Pestarino v. Ford Motor Company

Background

Andrew Pestarino sued Ford Motor Company in Santa Clara County Superior Court under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. He alleged that he bought a new 2017 Ford F-250 and received express and implied warranties concerning the vehicle’s condition, performance, and repair. He alleged that he brought the vehicle to authorized service facilities at least four times and that defects and malfunctions continued after repair attempts.

Pestarino’s amended complaint asserted claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and breach of express warranty. He sought damages, equitable relief, attorney’s fees, and a civil penalty of up to twice his actual damages. Ford removed the case to federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction, which allows federal courts to hear certain disputes between citizens of different states when more than $75,000 is at stake.

Motion to Remand

Pestarino asked the federal court to remand, or return, the case to state court. He did not dispute Ford’s assertion that there was complete diversity of citizenship. He argued instead that Ford could not show that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. He also argued that the court could decline to exercise diversity jurisdiction even if the statutory requirements were satisfied.

The court rejected the latter argument. It explained that the authority Pestarino appeared to cite concerned a narrow form of federal-question jurisdiction, not diversity jurisdiction. The motion therefore turned on whether Ford established the required amount in controversy.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that Ford had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence—that is, that it was more likely than not—that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. In evaluating that amount, the court could consider the complaint, the removal papers, and evidence relevant to the amount at stake. Recoverable damages, civil penalties, and attorney’s fees could be included.

Pestarino’s amended complaint alleged more than $25,000 in damages and sought a civil penalty of up to twice his actual damages. The court found persuasive decisions concluding that these allegations could establish an amount exceeding $75,000. The court also considered Ford’s evidence that the vehicle’s purchase price was $86,310.36 and evidence concerning potentially recoverable attorney’s fees. It concluded that Ford met its burden based on the complaint’s allegations and the attorney’s-fee evidence, even without considering the vehicle’s purchase price.

Disposition

The court vacated the May 28, 2020 hearing on the motion to remand and denied the motion to remand. The order terminated ECF 11. The court did not decide the merits of Pestarino’s warranty claims.