{"id":372,"date":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=372"},"modified":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","slug":"velazquez-ortega-gm-cd-cal-denies-remand-documented-damages-willfulness","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=372","title":{"rendered":"Velazquez-Ortega v. General Motors LLC \u2014 C.D. Cal. Denies Lemon-Law Remand Where GM Documented Damages and Plaintiff Specifically Alleged Willfulness"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Velazquez-Ortega v. General Motors LLC<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Central District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-06<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
5:25-cv-02914<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Removal jurisdiction; Song-Beverly amount-in-controversy; civil penalties on willfulness allegations; documented damages calculation<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Cesar Velazquez-Ortega purchased a 2021 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 in November 2021 with express written warranties from General Motors. After the vehicle allegedly developed transmission defects and GM’s authorized repair facilities failed to fix it despite multiple opportunities, Velazquez-Ortega sued GM in San Bernardino County Superior Court under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. He sought actual damages, restitution, civil penalties up to twice actual damages, and attorneys’ fees.<\/p>\n

GM removed on diversity grounds. Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing GM had not met the $75,000 amount-in-controversy threshold. GM responded with documentary evidence of the purchase price, statutory offsets, and the plaintiff’s repair history.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Judge Sunshine S. Sykes denied the motion to remand. Unlike the cases where conclusory damages and civil-penalty assertions defeat removal, GM here supplied documented evidence: a $81,430.16 purchase price, $14,364.58 in statutory offsets (mileage, third-party service contracts, manufacturer rebates, negative equity), and the vehicle’s repair records. The court calculated documented actual damages of $67,065.58 \u2014 close to but below the $75,000 threshold standing alone.<\/p>\n

On civil penalties, the court contrasted the conclusory willfulness allegations seen in remand-favoring cases with what was alleged here. Plaintiff did more than simply state that he sought civil penalties \u2014 he specifically alleged willfulness, and pleaded that he had presented the vehicle for repair at least eight times without resolution. The repeat-repair pattern provided factual support for willfulness, distinguishing the case from the boilerplate-allegation pattern. Doubling the actual damages for civil penalties brought the amount in controversy to roughly $128,833 \u2014 comfortably above $75,000. The court did not need to address attorneys’ fees. Remand was denied.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n