Jimenez v. Ford Motor Company
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:21-cv-04967
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Jimenez v. Ford Motor Company, Judge Chhabria denied the plaintiffs’ request to return the case to state court, finding more than $75,000 was at stake.
The plaintiffs and Ford Motor Company; the case remains in federal court rather than being returned to state court.
What happened
In Jimenez v. Ford Motor Company, the plaintiffs asked the federal court to send the case back to state court. The dispute involves a vehicle and claims under California’s Song-Beverly Act.
The court considered whether the potential recovery was more than $75,000, the threshold for this federal case. Ford pointed to the vehicle’s $70,620 suggested retail price, a possible civil penalty of twice the damages, attorney’s fees, and a purchase agreement showing a price of $85,201.36. The plaintiff argued that the purchase agreement was hearsay and should not be considered.
The court denied the motion to remand. Judge Chhabria ruled that Ford’s evidence, considered together, showed that the amount at stake exceeded $75,000, and explained that hearsay evidence may be considered for this jurisdictional question.
The detailed version
- Jimenez v. Ford Motor Company · No. 3:21-cv-04967
- Vince Chhabria
- Nov. 5, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs moved to remand, meaning they asked the federal court to return the case to state court. The opinion identifies the dispute as arising under California’s Song-Beverly Act. The issue addressed was whether the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 threshold required for removal to federal court.
Amount in Controversy
The court explained that the amount in controversy measures the maximum potential recovery and may include civil penalties and prospective attorney’s fees in a Song-Beverly Act case. Ford’s removal notice identified the vehicle’s suggested retail price as $70,620, supported that figure with a declaration and invoice, and calculated a potential double civil penalty of $141,240. Ford also stated that the buyback price and civil penalties would exceed $75,000 even after applying a mileage offset. In addition, Ford submitted a purchase agreement showing that the plaintiff bought the vehicle for $85,201.36.
The plaintiff argued that the purchase agreement was hearsay and therefore could not be considered. The court rejected that argument, explaining that courts may consider hearsay evidence when evaluating the amount in controversy. The court also noted that business records may fall within a hearsay exception.
Ruling
The court held that Ford had met its burden to show that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. It therefore denied the plaintiffs’ motion to remand. The order addressed removal jurisdiction and did not decide the underlying Song-Beverly Act claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.