Thornton v. FCA US LLC

Background

Patrick Thornton initially filed this case in state court. He alleged that he purchased an FCA-manufactured vehicle in 2018, that the vehicle developed defects during the warranty period, and that FCA could not service or repair it. He asserted four state-law claims involving California warranty law and California’s unfair-competition statute.

FCA first removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, which generally allows a federal court to hear certain disputes between citizens of different states or between a state citizen and a foreign citizen when more than $75,000 is at stake. The court previously remanded the case because FCA had not shown that Thornton was a citizen of a state for purposes of that jurisdictional rule.

FCA later removed the case a second time. FCA asserted that discovery conducted after the remand showed Thornton was a citizen of California and again asserted that more than $75,000 was in dispute.

Arguments and Analysis

Thornton asked the court to remand the case to state court for two reasons. First, he argued that FCA had not shown that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Second, he argued that the second removal was an improper attempt to obtain reconsideration of the earlier remand order.

The court rejected the amount-in-controversy argument. Thornton alleged at least $25,000 in damages and sought a civil penalty equal to twice his actual damages, placing at least $75,000 in controversy. Because Thornton also requested attorney’s fees and California warranty law allowed such fees for a prevailing plaintiff, the court found that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

The court also rejected Thornton’s procedural argument. It explained that a second removal may be proper when it is based on evidence the defendant did not possess during the first removal. Here, FCA’s second notice relied on information about Thornton’s citizenship that FCA said it obtained through discovery after the first removal, and Thornton did not dispute that timing.

Ruling

The court denied Thornton’s motion to remand. It also vacated the hearing scheduled for January 28, 2022. The order addressed whether the case could remain in federal court; it did not decide the merits of Thornton’s state-law claims.