Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Candido Antonio Lopez Lopez purchased a 2019 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 in August 2019 and sued General Motors LLC in March 2025 for warranty defects under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA). GM removed in August 2025 on diversity grounds, and Lopez moved to remand on timeliness and amount-in-controversy grounds.
Like many California lemon-law plaintiffs, Lopez argued that GM should have known the case was removable from the four corners of the complaint (which gave the make, model, and VIN) and from any prelitigation correspondence. The complaint did not specify the purchase price or the actual mileage at the first repair attempt.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Pedro V. Castillo denied the motion to remand. The timeliness analysis tracks Judge Castillo’s parallel orders (Mora Sandoval v. GM; Ascencio v. GM): a defendant has no duty under Harris v. Bankers Life to investigate beyond the four corners of the complaint, and pre-suit settlement materials cannot trigger any removal clock under Carvalho v. Equifax. The complaint pleaded residency rather than citizenship and gave no purchase-price information, so it was indeterminate at filing and the 30-day clock under § 1446(b)(1) never began.
On amount in controversy, GM provided the purchase agreement, repair history, and loan payment history. Defendant calculated actual damages at approximately $54,232.75 after applying the mileage offset and other deductions. Lopez alleged willful violations and sought civil penalties up to twice actual damages. The court found the complaint’s specific willfulness allegations, combined with documentary evidence that the vehicle was presented for repair at least ten times, justified including the maximum civil penalty in the amount-in-controversy calculation. That brought the total to roughly $162,698 — well above the $75,000 diversity threshold, even before adding attorneys’ fees.
Key Takeaways
- An indeterminate complaint that pleads only residency (not citizenship) and omits purchase-price information will not start the § 1446(b)(1) 30-day removal clock — the clock begins only when removability is unambiguously clear from the face of the complaint.
- Defendants need not consult external sources, settlement materials, or industry expertise to determine removability (Harris v. Bankers Life; Kuxhausen).
- Where a Song-Beverly plaintiff specifically alleges willfulness and demands the full civil penalty (twice actual damages), evidence of multiple repair attempts allows defendants to include the maximum penalty in the amount-in-controversy calculation.
- The MMWA $50,000 amount-in-controversy threshold is independent: an MMWA claim does not create federal jurisdiction unless the threshold is apparent from the complaint.
- Multiple repair attempts (here, at least ten) provide concrete factual support for willfulness allegations beyond the boilerplate level.
Why It Matters
This is one of three nearly identical orders Judge Castillo issued on January 6, 2026, denying remand in Song-Beverly cases against GM. The cases collectively show that documented purchase agreements and repair histories — combined with specific willfulness allegations and a demand for the full civil penalty — will defeat remand under Judge Castillo’s framework.
For plaintiffs’ counsel, the practical takeaway is to plead carefully: omit specific purchase prices, plead only residency until ready to convert to citizenship, and limit damages allegations to the conservative end of the range. A specific willfulness allegation backed by ten repair attempts is hard to reverse for remand purposes.