Weathersby v. US

Background

Ayanna Weathersby sued FCA US, LLC in California state court, asserting four causes of action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. She alleged that defects in her 2019 Dodge Challenger made the vehicle substantially worthless and that FCA did not meet its obligations under the warranty agreement. She alleged engine, transmission, and electrical defects, and claimed that FCA failed to repair the vehicle as required.

FCA timely removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The parties did not dispute complete diversity; the dispute concerned only the amount in controversy.

Amount in Controversy

The court rejected FCA’s argument that Weathersby’s complaint itself clearly established more than $75,000 in controversy. The complaint sought damages “in a sum to be proven at trial in an amount that is not less than $35,001.” The court concluded that this amount was intended to satisfy California’s threshold for an unlimited civil action and was not a clear statement that actual damages alone exceeded $35,001.

The court nevertheless found that FCA proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. FCA estimated actual damages between $25,000 and $32,880, based on Weathersby’s discovery response stating that the vehicle cost more than $25,000 and evidence that the vehicle’s manufacturer’s suggested retail price was $32,880.

The court held that FCA did not need to subtract a mileage offset because Weathersby’s complaint did not state how many miles she drove the vehicle or when the defect first appeared. The complaint therefore placed the vehicle’s original value in controversy, even though evidence later might show that her recovery was lower.

The court also included possible civil penalties equal to twice the actual damages. Weathersby had alleged that FCA’s failure to comply with the warranty was willful and that she was entitled to a civil penalty of twice her actual damages. The court held that FCA did not have to prove its own liability or provide evidence of its alleged willfulness merely to establish the amount in controversy.

Finally, the court considered attorney’s fees, which are recoverable under the statute. FCA submitted evidence that plaintiffs’ attorneys in similar cases routinely requested more than $50,000. The court found that the precise fee estimate did not matter because $25,000 in actual damages plus $50,000 in possible civil penalties already reached $75,000, and even one dollar in attorney’s fees would exceed the threshold.

Ruling

The court denied Weathersby’s motion to remand. The court did not address FCA’s alternative argument that Weathersby had consented to federal jurisdiction by participating in the case after removal, because the motion was denied on other grounds. The hearing on the motion was vacated, and the case was not remanded to state court.