{"id":498,"date":"2026-01-20T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-20T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=498"},"modified":"2026-01-20T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-20T12:00:00","slug":"caballero-nissan-cd-cal-used-rogue-mmwa-amount-controversy-song-beverly","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=498","title":{"rendered":"Caballero v. Nissan \u2014 C.D. Cal. Keeps Used Rogue MMWA Suit in Federal Court Using Song-Beverly Damages Calculation"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Mauricio Caballero v. Nissan North America, Inc.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Central District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-20<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
5:25-cv-03089-KK-DTBx<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Removal, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, federal-question jurisdiction, $50,000 floor, Song-Beverly, used vehicle, civil penalty, mileage offset<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Mauricio Caballero bought a used 2023 Nissan Rogue and alleged it suffered \u201csignificant defects and non-conformities\u201d during the warranty period. He sued Nissan North America in San Bernardino County Superior Court, asserting violations of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) and the California Uniform Commercial Code. He sought actual damages and a civil penalty.<\/p>\n

Nissan removed under both 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1331 (federal question) and \u00a7 1332 (diversity), and Caballero moved to remand, arguing the case was worth less than the federal jurisdictional minimums.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court denied remand. The MMWA gives federal courts jurisdiction only when the amount in controversy is $50,000 or more. Because the MMWA does not specify how to calculate damages, federal courts look to applicable state law \u2014 here, California\u2019s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Under Song-Beverly, the buyer of a vehicle may recover the actual price paid, less a mileage offset (calculated by dividing the number of miles driven before the first repair attempt by 120,000 and multiplying by the vehicle\u2019s purchase price), plus a civil penalty of up to two times actual damages for a willful violation, plus attorney\u2019s fees.<\/p>\n

The court applied that framework to Nissan\u2019s removal evidence. Although the court noted that Caballero\u2019s counsel had attached unrelated exhibits to the remand motion (proof of service and a purchase agreement from a different case in Stanislaus County), Nissan supplied competent proof through its own evidence of the Rogue\u2019s purchase price, a mileage-offset calculation, and the available civil-penalty multiplier. Together those figures plausibly exceeded both the MMWA $50,000 floor and the diversity $75,000 floor, and Caballero failed to mount a successful factual attack on the underlying numbers.<\/p>\n

The court rejected the argument that a defendant must produce evidence of its own willfulness to invoke the Song-Beverly civil-penalty multiplier \u2014 an inquiry the Central District has repeatedly declined to require for amount-in-controversy purposes.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n