Swearingen v. General Motors LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

Background

The plaintiffs filed the action in Sonoma County Superior Court against General Motors LLC and Doe defendants 1 through 10. The complaint asserted three causes of action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, a fraud claim, and a claim under California Business and Professions Code section 17200. General Motors removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs then moved to remand, meaning they asked the federal court to return the case to state court. They did not identify a specific defect in diversity jurisdiction but argued that General Motors had not supported removal with competent evidence. In reply, they argued that the declaration submitted by General Motors’ counsel, Timothy M. Kuhn, was inadmissible or insufficient to establish General Motors’ citizenship. They did not dispute that the amount-in-controversy requirement was met.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that the party removing a case generally must establish that removal is proper. For diversity jurisdiction, the parties must have complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy must meet the statutory threshold. A notice of removal need only plausibly allege that the amount in controversy exceeds the threshold unless the plaintiff contests that allegation; if contested, the parties may submit proof and the court decides the issue by a preponderance of the evidence.

The court first held that the plaintiffs’ motion did not present an evidentiary challenge because it did not contest General Motors’ allegations about complete diversity or the amount in controversy. The court found that General Motors had included plausible allegations in its notice of removal and had satisfied the procedural requirements for removal.

The court alternatively held that, even if the plaintiffs’ motion were treated as an evidentiary challenge, General Motors had met its burden. The court found complete diversity because the plaintiffs were California citizens and, based on Mr. Kuhn’s declaration, General Motors was a citizen of Michigan and Delaware. The court also found that the amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied. The plaintiffs sought the vehicle’s purchase price, a civil penalty of twice certain damages, attorney fees, and punitive damages on the fraud claim. General Motors submitted the vehicle sales contract and information about fee and damages awards in similar cases. The court overruled the plaintiffs’ objections to the declaration.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to remand. It stated that removal was proper and that the federal court would retain jurisdiction over the matter. Judge Susan Illston signed the order.