{"id":347,"date":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=347"},"modified":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","slug":"porter-general-motors-song-beverly-remand-amount-in-controversy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=347","title":{"rendered":"Porter v. General Motors \u2014 N.D. Cal. denies remand in lemon-law case, finds amount in controversy easily met"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Marquis Porter v. General Motors, LLC<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Northern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-05<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:25-cv-07971<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Removal; remand; diversity jurisdiction; 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1446(b); Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; amount in controversy; civil penalties; mileage offset<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Marquis Porter sued General Motors in California state court under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act after his 2019 GMC Sierra 1500 allegedly developed defects covered by GM\u2019s warranties. His complaint identified the make, model, year, VIN, and purchase date of the vehicle but did not allege the purchase price or any specific damages amount. About three months later, after Porter produced his sales agreement and loan payoff letter in discovery on September 2, 2025, GM removed the case to the Northern District of California on September 18, 2025. Porter moved to remand, arguing both that GM removed too late and that GM had not adequately established diversity jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Judge Rita F. Lin denied the motion to remand.<\/p>\n

On timeliness, the court joined the substantial majority of district courts in the Ninth Circuit holding that a Song-Beverly complaint that alleges only the vehicle\u2019s make, model, year, VIN, and purchase date does not trigger the first 30-day removal window of 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1446(b)(1). Under the bright-line rule of Harris v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co.<\/em> and Kuxhausen v. BMW Financial Services<\/em>, removability is judged from the four corners of the pleading; a defendant\u2019s subjective knowledge of vehicle market value or its sophistication as an industry player is irrelevant, and a defendant has no duty to investigate. The court also rejected the minority view that a defendant could \u201cguess\u201d the amount in controversy from the make\/model alone, noting that a bright-line rule promotes certainty, prevents pleading gamesmanship, and avoids wasteful satellite litigation about borderline cases. The state court\u2019s unlimited-jurisdiction designation (which only requires more than $35,000) likewise did not give GM notice that more than $75,000 was at stake.<\/p>\n

The second 30-day window of \u00a7 1446(b)(3) was triggered when GM received the sales agreement and loan payoff letter on September 2, 2025, and GM\u2019s September 18, 2025 removal fell within that window. Because neither of the first two windows had elapsed and the one-year outer limit had not run, GM was independently entitled to remove based on its own information under Roth v. CHA Hollywood Medical Center<\/em>.<\/p>\n

On diversity, Porter did not contest GM\u2019s allegations that he was a California citizen (residency in California serving as prima facie evidence of domicile under Mondragon<\/em>) or that GM is a citizen of Michigan and Delaware (LLC citizenship traced through its members under Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage<\/em>). Complete diversity was established.<\/p>\n

On amount in controversy, the court applied the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard from Dart Cherokee<\/em>. GM proffered the sale contract, repair history, and loan payoff information showing a $73,753.86 purchase price, supported a calculated estimate of approximately $62,529.65 in actual Song-Beverly damages after mileage and other offsets, and was entitled to include up to double that as a civil penalty under \u00a7 1794(c) given Porter\u2019s willful-violation allegation. Following Judge Lin\u2019s prior decision in Johnson v. Volkswagen Group of America<\/em>, the court held GM did not have to separately prove the willfulness allegation: the amount in controversy includes everything \u201cat stake\u201d regardless of likelihood of recovery. Total \u2014 at least $187,588.95 \u2014 well exceeded $75,000, without even reaching attorney\u2019s fees.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n