends its removal 

was timely within the second thirty-day removal period because it occurred the same day 

that BMW obtained the sales contract for Plaintiff’s vehicle showing a purchase price in 

excess of $100,000. [Doc. No. 11 at 2.] The Court is not persuaded.

In its notice of removal, BMW stated that “Plaintiff did not provide any information 

regarding amount [sic] in controversy in the Complaint.” [Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 4.] This 

statement is incorrect. The complaint states that Plaintiff’s damages exceed $25,000, and 

prays for actual damages, statutory penalties of two times actual damages, attorney’s fees 

and punitive damages. In its notice of removal, BMW acknowledges that each of these 

categories of recovery are properly included in the amount in controversy calculation and 

in fact calculates the amount in controversy using the vehicle purchase price as the amount 

of Plaintiff’s actual damages and multiplying it by three to arrive at a total amount of

monetary damages and penalties sought in the complaint. However, even using the 

Case 3:17-cv-02011-CAB-BLM Document 14 Filed 11/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:17-CV-2011-CAB-BLM

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

minimum amount of damages alleged in the complaint—$25,001

1—the $75,000 minimum 

for diversity jurisdiction is satisfied when accounting for civil penalties. Accordingly, this 

case was removable based on the face of the complaint.

Kuxhausen, on which BMW relies, does not require a different conclusion. In that 

class action case, the issue was whether the complaint clearly stated that $5,000,000 in 

controversy as required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act 

(“CAFA”). The Ninth Circuit rejected the defendant’s argument that it was not required 

to calculate the total amount in controversy by multiplying the value of the putative class 

members’ individual claims by the number of class members. Kuxhausen, 707 F.3d at 

1140. Nevertheless, the Court ultimately held that “because nothing in Kuxhausen’s 

complaint ‘indicate[d] that the amount demanded by each putative class member

exceed[ed]” an amount sufficient to yield a total amount in controversy for the class

exceeding $5,000,000, the complaint “fell short of triggering the removal clock under 

Section 1446(b).” Id. at 1141 (emphasis in original). In other words, when the amount in 

controversy cannot be calculated based on numbers in the complaint, the removal clock is 

no triggered simply because the defendant could guess the damage amount or figure it out 

through its own investigation.

BMW, however, would not have needed to engage in guesswork or investigation to 

ascertain that this case was removable based on the allegations in the complaint. 

Knowledge of the purchase price of Plaintiff’s vehicle may have helped BMW determine 

the total amount at stake, but it was not necessary to determine that more than $75,000 is 

in controversy. Just as BMW multiplied the purchase price by three to argue in the notice 

of removal that Plaintiff is seeking a minimum of $314,164.50, it could have multiplied 

$25,001 (the minimum amount of damages alleged in the complaint) by three to determine 

 

1 The complaint stated that Plaintiff’s damages exceed $25,000. [Doc. No. 1-2 at ¶ 11.] Notably, the 

complaint also attached a complaint from a prior class action that Plaintiff contends tolled the statute of 

limitations for his claim. That complaint alleged that the amount in controversy for each of the Plaintiffs’ 

individual claims exceeded $50,000. [Doc. 1-2 at 71.]

Case 3:17-cv-02011-CAB-BLM Document 14 Filed 11/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:17-CV-2011-CAB-BLM

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

that Plaintiff seeks, at a minimum, in excess of $75,000, not including attorney’s fees or 

punitive damages. Performing this calculation would not have required any extrapolations, 

subjective knowledge, or evidence outside of the complaint, and multiplying these figures 

that were stated in the complaint was part of BMW’s duty to ascertain removability. 

Kuxhausen, 707 F.3d at 1140 (holding that the removal statute “requires a defendant to 

apply a reasonable amount of intelligence in ascertaining removability. Multiplying 

figures clearly stated in a complaint is an aspect of that duty.”) (internal citation and 

quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, unlike in Kuxhausen, the complaint triggered the 

removal clock under Section 1446(b). Because BMW did not remove within thirty days 

of being served with the complaint, its removal was untimely.

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to remand 

is GRANTED. This case is REMANDED to San Diego County Superior Court.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-02011-CAB-BLM Document 14 Filed 11/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4