{"id":345,"date":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=345"},"modified":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","slug":"lewis-gm-cd-cal-remands-lemon-law-amount-in-controversy-mmwa","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=345","title":{"rendered":"Lewis v. General Motors LLC \u2014 C.D. Cal. Remands Lemon-Law Suit Where Defendant Cannot Show $50K Amount in Controversy Under Magnuson-Moss Act"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Lewis v. General Motors LLC<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Central District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-05<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
2:25-cv-07484<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Removal jurisdiction; Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act $50,000 threshold; Song-Beverly Act actual damages; civil penalties in amount-in-controversy; attorneys’ fees<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Elisa Dolores Lewis purchased a 2020 Chevrolet Colorado for a financed total of $57,401.28 and, after repeated unsuccessful repairs of warranty defects, sued General Motors LLC in Los Angeles Superior Court under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA). She sought actual damages, restitution, a civil penalty of two times actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and other relief.<\/p>\n

GM removed the case to federal court, asserting both diversity jurisdiction (Lewis is a California citizen; GM is a citizen of Michigan and Delaware, so complete diversity exists) and federal-question jurisdiction under the MMWA. Both bases turn on amount-in-controversy thresholds \u2014 $75,000 for diversity, $50,000 for MMWA. Lewis moved to remand, contending GM could not establish either threshold.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Judge Stephen V. Wilson granted the motion to remand. The court began by calculating actual damages under the Song-Beverly Act, which equal the purchase price minus statutory offsets. Because the financing meant the amount “payable” differed from the amount actually paid, the court \u2014 following its prior order in Bastida v. Ford and Brady v. Mercedes-Benz \u2014 held that restitution is properly measured by the sum of payments actually made before suit was filed. That total came to $37,410.95 (after subtracting payments made after suit was filed). The court did not need to apply additional offsets (mileage, manufacturer’s rebate, etc.) because GM could not satisfy the threshold even using its best-case scenario of zero offsets.<\/p>\n

On civil penalties, the court joined the line of California district courts that decline to include Song-Beverly civil penalties when the complaint contains only conclusory allegations of willfulness. Plaintiff’s mere recitation that GM’s violation “was willful” is insufficient; the defendant must point to specific allegations or comparable verdicts to justify adding the penalty to the amount in controversy. On attorneys’ fees, the court accepted that fees are includable under both Song-Beverly and MMWA, but GM had only suggested $5,000, which combined with the $37,410.95 in actual damages still fell short of the $50,000 MMWA threshold (let alone the $75,000 diversity threshold). The case was remanded.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n