Keith Eoll v. General Motors LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and Does 1–10, inclusive
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion to remand a state court action to federal court, where the defendant had removed the case based on diversity jurisdiction and the parties later stipulated to retain federal jurisdiction to resolve a pending fee motion. The court denied the motion to remand, finding that the defendant plausibly alleged the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 and that the parties' stipulation could not confer subject-matter jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Remand denied“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Remand (ECF No. 8) is denied.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from *Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens*, holding that the defendant need only plausibly allege the amount in controversy exceeds the threshold. The court found that the defendant's estimates of actual damages, combined with the plaintiff's request for civil penalties (supported by allegations of willful conduct) and attorneys' fees, plausibly exceeded $75,000. The court also correctly noted that the parties' stipulation to retain jurisdiction is irrelevant to the court's subject-matter jurisdiction, citing *Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee*. The decision follows from the law and the record recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standard for removal based on amount in controversy and applies it to the specific facts presented. It addresses the plaintiff's initial argument regarding insufficient evidence by noting that the plaintiff no longer contests the allegations, thereby shifting the analysis to whether the allegations are plausible. The court properly distinguishes between the need for evidence and the need for plausible allegations. It also correctly rejects the parties' stipulation as a basis for jurisdiction, citing binding Supreme Court precedent. The reasoning is complete and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 KEITH EOLL, an individual, Case No.: 3:25-cv-2310-WQH-JLB 14 Plaintiff, ORDER 15 v. 16 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1– 17 10, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 HAYES, Judge: 20 On August 1, 2025, Plaintiff Keith Eoll (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action by filing a 21 Complaint against Defendants General Motors LLC (“GM”) and Does 1–10 in the Superior 22 Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego (Case No. 25CU040560C). 23 (ECF No. 1-2.) 24 On September 4, 2025, Defendant GM removed the action to this Court and filed an 25 Answer. (ECF Nos. 1, 3.) On October 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand. (ECF 26 No. 8.) 27 28 1 Shortly thereafter, the case settled at an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference 2 (“ENE”) before Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt. (ECF No. 11.) The Motion to Remand 3 remains pending on the docket. Under Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), the deadline for Defendant 4 GM to oppose the motion passed on October 20, 2025. See S.D. Civ. L.R. 7.1(e)(2). The 5 docket reflects that no opposition was filed. 6 On February 26, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. (ECF No. 20.) 7 On May 11, 2026, the Court issued an Order directing the parties to show cause why 8 the Court should not grant the unopposed Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 25.) On May 13, 9 2026, the parties filed a Joint Status Report in response to the Court’s Order. (ECF No. 27.) 10 The parties state that they “stipulate that the Court retain jurisdiction” to rule on the pending 11 Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (ECF No. 20) “in an effort to save judicial resources and avoid 12 refiling on any motions.” Id. at 2. 13 “[N]o action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon a federal court 14 . . . . [T]he consent of the parties is irrelevant.” Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie 15 des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982) (citation omitted). 16 Plaintiff initially argued in his Motion to Remand (ECF No. 8) that Defendant GM 17 submitted insufficient evidence to meet its burden of proving that the amount in 18 controversy exceeds $75,000, and thus the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction over this 19 action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (ECF No. 8 at 9–21.) “[A] defendant’s notice of 20 removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds 21 the jurisdictional threshold. Evidence establishing the amount is required . . . only when 22 the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s allegation.” Dart Cherokee 23 Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). Here, the Joint Status Report 24 (ECF No. 27) reflects that Plaintiff no longer contests the amount-in-controversy 25 allegations set forth in Defendant GM’s Notice of Removal. Accordingly, the Court 26 assesses whether Defendant GM plausibly alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds 27 $75,000. 28 l In its Notice of Removal, Defendant GM asserts that, after a “preliminary 2 || investigation,” it “has estimated the purchase price for the subject 2018 Chevrolet Traverse 3 ||to be $43,283.40,” as well as “$7,844.05 in total deductions including estimates of 4 ||statutorily required deductions for mileage offset, third-party service contracts, 5 ||manufacturer’s rebate, and negative equity.” (ECF No. | at 5.) Defendant GM contends 6 ||that “[t]his yields a plausible estimate of actual damages of $35,439.35.” Jd. Defendant 7 || GM’s Notice of Removal further estimates that a potential amount in controversy would 8 ‘“more than exceed|[] the jurisdictional threshold” of $75,000 based upon Plaintiff's request 9 || for civil penalties in an amount two times the total actual damages, as well as his request 10 || for attorneys’ fees. (ECF No. | at 6.) Although civil penalties under the Song-Beverly Act 11 |/‘‘cannot simply be assumed,” Castillo v. FCA USA, LLC, No. 19-CV-151-CAB-MDD, 12 ||2019 WL 6607006, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2019), the Complaint alleges Defendant GM’s 13 ‘“‘willful” behavior, which adequately supports the inclusion of civil penalties in the amount 14 || in controversy. ECF No. 1-2 §§ 17, 24, 28; see also Pulver v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 2:25- 15 || cv-01226-JAK (PVCx), 2025 WL 1766529, at *6 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2025). The Court 16 |/concludes that the Notice of Removal plausibly alleges an amount in controversy 17 ||exceeding $75,000. See Andrade v. General Motors LLC, No. 2:25-cv-07000-JLS-JPR, 18 WL 3022669 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2025) (finding the amount in controversy plausibly 19 || alleged on similar facts). Accordingly, the Court may exercise diversity jurisdiction over 20 || this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 21 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Remand (ECF No. 8) is denied. 22 23 ||Dated: May 21, 2026 BME: Me Z. Ma 24 Hon. William Q. Hayes 5 United States District Court 26 27 28