Estrada v. Nissan North America, Inc.

Background

Fernando Estrada filed a state-court action against Nissan North America, Inc. under California’s Song-Beverly Act, based on alleged defects in a vehicle he purchased from Nissan. Estrada filed his complaint in the Superior Court of California for Alameda County on November 8, 2024. Nissan filed an answer in state court on December 30, 2024, and removed the case to federal court on January 23, 2025, citing diversity jurisdiction.

Estrada did not dispute that diversity jurisdiction existed because the parties were diverse and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Instead, he argued that Nissan’s removal was untimely. The court also granted Estrada’s request for judicial notice and vacated the hearing scheduled for March 24, 2025.

Legal standard

Under the federal removal statute, a defendant generally must remove a case within 30 days after receiving an initial pleading or another paper that makes it clear the case can be removed. The party seeking removal bears the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction exists, and removal rules are strictly construed against removal.

The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s approach that the 30-day period begins when removability is affirmatively disclosed in the initial pleading or made unequivocally clear and certain by another document.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Estrada’s complaint clearly gave Nissan notice that the case was removable. Estrada alleged that the vehicle’s approximate value was $53,566, that he first presented it for repairs after approximately 357 miles, and that Nissan willfully violated the Song-Beverly Act. The court calculated that the alleged damages were approximately $53,406 after the mileage deduction and that the potential civil penalty could be $106,816, for a total amount in controversy of approximately $160,218, without counting attorney’s fees.

The court rejected Nissan’s argument that the word “approximate” made the amount unclear. It also rejected Nissan’s argument that Estrada’s allegation that he resided in California was insufficient to establish diversity for removal purposes. The opinion states that Nissan is a citizen of Delaware and Tennessee, and that the parties agreed complete diversity existed if Estrada was a California resident. The court concluded that the complaint clearly and unequivocally put Nissan on notice that the action was removable.

Disposition

The court held that Nissan’s removal was untimely. It GRANTED Estrada’s motion to remand and REMANDS the action to the Alameda Superior Court. The decision addressed the timing of removal rather than the merits of Estrada’s Song-Beverly Act claims.