Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Victoria Ann Gifford and Dennis Joseph Cory purchased a 2019 GMC Sierra 2500 in November 2019 and sued General Motors LLC in February 2025 under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA). GM removed in August 2025 on diversity grounds, and plaintiffs moved to remand on timeliness and amount-in-controversy grounds.
The vehicle had been driven extensively before any repair attempt, and GM documented multiple repair attempts in its records.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Pedro V. Castillo denied the motion to remand, applying the same framework as his three companion orders the previous day (Mora Sandoval, Lopez Lopez, and Ascencio v. GM). The complaint pleaded only residency (not citizenship) and gave no purchase-price data, so it was indeterminate at filing and the 30-day clock under § 1446(b)(1) never began. Defendant had no duty to investigate beyond the four corners of the complaint (Harris v. Bankers Life), and pre-suit settlement materials cannot trigger removal clocks (Carvalho v. Equifax).
On amount in controversy, GM’s documentation showed the purchase price was $95,584.44 with statutory deductions of $63,531.98, leaving actual damages of $32,052.46 in the notice of removal. After supplemental briefing, GM updated this to $41,341.05. Plaintiffs alleged willfulness and demanded civil penalties of two times actual damages; GM documented at least nine unsuccessful repair attempts. Following Amavizca v. Nissan, the court included the maximum civil penalty, raising the amount in controversy to roughly $124,023 — well above $75,000 even before attorneys’ fees.
Key Takeaways
- For lease-to-purchase or financed Song-Beverly cases, mileage offsets and other statutory deductions can substantially reduce actual damages — but civil penalties (twice actual damages) often bring the amount in controversy back over $75,000.
- Documented evidence of nine repair attempts is more than sufficient to support specific willfulness allegations and justify including civil penalties.
- Defendants should provide the purchase agreement, repair history, and loan payment data either with the notice of removal or in supplemental briefing.
- Plaintiffs cannot have it both ways: alleging specific willfulness and demanding the maximum civil penalty, while complaining that the same allegations support inclusion of those penalties in the amount in controversy.
- This District’s judges remain split on whether boilerplate willfulness allegations alone suffice (compare Judge Castillo’s view here with Judge Wilson’s in Lewis v. GM).
Why It Matters
This is the fourth in a series of nearly identical Judge Castillo orders denying remand in GM Song-Beverly cases. The pattern is now well established: GM documents the purchase price and repair history; plaintiffs’ specific willfulness allegations support civil penalties at twice actual damages; and federal jurisdiction is preserved.
For lemon-law plaintiffs hoping to remand cases assigned to Judge Castillo, the strategic options are increasingly narrow. Pleading carefully — omitting specific willfulness allegations and full-penalty demands — is essential. For defense counsel, the recipe for keeping these cases in federal court is straightforward: document everything and emphasize the plaintiff’s own allegations.