Smith v. FCA US LLC
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-00911
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
Smith v. FCA US LLC: Judge Hamilton denied Smith’s motion to return the case to state court without prejudice and ordered FCA US LLC to amend its removal notice.
Maria Cantu Smith and FCA US LLC; the order concerns whether the case remains in federal court and requires FCA US LLC to provide more information supporting removal.
What happened
Maria Cantu Smith v. FCA US LLC began when Smith sued FCA US LLC in Alameda County Superior Court over alleged defects in a vehicle and sought a refund under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
Smith asked the federal court to return the case to state court, arguing that unidentified dealership defendants could be California citizens. The court said unidentified defendants are not counted for this jurisdictional question and that possible future amendments do not change the analysis. But FCA US LLC had not identified its members, whose citizenship determines an LLC’s citizenship, so the court lacked enough information to decide whether federal jurisdiction existed.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied Smith’s motion without prejudice and ordered FCA US LLC to file a more specific removal notice within 14 days. Smith may then file another motion responding to that notice; the court did not decide the warranty claims.
The detailed version
- Smith v. FCA US LLC · No. 4:20-cv-00911
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Apr. 3, 2020
Background
Maria Cantu Smith filed a state-court complaint alleging warranty claims concerning a defective vehicle. She sought a refund of the $47,792.68 purchase price under the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, civil penalties of up to twice that amount, and attorney’s fees and costs. FCA US LLC removed the case to federal court.
Smith moved to remand, meaning she asked the federal court to send the case back to state court. She argued that she had sued unidentified Doe defendants because she did not yet know the legal names of certain dealerships that serviced the vehicle, and that these defendants could destroy the required difference in citizenship between the parties. She also sought attorney’s fees based on her contention that removal was improper.
Jurisdictional analysis
Federal diversity jurisdiction generally requires more than $75,000 in controversy and citizenship in different states. The court explained that, for removal based on diversity jurisdiction, citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names is disregarded. Smith’s stated intention to identify and add California defendants later also did not affect the jurisdictional analysis, which is based on the circumstances when the complaint is filed and the case is removed.
The court identified a separate problem with FCA US LLC’s jurisdictional showing. FCA had described itself as a Delaware corporation, but the court found that it was a Delaware limited liability company. A corporation’s citizenship is generally assessed differently from an LLC’s: an LLC is a citizen of every state in which its owners or members are citizens. FCA had not disclosed its members, so the court could not determine FCA US LLC’s citizenship from the filings.
Disposition
Because the 30-day period for amending the removal notice had expired, the court explained that an amendment could be allowed to state more specifically the removal grounds already asserted in the original notice. The court concluded that allowing an amendment would fit that rule.
The court DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Smith’s motion to remand. It ordered FCA US LLC to file an amended notice of removal within 14 days. Smith could then file a responsive motion addressing FCA’s statement of the grounds for removal. The order did not decide whether Smith was entitled to relief on her warranty claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.