Ramirez v. IDD Cars, LLC
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:23-cv-05716
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ramirez v. IDD Cars, Judge Karas ordered supplemental briefing on whether the court has jurisdiction under the warranty statute.
Ramirez, IDD Cars, LLC, and the other parties must address the jurisdictional and statutory questions in supplemental briefs due May 9, 2025.
What happened
Ramirez v. IDD Cars, LLC concerns whether Plaintiff’s claims satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The opinion does not decide that issue.
The Court asked the parties to address whether Ramirez may count the vehicle’s full $16,579.54 cost even though the vehicle was repossessed, and to support his claimed $15,000 recovery under New York’s General Business Law. The parties also must address whether that law’s section 349 applies to this private contract dispute.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas directed each party to file a supplemental brief of no more than five pages by May 9, 2025.
The detailed version
- Ramirez v. IDD Cars, LLC · No. 7:23-cv-05716
- Kenneth Karas
- Apr. 25, 2025
What the order does
The court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs, each no longer than five pages, about whether Plaintiff’s claim meets the amount-in-controversy requirement for federal jurisdiction under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA).
Issues identified by the court
The court requested briefing on whether Plaintiff may claim $16,579.54, described as the total cost of the vehicle, when the parties do not dispute that the loss was reduced by the vehicle’s eventual repossession.
The court also directed Plaintiff to provide support for the $15,000 recovery alleged under the New York General Business Law (NY GBL). In addition, the parties must brief whether NY GBL § 349 applies. Plaintiff relies on that provision to satisfy the MMWA’s jurisdictional requirement, but the court noted that case law suggests § 349 does not apply to private contract disputes.
Deadline and effect
All parties’ briefs are due by May 9, 2025. The order directs further briefing and does not state a ruling on whether the MMWA amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied or whether NY GBL § 349 applies.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.