Bulk Scanned DocumentsCal. Super. - 6th Dist.July 17, 2020Electronically FILED by Supe STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION [840 CENTURY PARK EST. SUITE 430, LOS ANGELE, CA 90067 hUJN DOOQONUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 rior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 05/07/2020 03:18 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by M. Gonzalez,Deputy Clerk Tionna Dolin (SBN 299010) e-mail: tdolin@slpattomey.com STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (3 10) 929-4900 Facsimile: (3 10) 943-3838 JUL 17 2020 Clerk of the Court Superior Court of CA Counl-y of Santa Clara fiqWEPUTY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Attorney for Plaintiff, FEDERICO MAGANA BY FOR THE COUNTY 0F Los ANGELES Q Q} C V 3 6 8 ‘7 8 ‘7? FEDERICO MAGANA, CaseMW ‘ Plalnuff’ Case Initiated: Februaiy 3, 2020 vs. _ Hon. Stuart Rlce FCA US, LLC; STEVENS CREEK Dept-I 49 CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE 0F CONTINUED I CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Defendants. Date: September 14, 2020 Time: 2:00 p.m. Dept: 49 l PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF CONTINUED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1840 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 430, L05 ANGELB. CA 90067 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 T0 ALL PARTIES ANDVTHEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Case Management in the above-captioned matter, previously set for June 2, 2020, has been rescheduled on the Court’s own motion to September 14, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. in Department 49 of the above-named court, located at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. As ordered, Plaintiffs hereby give notice to all parties to the above-entitled action. Dated: May 7, 2020 STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC Tionna Dolin Attorney for Plaintiff, FEDERICO MAGANA 2 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE 0F CONTINUED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SU PERIOR COU RT OF CALIFORN IA mm” '°' cm” m mm" COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES «COURTHOUSE ADDRESS: b > FILED. Stanley Mosk Courthouse g gm E s?:{fihgfiflffiggrfl'd 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 9 J _ 05m172020 PLAINTIFHS): ‘ JUD J ZUZU Efilcs'rifl. Cafianixewufim Gifted Gefiaicaun Federico Magana Clerk of the COSUQTF 53m C. Gama: ‘fle-M. ' u ri r ‘ t 01 ‘ana araDEFENDANT(S). Bys pe o Coum’efigiqy DEPUTY FCA US, LLC et al 4 NOTICE 0F CONTINUANCE' DUE T0 COVID-'19 CASE NUMBER: . STATE 0F EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS W 2 E9 C V 3 8 8‘? 5:3 ‘7? Based on current conditions, including, but not limited to, the spread of Covid-19, the need ‘for social distancing, and the states of emergency h‘aving been declared by Governor Gavin Newsom andA President Donald Trump, the General Orders issued by the Presiding Judge and Statewide Orders issued by the Chief Justice, the court finds good cause to continue this matter. On the Court'sown motion the Case Management Co’nferencé scheduled for 06/02/2020 at 8:30 a.m. is advanced to this date and continued to 9/14/2020 at 2:00 p.m. in Department 49 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse. In order to implement physical distancing going forward and until further notice, counsel and/or parties are strongly encouraged to appear telephonically for Non-Trial and Non-Evidentiary Matters. Plaintiff to give notice: Notice is further given that plaintiff in propria persona or counsel for the plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this continuance to all partiesto‘ this’ action within 1O days of service “of this notice by the court, and file proof of service thereof within 12 days of this notice. Certificate of Mailing attached NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE DUE TO COVlD-19 STATE OF EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS LASC CIV 277 NEW 04/20 For Optional Use Reserved for Clerk's Flle Stam‘pSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COURTHOUSE ADDRESS: ’8 u' grim gtlrrlEofDCalifa‘rniaStanley Mosk Courthouse x- élountyuf LnsAngam 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 900 Ff“ a s . . 05/0132020 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: JUL 1 J ZUZU ' ?mmiR Cal-wifimmmmfliicwl GumuiCaur! Federico Magana mam nf flag 99.m 83':WWMEEBE‘EmWiI-‘emw DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Superigr'ézllr'tlaffiéumy or Santa Clara FCA us, LLc et a! RYAN? L,__DEPUW V ' V ' CASE NUMBER: . , , p CERTIFICATE 0F MAILING ..W2 Q C V 9 a 81‘? ‘ l, the below-named Executive Officer/Clerk of the above-entitled court, do hereby certify that I am not a party to the ca‘use herein, and that on this date I sewed the Notice of Continuance Due to COVlD-19 State of Emergency Declarations upon each party or counsel named below by placing the document for collection and mailing so as to cause it to b'e deposited in the United States mail at the courthouse In LosAngeles, California,_ one copy of the original filedlentered herein in a sefarate sealed envelope to each address as shown below with the postage thereon fully prepaid, in accor ance with standard court practices. Tionna Dolin Strate ic Legal Practices, APC 1840 .entury Park East. Suite 430 430 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/ Clerk of Court Dated: 05/1 /2020 By: C. Gomez Deputy Clerk CERTIFICATE OF MAILING \OOOQONUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHh-tr-r-db-A OOVOKthJNF-‘OCOOQQUI-PWNHO PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is Strategic Legal Practices, 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430, Los Angeles, California 90067. On May 7, 2020, I caused to be served the document(s) described as: PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF CONTINUED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE on the interested parties in this action by sending [ ] the original [or] [J] a true copy thereof [V] to interested parties as follows [or] [ ] as stated on the attached service list: Richard L. Stuhlbarg, Esq. Monica Y. Hernandez, Esq. Richard.Stuhlbarg@bowmanandbrooke.com Monica.Hemandez@bowmanandbrooke.corn BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP 970 West 190‘“ Street, Suite 700 750 B Street, Suite 1740 Torrance, CA 90502 San Diego, CA 92101 BowmanFCAWarranty@bowmanandbrooke.com efilefca@bowmanandbrookc.com [ ] BY MAIL (ENCLOSED IN A SEALED ENVELOPE): I deposited the envelope(s) for mailing in the ordinary course of business at Los Angeles, California. I am “readily familiar” with this firrn’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, sealed envelopes are deposited with the U.S. Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California. [/] BY E-MAIL: I hereby certify that this document was served from Los Angeles, California, by e-majl delivery, as agreed between the parties, on the parties listed herein at their most recent'known e-mail address or e-mail of record in this action. [ ] BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERYJ I am;“readi1y famili'a'r'” with this firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence forovernightf‘de'livery. Under that practice, overnight packages are enclosedin a sealed envelope With a packing slip attached thereto fully prepaid, The packages are pickéduup by'the, carrier at our offices or delivered by our office to a designated collection site. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. ' Executed this May 7, 2020, at Los Angeles, California. vgwmWLauren Wagefifanv PROOF OF SERVICE THE DOCUMENT T0 W |CH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED IS A FULL. RUE. AND CORRECT COPY SHER R. CARTER. Executive Olficer/Clerk of the Supatior Coun of Calilomia. County of Los Angeles By @ma Graham Deputy SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA Reserved for Clerk's File Stamp COUNTY OF LOS ANELES _ f i7}: 2;: a" FILEDCOURTHOUSE ADDRESS. ,5 x . ., . _. _ . Stanley Mosk Courthouse gr ’ Sflfifyfiflgfiggm 111 North Hill Street, Los Angleles, CA 00"; osmwzozo'1 '1 . PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: JUL 1 l 1.0.10 Elmflcmfimmofime acmmm Fedenco Magana C!erk of the Coun 3"” C' Gm: um” DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Supaflor Court of CA County t Santa Clara FCA us, LLC et a] BYDEPUW V V CASE NUMBER: . t u CERTIFICATE "OF MAILING mg G C V 366W8"? l, the below-named Executive Officer/Clerk of the above-entitled court, do hereby certify tha‘t l am not a party to the cause herein, and that on this date l served the Notice of Continuance Due to COVlD-19 State of Emergency Declarations upon each party or counsel named below by placing the document for collection and mailing so as to cause it to be deposited in the United States mail at the courthouse in Los Angeles, California, one copy of the original filedlentered herein in a separate sealed envelope to each address as shown below with the postage thereon fully prepaid, in accordance with standard court practices. Tionna Dolin Strategic Legal Practices, APC 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430 430 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/ Clerk of Court Dated: 05/1/2020 By: C. Gomez Deputy Clerk CERTIFICATE OF MAILING THE DOCUMENT T0 WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED IS A FULL. TRUE, AND CORRECT COPY 0F THE ORIGINAL ISSUED BY THIS OFFICE F‘ RECORQ. SHERRI R. CARTER, Executive Officer/Clerk of the Superior Court of California. County of Los Angeles SU PERIOR COU RT OF CALI FORN IA Rm'm f" cm“ m 5”” COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES _ COURTHOUSE ADDRESS: V . FILED ¥ > Stanley Mosk‘ Courthouse v Em E S ”fifilggfiggfa 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA gm) - I OEMVZOEO PLA'NT‘FHS): JUL 1 7 2020 maria mimemmofimmemmlm ' ' C. Gama:Feder'co Magana hlnrk cf the Cour! w__newty DEFENDANWS): Superigczhrt o! CA County 0t Santa Clara FCA US, LLC et a1 ._fi_~-,.._a.31EN_ VDEPUT NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE DUE TO‘ COVID-19 CASE NUMBER: STATE 0F EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS ‘W U 3 Q} C V 3 6 8‘7 8 V Based on current conditions, including, but not limited to, the spread of Covid-19, the need for social distancing, and the states of emergency having been declared by Governor Gavin Newsom and President Donald Trump, the General Orders issued by the Presiding Judge and Statewide Orders issued by the Chief Justice, the court finds good cause to continue this matter. On the Court’s own motion the Case Management Conference scheduled for 06/02/2020 at 8:30 a.m. is advanced to this date and continued to 9/1 4/2020 at 2:00 p.m. in Department 49 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse. In order to implement physical distancing going forward and until further notice, counsel and/or parties are strongly encouraged to appear telephonically for Non-Trial and Non-Evidentiary Matters. Plaintiff to give notice: Notice is further given that plaintiff in propria persona or counsel for the plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this Continuance to all parties to this action within 10 days of service of this notice by the court, and file proof of service thereof within 12 days of this notice. Certificate of Mailing attached NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE DUE TO COVID-19 STATE OF EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS LASC ClV 277 NEW 04/20 For Optional Use THE DOCUMENT T0 ICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED IS A FUL ,TRUE. AND CORRECT COPY OFWEGI | U l3 OFFICE ON ~ “31L ‘25 em _ RI R. CARTER. Executive Officer/Clerk of the Superior Court of California. County of Los Angeles Tgnia Graham Electrorically FJLEQ by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 04/1 6/2020 1V1 :33 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive omcer/Clerk of Court, by M. Gomez,Deputy Clerk #WN \OOONQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ‘23 24 25 26 27 28 Tionna Dolin (SBN 299010) e-mail: tdolin@slpattomey.com STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (3 10) 929-4900 Facsimile: (3 10) 943-3838 JUL 1 7 2020 Clerk of the Court Superior Counfigf grA County oi Santa Clara ’ 1. EN Attorney for Plaintiff, t“ DEPUTY FEDERICO MAGANA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES J 5Q FEDERICO MAGANA, Case No.:2W4385 2 0 C v 3 6 3 ‘1’ Plaintiff, Case Initiated: February 3, 2020 vs. ~ Hon. Stuart M. Rice Dept: 49 FCA US, LLC; STEVENS CREEK CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE; and DOES 1 ‘ NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT through 10, inclusive, CONFERENCE Defendants. Date: June 3, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: 49 f Page 1 NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE LmN \DOOQQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) has been scheduled for June 3, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 49 0fthe above-named court, located at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. The parties are ordered to meet and confer 0n all matters to be discussed therein no later than 3O days before the CMC. Furthermore, pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.720-3.730, a completed Case Management Statement (Judicial Counsel Form No. CM-l 10) (“Statement”) must be filed'at leasi 15 calendar days prior to the CMC. The Statement may be filed jointly by all parties or individually by each party. A11 parties must be familiar with the case and be fully prepared to participate effectively in the CMC. At the CMC, the Court may make pretrial orders including, but not limited to,l the following an order establishing a discovery schedule; an order referring the case to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR); an order reclassifying the case; an order setting subsequent conference and the trial date; 0r other orders to achieve the goals of the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act. See Cal Govt. Code §§68600 et seq. Notice is hereby given that if a party fails to file a Statement or appear and effectively participate at the CMC, the Court may impose sanctions pursuant to LASC Local Rule 3.37; Cal Code ofCiv. Pro. §§177.5, 575.2, 583.150, 583.360, and 583.410; Govt. Code §68608(b); and Cal Rules of Court 2.2 et seq. As ordered, Plaintiff hereby gives notice to all parties to the above-entitled action. The Court’s Order is enclosed. Dated: April 16, 2020 Respectfully submitted, STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC TIONNA DOLIN Attorney for Plaintiff, FEDERICO MAGANA Page 2 NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SUPERIOR COURT or- CALIFORNIA “° COUNTY 0F Los A _ FILED ~ ' COURTHOUSE ADDRESS - 1» 3 mfi‘YCOO'Ul-Igsdfigggsma . Stanley Mosk Courthouse ‘ 111 North Hm Street, Los Angeles, CA 905512 02/04/2020 ELASTIFfi. M ‘ JUL 1 7 inéU cm£mmoaoaaccaatmw e erlco_ agana ‘ > ‘ Cynthia Gomez DEFENDANT; . ' - ‘ " UlerK or tne court B wy FCA us, LLC et al mSuperior Couhoffmnty of ?pnta Claran UEFUdASE NUMBER. NOTICE 0F CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENC W To THE PLAINTIFF(S)/ATT0RNEY(S).FOR PLAINTiFF(S) 0F RECORD: ' I g ® c; v 3 Q, 53‘? EB ‘2 You are ordered to serve this notice of hearing on all parties/attorneys of record forthwith. and meetand confer with all parties/attomeys of record about the matters to be discussed no later than 30 days before the Case Management Conference. Your Case Management Conference has been scheduled at the courthouse address shown above on: Dept:ate: V Time: 06/03/2020 8:30 AM NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: THE- SETTING OF THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DOES NOT EXEMPT THE DEFENDANT FROM FILING A RESPONSIVE PLEADING AS REQUIRED BY LAW. Pursuant to California Rules of Coun, rules 3.720-3.730, a completed Case Management Statement (Judicial Council form # 'CM-110) must be-filed at Je‘ast 15 calendar days prior to the Case Management Conference. The Case Management Statement may be filed jointly by all pafliesl‘attorneys of record 'or individually by each party/attomey of recqrd. You must be familiar with the case and be fully prepared to participate effectively in the Case Management Conference. At the Case Management Conference. the Court may make pretrial orders including the follOWing. but not limited to. an order establishing a discovery schedule; an order referring t_he case to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR); an order reclassifying the case; an order setting Subsequent conference and the trial date; or other orders to achieve thevgoals of 'the-Trial Court Delay Reduction Act (Gov. Code, § 68600 et seq.) .. ‘t the Case W} ,rocedur'e . wles of Notice is hereby given that if you do not file the Case Management State ‘ , a ,appear and effectively parti Management Conference. the Court may impose sanctions, pUrsuant ' : 4 sections 177.5. 575.2, 583.150. 583.360 and 583.410. Government Co =3?“ ' _; Court, rule 2.2 et seq. ' ' Datejd: 02/04/2020 - Judicial Officer CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I. the below named Executive Officer/CIerk of the abo‘ve-en‘titled coqrt. do hereby certify that l am not a party to_ the cause herein, and that on’ this 'dat‘e l s_erved the Notice of CaSe Management Conference upon eacjhv party or counsel named below: B by depositing in the United States mail at the courthouse in LOS Angeles , California, one copy of the original filed herein in a Separate sealed envelope to each address as shown below with the postage .thereon fully prepaid. E] by personally giving the party notice upon filing of the complaint. Tionna Dolin 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430 430 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Sherri R. Carter, EXecutive Officer/ Clerk of Court Dated: 02/04/2020 V By Cynthia Gomez Depu'ty Clerk LAcw 132 (Rev. 07/13) Cal. Rules of Coun. rules 3.7203130 LASC Approved. 1003 NOTICE OF LASC Local Rules. Chapter Three ForomsonatuSe CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SUPERIOR c‘oum 0F CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES COURTHOUSE ADDRESS: Stanley MoskCourthouse ‘1‘ 1,1 North Hill Street, Los Angeles. CA 90012 7 PLAINTIFé/PETIftON'éR: Feider'ico Magana 'DEFENDANTIRESPONDENT; FCA US, LLC et al 59mm omfimmomrmmovcnm Wnthia Gomez _ Dagny ‘ Reserved for Clerk‘s File Sta‘mp FILED S erio'r Court of'CaEfom‘a ‘unty of Las Angelas 02/04/2020 Byy. CERTIFICATE 0F MAILING CASE NUMBER:W @fifl‘gafifl"? 8 " l, the below-namejd‘Executiveu O_ffjcerlClerk of the above-entitled court,__do hereby certify that l am nota p’a’rty to the cause herein, andthat on this date l served the Notice of Case Management Conference u " leach p‘arty or‘Counsel named below by placing the doc‘Ument for c'ollection and mailing so ‘as to cause be deposited in the Unite‘d-States mail at the courthouse in Los A_ng'eles, California, o'ne copy .of the original filedlentered herein In a separate sealed envelope to each addre‘ss as shown below With the postage thereon fully prepaid, in accordance with standard court practices. Tionna Dolin ‘ Strategic Legal Practice‘s,.APC - 1840 Century ParkEast. Suite 430 430 Los Angeles. CA 90067 - Superior Court of CA Coum'y 01 Santa Clara flmsewBY Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/ Clerk of Court Dated: 02/4/2020 ~ By: Cynthia Gomez Deputy Clerk CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I JUL 17 .2020 Clerk of the Court DEPUTY H N N N N N N N N N )-I p-A H r-t'r-t r-t H r-t r-t >-A 00'“ ON U1 L U) N r-d O O OO fl O\ U1 $ UJ N_ r-tyo PROOF OF SERVICE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed 1n the County ofLos Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address 1s Strategic Legal Practices, 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430' Los Angeles, California 90067. On April 16, 2020, I caused to be served the document(s) described as: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGENIENT CONFERENCE on the interested parties in this action by sending [ ] the original [or] [V] a true copy thereof [V] to interested parties as follows [or] [ ] as stated on the attached service list. _ Richard L. Stuhlbarg, Esq. Monica Y. Hernandez, Esq. Richard.Stt1h1barg@bowmanandbrooke.com Monica.Hemandez@bowmanbrooke.com BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP 970 West 190th Street, Suite 700 ' 750 B Street, Suite'1740 . Torrance. California 90502 San Diego. California 92101 BowmanFCAWarrantv@bowmanandbrooke.com efilefca@bowmanandbrooke.com [ ] BY MAIL (ENCLOSED IN A SEALED ENVELOPE): I deposited the envelope(s) for mailing in the ordinary course of business at Los Angeles, California. I am “readily familiar” With this firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, sealed envelopes are deposited with the U.S. Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business with postage thereon fullv nrenajd at Los Angeles. California. [/] BY E-MAIL: Ihereby certify that this document was served from Los Angeles, California, by e-mail delivery, as agreed between theparties, on the parties listed herein at their most recent known e-mail address or e-mail ofrecord in this action. [ ] BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: Iam “readily familiar” with this firm’ s practice of collection and prOcessing correspondence for overnight delivery. Under that practice, overnight packages a're enclo'sed 1n a sealed enveIOpe with a packing slip attached thereto fi111y prepaxd. The packages are picked up by the carrier at our offices or delivered bv our office to a designated collection site. I declare under- penalty of peljury under the laws of th‘e State of California that the foregoing 1s true and correct. . Executed this April 16, 2020, at Los Angeles, California. Qw/MW Lauren Wagemanv PROOF 0F SERVICE THE DOCUMENT T0 WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED IS A FULL. TRUE, AND CORRECT COPY 0F T I I UED Y THI§ OFFICE SHERRI R. CARTER. Executive Officer/Clerk of the Superior Court of Caliiornia. County of Los Angeles E United States District Court Central District of California Crif‘tina M. Sguieri Bullock Chie Deputy o AdministrationOffice 0f the Clerk 350 West lst Street, Suite 4311 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Kiry K. Gray I Sara Tse Soo Hoo District Court Executive / Clerk of Court ChiefDeputy of Operations 350 West lst Street, Suite 4311 255 East Temple Street, Sulte TS-134 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Los Angeles, CA 90012 March 26, 2020 s?:fiorF’L§ u O . nty Of L ACaIIfOI-nla rt i1 t t APMW R 0 3 Re: Case Number: 2:20-cv-02223-DSF-E By Previously Superior Court Case No. 252$” g £33335 De e Case Name: Egggrjgg Maagma gtglv,E§;A HS 1 1 g gt g] Duty Dear Sir/Madam: Pursuant to this Court’s ORDER OF REMAND issued on §[2§[ZQZQ , the above-referenced case is hereby remanded to your jurisdiction. Attached is a certified copy ofthe ORDER OF REMAND and a copy of the docket sheet from this Court. Please acknowledge receipt ofthe above by signing the enclosed copy ofthis lett- re mi it to location shown below. Thank you for your cooperation. § "7 g a E United States Courthouse gm 255 East Temple Street, Suite TS-134 d Los Angeles, CA 90012 JUL I 7 2020 Clerk of the Coun Sucerior Court of CA County 01 Santa Clara Respectfillly, 5 ‘IM H l DEPUTY Clerk, U.S. District Court a By: Deputy Clerk (Jenny_Lam@cacd.uscourts.gov) Encls. cc: Counsel ofrecord Receipt is acknowledged ofthe documents described above. Clerk, Superior Court 4' 3 | mu By: PAUL CRUZ Date ' Deputy Clerk CV-103 (05/1 8) LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ~ REMAND TO SUPERIOR COURT (CIVIL) Case 2i20-cv-02223-DSF-E Documentlo Filed 03/26/20 Page llvof‘z PagelD #1152 ‘ JS-6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT gmgwoczfififlfilzozo CENTRAL DISTRICT 0F CALIFORNIA mum?“ FEDERICO MAGANA, CV 20-2223 DSF (Ex) Plaintiff, v _ ' ‘ Order Remanding Case to State v. Court FCA US, LLC, et al., Defendants. This c‘ase was removed ’on the basis 0f divefsity. It is undisputed that one of the Defendants, Steven‘s. Creek Chrysler JeepDodge, is not diverse from Plaintifi. Removing Defendant FCA US, LLC argues that Stevens Creek is fraudulently joined. A defendant Who is a resident of the forum state is fi‘apdulently joined “‘if the plaintiff fails to state a cause ‘of action against [the] resident defendant, and the failure is obvious according to the settled rules'of- the state.” 'Mo’zjris v. Princess Cruises In'c., 236 F.3d 1061, 106.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting McCabe V. Gen. Foods Com, 811 F.2d 13361, 1339 ~(9,th'Cir. 1987)). “[T]he test for fraudulent joinder and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) are not equivalent.” A Gra‘ncare. LLC v. Thrower, 889 F.3d 543, 549 (9th Cir. 2018). In evaluating avclaim of fi'audulent joinder, “a federal court must find that a defendant was properly joined and remand the case to state court if there is a ‘possibility that a state court would find that the complaint states a cause of action against any 0f the [non-diverse] defendants.”’ 1i. (quoting Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582‘ F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 2009)) (emphasis in original). In this inquiry, “the district court must consider; . . Whether a deficiency in the complaint can possibly be cured by grantihg the plaintiff leave. t0 amend.” 1i at 550. gase 2:20-cv-02223-DSF-E Document 10 Filed 03/26/20 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #2153 The entirety of the fraudulent joinder argument is as follows: 31. Here, Plaintifi has sued FCA for six causes of action except the seventh cause of action for “Negligent Repair” Which is claimed only against Stevens Creek. FCA believes Plaintiff has no intention of prosecuting this claim against Stevens Creek. Indeed, a review of the Complaint’s allegations regarding Stevens Creek are bare-boned, non- specific allegations as related to Stevens Creek. (Comp1., generally and 1W 46-50). 32. Accordingly, it is evident these claims were only brought to defeat the claim of diversity and removal to Federal Court. Indeed, FCA’s counsel’s vast litigation experience in opposing these type of cases has been that individual dealerships have not been regularly sued. (Stuhlbarg Dec1., fl 7). Because Plaintifi’s joinder of Stevens Creek is fraudulent, this Court has the jurisdiction t0 accept this matter. Accordingly, complete diversity exists for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 jurisdiction. Notice 0f Removal fiHl 31-32. This falls far short of convincing the Court that the claim against Stevens Creek is even deficient, let alone obviously deficient and not capable of being cured by amendment. The case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County 0f Los Angeles. IT IS SO ORDERED. " “ 2‘? jDate: March 26, 2020 W r} . (:on Dale S. Fischer United States District Judge CM/ECF "California Central District https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?477468296250164-L_1_0-1 Query Reports. gtilities Help Log Out ACCO,(Ex),CLOSED,DISCOVERY,MANADR,REMANDED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division - Los Angeles) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:20-cv-02223-DSF-E Federico Magana et a1 v. FCA US LLC ct a1 Date Filed: 03/06/2020 Assigned to: Judge Dale S. Fischer Date Terminated: 03/26/2020 Referred to: Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick Jury Demand: Plaintifl‘ Case in other court: Los Angeles Superior Court, ZOSTCV04385 Nature 0f Suit: 195 Contract Product Cause: 28:]441 Notice of Removal - Product Liability Liability Jurisdiction: Diversity Plaintiff Federico Magana represented by Tionna Dolin Strategic Legal Practices APC 1840 Century Park East Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90067 310-929-4900 Fax: 310-943-3838 Email: tdolin@slpattomey.com LEADATTORNEY I hereby attest and certify on 3/26/2020 ATTORNEYT0 BENOTICED that the foregoing document is full, true and correct copy of the original on file in ‘ my office, and in my legal custody. Esther Klm Stategic Legal Practices APC 1840 Century Park East Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90067 CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT ”WYm“ 3 1 0-929-4900 Fax: 3 10-943-3838 Email: ezkim@slpattomey.com ATTORNEYT0 BE NOTICED V. Defendant FCA US LLC represented by Monica Y Hernandez Bowman and Brooke LLP 750 B Street Suite 1740 San Diego, CA 92101 619-376-2500 Fax: 619-376-2501 Email: monica.hemandez@bowmanandbrooke.com LEAD AITORNEY ATTORNEYT0 BENOTICED 1 of3 3/26/2020, 6:25 PM A CM/ECF ~talifonfia Central District , https://ecf.ca'Cd.Uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?477468296250164-L_1__0-1 Richard L Stuhlbarg Bowman and Brooke. LLP 970 West 190th Street'Suite 700 Torrance, CA 90502 310-768-3068 Fax: 3 10-719-1019 Email: richard.stuh’lbar‘g@bowmanandbrooke.com ATTORNEYT0 BENOTICED Defendant Mathew Enterprise, Inc. l ,Erroneously SuedAs Stevens Creek Chrysler Jeep Dodge doing business as Stevens Creek Chrysler Jeep Dodge Defendant Does 1 through 10, inclusive Date Filed ~# Docket Text 03/06/2020 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Los Angeles, case number ZOSTCVO4385 Receipt No: ACACDC-256455 11 - Fee: $409, filed by Defendant FCA US LLC. (Attachments: # _1_ Declaration of Richard L Stuhlbarg ”in support ofFCA US LLC's Notice of Removal, # g Declaration of Monica Y. Hernandez in support ofFCA US LLC's Notice ofRemoval, ‘# Q Exhibit A - Complaint, # fl Exhibit B - Summons, # Q Exhibit C - Civil Case Coverhsheet (state), # g ExhibitD - Notice of Case Assignment, # Z Exhibit E - First Amended General Order, # _8_ Exhibit F - Stipulation -'Discovery Resolution, # _9_ Exhibit G - Stipulation - Early Organizational meeting, #_m Exhibit I- Informal DisCovery Conference, #fl Exhibit J - ADR Information, #Q Exhibit K - FCA US LLC's Answer, #Q Exhibit L - Steven's Creek Answer, #fl ExhibitM - Transunion Report, # 1__5 Exhibit N- FCA's Form lO-K) (Attorney Monica Y Hernandez added to party FCA US LLC(pty:dft))(Hemandez, Monica) (Entered: 03/06/2020) CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant FCA US LLC. (Hernandez, Monica) (Entered: 03/06/2020) NOTICErof Interested Parties filed by Defendant FCA US LLC, identifying FCA US. LLC; FCA North American Holdings LLC; Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, N.V.. (Hernandez, Monica) (Entered: 03/06/2020) |'-‘ 03/06/2020 IN IL»)03/06/2020 03/06/2020 ‘I-b NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Mathew Enterprise, Inc. dba Stevens Creek Chrysler Jeep Dodge, (Attorney Monica Y Hernandez added to party Mathew Enterprise, Inc. dba Stevens Creek Chrysler Jeep Dodge(pty:bkmov))(Hemandez, Monica) (Entered: 03/06/2020) 03/06/2020 CONFORMED FILED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Does 1 through ‘ 10, inclusive, FCA US LLC, Mathew Enterprise, Inc. Jury Demanded” filed by plaintifi‘ A 2,0” I } ’ 3/26/2020, 6:25 PM CM/ECF ~ Ealifomia Central District https://ecf.cacd.uscouns.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt p19477468296250164-L_1_0- 1 r Federico Magana. (FILED 1N STATE COURT 0N 2/3/2020 SUBMITTED ATTACHED EXHIBIT ‘A) (ghap) (Entered 03/25/2020) 03/06/2020 CQNFORMED FILED COPY OF ANSWER to Complaint - (Discovery) with JURY DEMAND filed by Defendant FCA US LLC. (FILED IN STATE COURT ON 3/5/2020 SUBMITTED ATTACHED EXHIBIT K)(ghap) (Entered: 03/25/2020) 03/06/2020 CONFORMED FILED COPY OF ANSWER t0, Complaint - (Discovery) With JURY DEMAND filed byDefendant Mathew Enterprise, Inc. (FILED IN STATE COURT ON 3/5/2020 SUBMITTED ATTACHED EXHIBIT L)(ghap) (Entered: 03/25/2020) 03/13/2020 Notice ofAppearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Tionna Dolin counsel for Plaintiff Federico Magana. Adding Esther Kim as counsel of record for Federico Magana for the reason indicated 1n the (3-123 Notice. Filed by PlaintiffFEDERICO MAGANA. (Attorney Tionna Dolin added to party Federico Magana(pty:pla))(Dolin Tionna) (Entered: 03/13/2020) NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT t0 District Judge Dale S. Fischer and Magistrate Judge Charles F Eick. (ghap) @ntered: 03/25/2020) NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap) (Entered: 03/25/2020) A STANDING ORDER FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE DALE S. FISCHER upon filing ofthe complaint by Judge Dale S. Fischer. If a‘ party would be entitled to attorneys fees, counsel are referred to the Order Re Fees found on Court's website under Judge Fischer's Procedures and Schedules contained m the Judge's Requirements tab. Read all Orders carefully. They gevern this case and differ 1n s_ome respects from the Local Rules. COUNSEL ARE ORDERED TO PROVIDE A_MANDATORY CHAMBERS COPY OF THE COMPLAINT, NOTICE OF REMOVAL, AND ANY OTHER [NITIATING DOCUMENTS. (rfi) (Entered: 03/25/2020) ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Dale S. Fischer. The Joint Report must include the completed Schedule of Pretrial and Trial dates. Lead trial counsel are orderedztofiappear in person unless counsel have been excused by the Court. Scheduling Conference set for‘6/8/2020 at 11:00 AM before Judge Da’le, S. Fischer. (rfi) (Entered: ‘03/25/2020) 03/26/2020 » 10 ORDER by Judge Dale S. Fischer Remanding Case to State Court. (Made JS-6 Case Terminated.) (SEE ORDER FORI SPECIFICS). (jp) (Entered: 03/26/2020) 03/26/2020 11 TRANSMITTAL of documents to Los Angeles County Superior Court. A Certified copy of the' order of remand and a copy of the docket sheet from‘ this court was sent to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case Number: ZOSTCV043 85. (jp) (Entered: 03/26/2020) ’ .IU, 0'3/25/2020 ION ‘03/25/2020 [\l 03/25/2020 loo 03/25/2020 [KO . 3 of3 , 3/26/2020, 6:25 PM THE DOCUMENT T0 WHICH THIS CERTIFICA E IS .- R. CARTER. Executive (miner l ofthe Superior Court of California, County u os Angeles ‘Eleétronically flLEp by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 03/1 1/2020 04:03 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive OfficerlCIerk of Court, by S. Bolden,Deputy Clerk (O m N O) U1 h W N _\ ‘ N N N N N N N N N _x A. _\ A _x _.L _x _\ _\ _L m V O) U1 h (D N -\ O (O m N O) U1 A (JO N -\ O BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP Richard L. Stuhlbarg SBN: 180631) 97o West 190th Stree(t, Suite~7oo § gm E Essiigragasoaoze 0.: - Fax No.: 310/719-1019 JUL 17 2020 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP v Clerk Of then (gourft rMonica Y. Hernandez (SBN: 302509) B$“Pe”°'°°"“°' CA 0°“ ‘V '33 gggfw750 B Street, Suite 1740 San Diego, California 92101 Tel No.: 619/ 376-2500 Fax No.: 619/ 376-2501 Attorneys for Defendants FCA US LLC and MATHEW ENTERPRISE INC. dba STEVENS CREEK CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE erroneously sued as STEVENS CREEK CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES e STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE FEDERICO MAGANA, CASE No.:W 2 fl C V 36 8"? "t7 Plaintiff, Assigned to: Hon. Stuart M. Rice . Department: 49 vs. FCA US, LLC; STEVENS CREEK NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE; and DOES ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL 0F 1’ through 10, inclusive, ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT Defendants. Action Filed: February 3, 2020 ‘ Trial: None TO THE COURT, PLAINTIFF, AND HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant FCA p8 LLC (“FéA”), by its counsel BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP, filed a Notice of Removal of this action with the United States District Court for the Central "District of California, assigned Case Number 2:20- cV-02223 on March 6, 2020. ' - /// ‘ t /// 22161580v1 1 ‘ NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT (OWNOU'l-kOONA Copies of the file stamped Notice of Removal is attached to this Notice as Exhibit DATED: March 11, 2020 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP ‘ _ BY: k‘A‘Hr-A RichardL.Stutharg - Monica Y. Hernandez Attorneys fo'r Defendants, ' FCA US LLC - and MATHEW ENTERPRISE, INC. dba STEVENS CREEK CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE erroneously sued as STEVENS CREEK CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE 22161580v1 2 NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT Exhibit A \OOOflmkh-PUJNr-d NNNNNNNNNHHHr-Ip-AHHHHr-t OOQQUI-PUJNb-‘OOOOQO‘xUl-kwNF-‘O Case 2:20-cv-02223 Documeht 1 Filed 03/06/20 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:1 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP Rlchard L. Stuhlbarg (SBN 18063 1) rlchard.stuh1bar bowmapandbrooke.com 970 West 190_th _eet, Sulte 700 Torrance, Cahforma 90502 Tel No.1 3 10/ 768-3068 Fax No.: 310/ 719-1019 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP Mon_1ca Y. Hernandez (SBN 302509) momca.hemande_z@bowmanandbrooke.com 750 B_Street Sulte 1740 San Dlego Cahfomla 92101 Tel No.: 619/ 376-2500 Fax No.: 619/ 376-2501 Attorne s for Defendant, FCAU LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA -WESTERN DIVISION FEDERICO MAGANA, CASE NO.: 2:20-cv-2223 Plaintiff, £Removed from California Su erior Court, 0s An eles County - Case o. vs. ZOSTC 04385) FCA US LLC' STEVENS CREEK DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE; and NOTICE 0F REMOVAL DOES 1 through 10, 1nc1us1ve, Defendants. TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant FCA US LLC (“FCA”), by its counsel BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP, hereby removes to this court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446, based on diversity of citizenship, the claims pending as Case No. ZOSTCV04385 of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. In support of this removal, FCA states as follows: / / / / // 22129983v1 1 DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL VD 00 \J Ch Lh 4> U0 b0 ha b0 b0 b0 b9 b3 b0 b3 b) b3 ha ha ha ha hi ha ha ha ha ha 00 \d OX Lh 4> U0 b) FA CD VD OO ~J Ch Ln ¢> U0 b3 h‘ CD Case 2:20-cv-02223 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 Page 2 of 11 Page ID #22 I. THE REMOVED CASE 1. The removed case is a civil action commenced in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles by Plaintiff Federico Magana (“Plaintiff”) against FCA, entitled Federico Magana v. FCA US LLC and Stevens Creek Chrysler Jeep Dodge, Case No. 20STCV04385 (the “State Action”). The two named Defendants are FCA US LLC (“FCA”) and Stevens Creek Chrysler Jeep Dodge (“Stevens Creek”). 2. Plaintiff filed the State Actionuon February 3, 2020, asserting breach of implied and express warranty under California’s Song-Beverly Cohsumer Warranty Act, and fraud by omission against FCA, and negligent repair against Stevens Creek. (See Complaint.) II. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 3. Generally, a defendant has thirty (3 0) days fiom the date of service of a copy of the Complaint t0 remove a case. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). FCA received notice of this matter after it was served with a copy of the Complaint on February 5, 2020. It was on this date that FCA recognized this matter was removable to Federal Court. On the face of the Complaint, counsel for FCA was able to ascertain the amount in controversy. (See Exhibit A at 11 13; Declaration of Monica Y. Hernandez [“Hernandez Decl.”], 11 5, filed concurrently herewith). 4. Pursuant to Fed. R. CiV. Pro. 6(a), a period of greater than 30 days since February 5, 2020 has not elapsed. Accordingly, this Notice of Removal is therefore timely filed. 5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), copies of all process, pleadings, and orders for the State Action in FCA’s possession are contained in Exhibits A-L filed herewith. (Hernandez Decl. 1H] 4, 9-19). 6. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), venue is proper in the Central District of California because this district embraces the place in Which the State Action has been pending. 222129983v1 DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL \OOOQQUILUJNr-A NNNNNNNNNHHHHr-AHHHr-Ar-t OONQU‘I-PUJNHOWOOQQM#UJNHO Case 2:20-cv-02223 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 Page 3 of 11 Page ID #23 7. Pursuant to 28 UI.S.C. § 1446(d), a true and correct copy of this Notice of Removal will be filed with the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles promptly after filing of same in this Court. 8. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), written notice of filing of this Notice of Removal will be given to all adverse parties promptly after the filing of same in this Court. 9. If any question arises as to the propriety of the removal of this action, FCA requests the opportunity to conduct discovery, bn'ef any disputed issues and to present oral argument in favor of its position that this case is properly removable. . 10.- Nothing in this Notice of Removal shall be interpreted as a waiver or' relinquishment of FCA’s right to assert defenses including, Without limitation, the defenses of (i) lack of jurisdiction over person, (ii) improper venue and/orforum non conveniens, (iii) insufficiency of process, (iv) insufficiency of service of process, (V) improper joifider of claims and/or parties, (Vi) failure to state a claim, (vii) failure to join indispensable party(ies), or (viii) any other procedural or substantive defense available under state or federal law. IH. THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY REQUIREMENT IS NIET 11. 'The amount in controversy in this action exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. (See 28 U.S.C. § 1332) 12. The removing party’s initial burden is to “file a notice of removal that includes ‘a plausible allegation that the amouilt in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold?” Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1195 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Dart Cherokee Basin Operating C0,, LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014)). “By design, § 1446(a) tracks the general pleading requirement stated in Rule 8(a)” which requires only that the grounds for removal be stated in a “short and plaih statement.” Dart, 135 S. Ct. at 553. / / / 22129933v1 3 DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL \OOOQONkh-kUJNr-A NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OOQQM¥WNHO©OOQGLII¥UJNHO Case 2:20-cv-02223 Documentl Filed 03/06/20 Page4‘of11 Page|D#:4 13. Generally, a federal district court will first “consider whether it is ‘facially apparent’ fiom the complaint that the jurisdictional amount is in controversy.” Abrego v. Dow Chem. C0., 443 F.3d 676, 690 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citation omitted). But ta defendant may remove :a suit to federal court notwithstanding the failure Of the plaintiffs to plead the required amount. Absent the facial showing from the complaint, the court may consider facts averred in the removal petition. Id. Next, if the defendant’s allegation(s) regarding the amount in controversy is challenged, then “both sides submit proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied.” Ibarra, 775 F.3d at 1195. At that time, “it may be appropriate to allow discovery relevant to [the] jurisdictional amount prior to remanding.” Abrego, 443 F.3d at 691 (internal citation omitted). 14. FCA disputes that it is liable for any damages whatsoever to Plaintiff. Nevertheless, FCA can demonstrate that the amount in Controversy exceeds $75,000 under the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. See Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp, 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. .2007). The standard requires only that the removing party present evidence that “it is more likely than not” that the amount in controversy is satisfied. Id. 15. r In the case at bar, the Plaintiff seeks monetary damages “in a sum to be proven at trial in an amount that is not less than $25,001.00” (See Comp1., 11 13). Plaintiff also seeks “a civil penalty up to two times the amount of actual damages” 'pursuant to his Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act causes of action. (See Comp1., 1H] 16, 21, 24, 28). In addition, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages. (Comp1.', Prayer for Relief, p. 11:6). Plaintiff alleges breach of the express and implied warranties under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1790 et seq.), and fraud by omission against FCA (See Compl., generally). / // / // 22129983v1 4 DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL \OOOQONUIAUJNt-t NNNNNNNNNI-IHHr-Ah-An-IHHr-tr-t OOQQUI-hWNF-‘OKOOOQQUI-PUJND-‘O Case 2:20-cv-02223 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 Page 5 of 11 Page ID #:5 16. Plaintiff alleges that 9n or about July 4, 2013, Plaintiff purchased a 2013 Dodge Ram 2500, VIN: 3C6UR4CL2DG529463, and it was delivered With, ‘ and later developed, defects such as various engine defects. (Comp1., 1H} 8, 10). Plaintiff alleges he presented the vehicle for repairs and further alleges the “[s]aid defects substantially impair the use, value or safety of the Vehicle.” (See Comp1., 1m 10, 18). ' 17. Plaintiff alleges he is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and fraud by omission causes of action asserted against FCA including: actual damages; restitution; civil penalty in the amount two times Plaintiff’s actual damages pursuant to Civil Code section 1794, subdivision (c) or (e); consequential and incidental damages; costs of the suit and Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Civil Code section' 1794, subdivision (d); punitive damages; rescission of the purchase contract; prejudgment interest; and other relief as the Court may deem proper. (Compl., Prayer for Relief, pp. 10:26- 1 1 : 12). . 18. The calculation of the amount in controversy includes punitive damages. Gonzales v. CarMax Auto Superstores, LLC, 840 F.3d 644, 648-49 (9th Cir. 2016). In addition, the amount in controversy calculation includes civil penalties under the Song-Beverly Act. Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 1009 (N.D. Cal. 2002).~ The amount in controversy calculation also includes reasonable estimates of attorney’s fees. Id. at 101 1; Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp, 506 F.3d 696, 700 (9th Cir. 2007); Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 1998). 19. Additionally, the Brady Court agreed with the substantial line of cases that held that a reasonable estimate of fees likely to be recovered may be used in calculating the amount in controversy. See Miera v. Dairyland Ins. C0., 143 F.3d 1337, 1340 (10th Cir.1998); Simmons v. PCR Technology, 209 F.Supp.2d 1029, 1034-35 (N.D.Cal.2002); Gerig v. Krause Publications, Ina, 58 22129983v1 5 DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL \OOOflQUl-PUJNh-A NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHH.HH OOQ‘QUI-mer-‘OCOOQONUI-hUJNHO Case 2:20-cv-02223 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 Page 6 of 11 Page ID #:6 F.Supp.2d 1261, 1265 (D.Kan.1999); Plus System, Inc. v. New England Network, Ina, 804 F.Supp. 111, 116-17 (D.C010.1992). In doing so, the Court noted that ~Mercedes Benz USA submitted a declaration detailing fee awards in similar lemon law cases wherein attorney's fees of over $60,000 were awarded. Brady v. Mercede‘z Benz, 243 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 1009 (N.D. Cal. 2002). As a result, this Court may also consider the reasonable estimate of fees in this case as part of the amount in controversy analysis. ~ 20. The Song-Beverly Act allows for the recovery 6f attorney’s fees, which regularly exceed $100,000. (See Declaration of Richard L. Stuhlbarg [“Stuhlbarg Decl.”], 11 5, filed conéurrently herewith). 21. If Plaintiff was to prevail on his Song-Beverly Act ciaims, he could be awarded damages of $75,000.00 or more if awarded statutoryhcivil penalties, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. Plaintiff alleges he suffered damages of not less than $25,001.00, and adding $50,002.00 as a two times civil penalty pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act, totals at least $75,003.00. (Hernandez Decl., 1m 5-8). Additionally, while punitive damages are typically limited to a single digit multiplier, such an award in this case could exceed $225,000 based on the damages - alleged in the cdmplaint. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. C0. v. > Campbell, 538 US 408, 424-425 (2003). Adding these amounts to reasonable attorney fees which a party is efititled to under the Song-Beverly Act, which can be reasonably considered to be at least $35,000.00, it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Stuhlbarg Decl., 11 6). 22. Thus, the total amount in controversy therefore exceeds $75,000.00. - The amount in controversy is satisfied. (Stuhlbarg Decl., 1m 5-6; Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(d)(2)(B)-(C); § 1794(0)). / / / / / / / / / ‘ 22129983v1 6 DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL VD OO \J Ch LII J> U0 b0 ha h) b9 b3 bJ b0 b) b0 k) b0 ha ha ha ha pd ha ha ha ha ha GO \J C>x Lh 4> U0 b3 Pd CD \O GO \J OH LII 4> U0 b3 hi CD Case 2:20-cv-02223 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 Page 7 of 11 Page ID #27 IV. DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP EXISTS 23. The basic requirement in diversity cases is that all Plaintiff be of different citizenship than all defendants. Any instance of common citizenship prevents federal diversity. jurisdiction. For diversity purposes, a natural pérson is a "citizen" 0f the state which he or she is domiciled. (Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983).) A natural person's domicile is the place he or she resides with the intention to remain or to which he or she intends to return. (Kanter v. Warner-Lambert C0., 265 F.3d. 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001).) A party's residence is prima facie evidence of domicile, and only if that party disputes domicile is the removing party required to provide proof of domiciliary intent. See, e.g,, State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. C0. v. Dyer, 19 F.3d 514, 520 (10th Cir. 1994). A corporation, on ‘the other hand, is deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and 0f the State Where it has its principal place ofbusiness. (28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1).) 24. A corporation’s principal place of business refers to the place where . its high-level officers "direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities." (See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010).) "[T]he citizenship of an LLC for purposes o‘f the diversity jurisdiction is the citizenship of its members." (Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998) cited by Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) and GIMAC Comm’l Credit LLC v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Ina, 357 F.3d 827, 829 (8th Cir. 2004) I 25. A case is removable on diversity grounds if diversity of citizenship can be ascertained from the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint or this fact is disclosed in pleadings, \motions or papers "from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable..." (28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(3).) / / / / / / 22129983v1 7 DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL \D 00 ~J C>\ Ln 4> OJ b0 ha h) b0 b3 b) ab) b9 b0 b0 b) ha ha ha ha ha pd ha ha ha ha 00 \J Ch kl! J> DJ h) hi CD VD OO \J CTx LII J§ (J3 b3 hi CD Case 2:20-cv-02223 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 Page 8 of 11 Page ID #28 26. A party's residence is prima facie evidence of domicile, and only if that patty disputes domicile is the removing party required to provide proof of domiciliary intent. (See, e.g., State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Dyer, 19 F.3d 514, 520 (10th Cir. 1994).) “It is assumed that a person’s current residence is also his domicile.” (13E Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure §3612 (3d. ed. 2013). I 27. Plaintiff is, and was at the time of filing of the Complaint, a citizen and resident of California. (Comp1., 11 2 (establishing that Plaihtiff resides in California); Ervin v. Ballard Marine Constr., Inc. (N.D.Ca1. Aug. 11, 2016, No. 16-cv-02931-WHO) 2016 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 106507, I at *8 [internal citations omitted] (Plaintiff’s complaint stated only that he was a resident of Oregon, it made no statement as to Plaintiffs citizenship. The Court found that for diversity purposes a plaintiff is a Citizen of the state in Which he or she resides in the absence of evidence to the contrary.)). Plaintiff also is, and was at the time of purchase of the Subject Vehicle, a re‘sident of California, specifically a resident of San Jose, Santa Clara County, California, and has resided there since 19-95. (Hernandez Decl., 1} 20, TransUnion Report.) Plaintiff, based on belief and information, had no intention to leave California. 28. ‘FCA is, and was at the time Plaintiff. commenced this action, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in Michigan. This Court can take judicial notice of these facts. (See Excerpt fiom FCA’s 2014 Form lO-K filing, Exhibit N to Hernandez Decl., fl 21 ; see also Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (courts may judicially notice facts that “can be accurately and readily detennined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned”). 29. Complete diversify existed as of the time this action was filed, as well as the date of this notice. (See Salveson v. Western State Bank Card Assn, 731 F.2d 1423 (9th Cir. 1984).) ' 8 _22129983v1 DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL \OWQQUI-PUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHr-A OOQQUIhUJNHOKOOOflONUI-PUJNI-‘O Case 2:20-cv-02223 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 Page 9 of 11 Page ID #:9 A. Defendant Stevens Creek and Fraudulent Joinder 30. As indicated in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Stevens Creek is a_ business entity organized and in existence under the laws of the State of California. (Comp1., {I 5) Defendant FCA contends that Plaintiff fraudulently joined Stevens Creek 1n this action for no reason other than to defeat diversity jurisdiction and prevent removal of the action to federal court. See In re Briscoe, 448 F. 3d 201, 217 (3d Cir. 2006) (“[fraudulent joinder exists where] there ls no reasonable basis in fact or colorable ground supporting the claim against the joined defendant, or no real intention in good faith to prosecute the action against the defendants or seek a joint judgment”). 31. Here, Plaintiff has sued FCA for six causes of action except the seventh cause of action for “Negligent Repair” which is claimed only against Stevens Creek. FCA believes Plaintiff has no intention of prosecuting this claim against Stevens Creek. Indeed, a review of the Complaint’s allegations regarding Stevens Creek are bare-boned, non-specific allegations as related to Stevens Creek. (Compl., generally and 1m 46-50). I 32. Accordingly, it is evident these claims. were only brought to defeat the claim of diversity and femoval to Federal Court. Indeed, FCA’s counsel’s vast litigation experience in opposing these type of cases has been that individual dealerships have not been regularly sued._ (Stuhlbarg Decl., 11 7). Because Plaintiff’s joinder of Stevens Creek is fraudulent, this Court has the jurisdiction to accept this matter. Accordingly, complete diversity exists for pquoses of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 jurisdiction. V. CONCLUSION 33. Consequently, the State Action may be removed to this Court by FCA ' in accordance with the provisions of28 U.S.C. § 1441 because: (i) this action is a 01V11 actlon pendlng w1th1n the Junsdlctlon of the Umted States Dlstnct Court for the Central District of California, (ii) the action is between citizens of different 22129983v1 I 9 DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL \OWQQUI-PUJNI-t NNNNNNNNNr-ar-th-lp-nr-tp-nr-AHHH OOQONU’I-hUJNHODOOQOfiUI-hMNP-‘O Case 2:20-cv-02223 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 Page 10 of 11 Page ID #210 states, and (iii) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. DATED: March 6, 2020 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP ( By /s/M0m'ca Y. Hernandez Rlch_ard L. Stuhlbarg Monlca Y. Hernandez Attorne s for Defendant, FCA U LLC 22129983v1 10 DEFENDNH ICE US EEC S NUHCE 0F KEMU 0K]: \DOOQQU‘I-PUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHI-IHHHHHH WQQMAWNHoomflQMALfiNI-ic Case 2:20-cv-02223 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 Page 11 of 11 Page ID #211 PROOF 0F SERVICE F.R.C.P Rule 5(b)(2) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO I am employed in the County O_f SanDiego, Statg of Ca1ifornia_. I am over the a§epf 18 and not a_palty to _the vylthln actlon; my busmess address ls 750 B Street, ulte 1740, San Dlego, Callforma 92101. _ On March 6, 2020 I served the forfigoin document described as_DE_FENDANT FCA US _LL ’ NOTICE O ovaL 0n all 1nt_erested partles 1n thls actlon by enclosmg a true copy the original ofithem 1n an envelope addressed as , follows: Tionna Dolin, Esq. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF Strategic Legal Practices, APC ’ 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430 Tel: 3 10- 929-4933 Los Angeles, CA 90067 ' Fax: 3 10- 943-3838 Email: tdolin@slpattorney.com E BY MAIL (E.R.C.P. Rule 599(2)); I served fche documents by p_1acin§ the envelope fog polleqtlon and ma111n Q lowmg ou_I ordmary busmess practlces. _am readlly famlllar Wl_th the firm's usmess practlce for_collect1n§ and ropessm doqmnents _for malllpg. Qn the same day the document 1s plaqed or col pctlon an ma111n , 1t _1s d_epos1ted 1n the ordmary course of busmess wlth the Umted States Postal erv1ce 1n a sealed envelopq w1th postage full prepald. I am awarqthat on motlon of the pa_1ty‘ served, serv1ce 1s presumed Invall 1f_the postal cancellatlon _date or postage date ls more than 1 day after the date of depos1t for mallmg 1n affidav1t. Executed on March 6, 2020, at San Diego, California. (Federal) I deplarq that I_ am employed in the office of a member 0f the bar of t 1s court at whose d1rect10n thls serv1ce was made. SIgeja fiaVanaugfi é 22129983v1 1 1 DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL (OGNOU'l-thA N N M MIN N N N N _\ .3 .4 ._\ ._.L ._\ A _\ _\ _L memAWN-‘OQOWVOUIACON-‘O PROOF OF SERVICE J CCP 1013A(3) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO l am employed in the County of San Diego, State of California. | am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 750 B Street, Suite 1740, San Diego, California 92101. On March 11, 2020, | served the foregoing document described as NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT on all interested parties in this action by placin? ( )the original (XX) true copy(ies) thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as fol ows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST (XX) BY MAIL (CCP §1013(a) and §2015.5): As follows: | served the documents by placing the envelope for collection and mailing following our ordinary business practices. l am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at San Diego, California in the ordinary course of business. | am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERYINEXT DAY DELIVERY (CCP §1013(a) and §2015.5): | sealed such document(s? in separate envelopes for each addressee and deposited each for collection and mai ing via overnight mail/next day delivery in a box or other facility regularly maintained by the U.S. Postal Service or an express service carrier, or delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the U.S. Postal Service or an express service carrier to receive documents, with delivery fees paid or provided for. ( ) BY FACSIMILE (CRC 2.306 and §2015.5): The document(s) were transmitted by facsimile transmission to each of the parties at the facsimile number(s) listed on the attached service/mailing list and the transmission s) reported as complete and without error. The facsimile machine | used complied wit the California Rules of Court, Rule 2.306(9), and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to CRC, Rule 2.306(9), | caused the facsimile machine to print a transmission(s) record, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto. ' ( ) BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE (CCP 1010.6.(b)(6): Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I caus’ed the documents to be sent to the addressees persons at the electronic notification listed on the Service/Mailing AList. ( ) BY PERSONAL SERVICE (CCP §1011 and §2015.5): | caused to be delivered such envelope by hand to the addressee. Executed on March 11, 2020, at San Diego, California. (X) (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. - . TWAWM WWO i a'ny wakins 22161580v1 3 NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT (DmNODUI-bobNA NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA mVCDCD¥ODNAOCO®NODO1AOONAO SERVICEIMAJLING LIST Federico Magana v. FCA US LLC, et al. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No: 208TCVO4385 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFTionna Dolin, Esq. STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430 Tel: 31 0/ 929-4900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Fax: 31 0/ 943-3838 Email: tdolin@slpattornev.com 22'161580v1 4 NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT THE DOCUMENT T0 lCH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED IS A FU TRUE. AND CORRECT COPY 0F ORI " N THIS OFFICE «Mi. L - - ST SHERRI R. CARTER. Executive Officer/Clerk of the Superior Court of California. County of Los Angeles Deputy ‘ ‘A Electroniclally FILED 9y Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 03/1 1/2020 03:57 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by S. Bolden,Deputy Clerk (Dmem-FODNA NNNNNNNNNAAA-LAAAAAA mfimm¢mNAO®mNOmthAO BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP Richard L. Stuhlbarg (SBN: 180631) 970 West 190th Street, Suite 700 Torrance, California 90502 Tel No.: 310/ 768-3068 Fax No.: 310/ 719-1019 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP MoonchaSY. HerSnandfiz§SBN: 302509) 75 treet, _uite _ 7 0 san Dlego’ callforma 921 01 Superigégurqueitcrfingfosgrfia ClaraTeINo.: 619/376-2500 Fax No.: 619/376-2501 BY DEPUTY Attorneys for Defendants FCA US LLC and MATHEW ENTERPRISE INC. dba STEVENS CREEK CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE erroneously sued as STEVENS CREEK CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE E Em E ( . JUL 1 7 2020 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE FEDERICO MAGANA, CASE No.:W Q G) C v 38 a ”2’ 8 4’ Plaintiff, Assigned to: Hon. Stuart M. Rice I Department: 49 vs. _ FCA US, LLC; STEVENS CREEK NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE; and DOES ‘ ADVERSE PARTY 0F REMOVAL OF 1 through 10, inclusive, ’ ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT Defendants. Action Filed: February 3,‘ 2020 Trial: None - TO THE COURT, PLAINTIFF, AND HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant FCA US_ LLC (“FCA”), by its counsel BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP, filed a Notice of Removal of this action with the United States District Court for the Central District of California, assigned Case Number 2:20- cv-02223 on March 6, 2020. ' // / / / / 22161580v1 1 NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT (Dmflcim-hODNA NNMNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA WNODU'I#OJN-\OCOQNO)U1&WN-‘O Copies of the file stamped Notice of Removal is attached to this Notice as Exhibit DATED: March 11, 2020 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP BY: 22161580v1 2 J54+;',___J\ Richard L. Stuhlbarg Monica Y. Hernandez Attorneys for Defendants, FCA US LLC and MATHEW ENTERPRISE, INC. dba STEVENS CREEK CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE erroneously sued as STEVENS CREEK CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT Exhibit A \OOOQGU’IAUJNv-d NNNNNNNNNHHr-AHHHHHHh-A OOQONUIQUJNi-‘OOOOQONUIAUJNHO Case 2:20-cv-02223 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #21 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP R1chard L. Stuhlbarg (SBN 18063 1) nchard.stuhlbar bowmapandbrooke.com 970 West 190ph leet, Sulte 700 < Torrance, Ca11forn1a 90502 Tel No.1 3 10/ 768-3068 Fax No.2 310/ 719-1019 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP Monllca Y. Hernandez (SBN 302509) momca.hemande_2@bowmanandbrooke.com 750 B.Street Sulte 1740 San Dlego Cahforma 92101 Tel No; 619/ 376-2500 Fax No.2 619/ 376-2501 Attorne s for Defendant, FCAU LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION FEDERICO MAGANA, CASE NO.: 2:20-CV-2223 Plaintiff, £Removed fiom California Su erior Court, os Angeles County - Case o. vs. 2OSTC 04385) FCA US LLC“ STEVENS CREEK DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE; and NOTICE 0F REMOVAL DOES 1 through 10, mcluswe, Defendants. TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant FCA US LLC (“FCA”), by its counsel BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP, hereby removes to this court, pursuant " to 28 U.S.C. §§ I332, 1441, and 1446, based on diversity of citizenship, the claims pending as Case No. ZOSTCV04385 of the Superior Court of California,” County of Los Angeles. In support of this removal, FCA states as follows: ’ /// I / / / 22129983v1 1 DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL \OOOQQUI#UJNb-d NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OOQONm-PWNHOWOOQQUIAUJNI-AO Case 2:20-cv-02223 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 Page 2 of 11 Page ID #:2 _ I. THE REMOVED CASE 1. The removed case is a civil action commenced in the Superior Court ' of California, County of Los Angeles by Plaintiff Federico Magana (“Plaintiff”) against FCA, entitled Federico Magana v. FCA US LLC and Stevens Creek Chrysler Jeep Dodge, Case No. ZOSTCV04385 (the “State Action”). The two named Defendants are FCA US LLC (“FCA”) and Stevens Creek Chrysler Jeep Dodge (“Stevens Creek”). _ ~ 2. Plaintiff filed the State Action on February 3, 2020, asserting breach of implied and express warranty under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and fraud by omission against FCA, and negligent repair against Stevens Creek. (See Complaint.) II. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 3. Generally, a defendant has thirty (30) days' from the date of service of a copy of the Complaint to remove a case. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). FCA received notice of this matter after it was served with a copy of the Complaint on February 5, 2020. It was on this date that FCA recognized this matter was removable to Federal Court. On the facelwof the Complaint, counsel for FCA was able to ascertain the amount in controversy. (See Exhibit A at 11 13; Declaration of Monica Y. Hernandez [“Hernandez Decl.”], 11 5, filed concurrently herewith). 4. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 6(a), a period of greater than 30 days since February 5, 2020 has not elapsed. Accordingly, this Notice of Removal is therefore timely filed. 5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), copies of all process, pleadings, and orders for the State Action in FCA’s possession are contained in Exhibits A-L filed herewith. (Hernandez Decl.m 4, 9-19). 6. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), venue is proper in the Central District of California because this district embraces the place in which the State ‘Action has been pending. 22129983v1 2 DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL \OOOQQU‘IhUJNH NNNNNNNNNt-tr-ay-dr-AHr-AHHHH OOflQUI-PUJNHOKOOONQUI-PUJNI-‘O Case 2:20-cv-02223 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 Page 3 of 11 Page ID #23 7. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), a true and correct copy of this Notice of Removal will be filed with the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles promptly after filifig of same in this Court. 8. Pursuant to 28' U.S.C. § 1446(d), written notice of filing of this Noticé of Removal will be givén to all adverse parties promptly after the filing of same in this Court. ’ 9. If any question arises as to the propriety of the removal of this action, 'FCA requests the opportunity to conduct discovery, brief any disputed issues and to present oral argument in favor of its position that this case is properly removable. 10. Nothing in this Notice of Removal shall be interpreted as a waiver or relinquishment of FCA’s right to assert defenses including, without limitation, the defenses 0f (i) lack of jurisdiction o'ver person, (ii) improper venue and/orforum non conveniens, (iii) insufficiency of process, (iv) insufficiency of service of process, (v) improper joinder of claims and/or patties, (vi) failure to state a claim, (Vii) failure to join indispensable party(ies), or (viii) any other précedural or substantive defense available under state or federal law. . III. THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY REQUIREMENT IS MET 11. The amount in gontroversy in this action exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. (See 28 U.S.C. § 1332) 12. The removing party’s initial burden is to “file a notice of removal that includes ‘a plausible allegation that the amount in > controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Ina, 775 F.3d 1193, 1195 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Ca, LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014)). “By design, § 1446(a) tracks the general pleading requirement stated in Rule 8(a)” Which requires only that the grounds for remdval be stated in a “short and plain statement.” Dart, 135 S. Ct. at 553.- /// 22129983v1 3 DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL VD 00 ~J Ch Ln ¢> DJ b0 ha b3 b3 b3 b3 b3 b) b3 bJ b3 pd ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha OO \J Ch Ln 4k U0 b0 ha CD ‘43 OO \J Ch kl! 4k DJ b0 ha c) Case 2:20-cv-02223 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 Page 4 of 11 Page ID #24 113. Generally, a federal district court will first “consider whether it is ‘facially apparent’ from the complaint that the jurisdictional amount is in contrdversy.” Abrego v. wa Chem. C0., 443 F.3d 676, 690 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citation omitted). But a defendant may remove a suit to federal court notwithstanding the failure of the plaintiffs to plead the required amount. Absent the facial showing from the complaint, the court may.consider facts averred in the removal petition. Id. Next, if the defendant’s allegation(s) régarding the amount in controversy is challenged, then “both sides submit proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, V whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied.” Ibarra, 775 F.3d at 1195. At that time, “it may be appropriate to allow discovery relevant to [the] jurisdictional amount prior _to remanding.” Abrego, 443 F.3d at 691 (internal citation omitted). 14. FCA disputes that it is liable for any damages whatsoever to Plaintiff. Nevertheless, FCA can demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 under the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. See Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp, 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007). The standard requires only that the removing party present evidence that “it is more likely than not” that the amount in controversy is satisfied. Id. 15. In the case at bar, the Plaintiff seeks monetary damages “in a sum to be proven at trial in an amount that is not less than $25,001.00” (See Comp1., fl 13). Plaintiff also seeks “a civil penalty up to two times the amount of actual damages” pursuant to his Song-Beverl}; Consumer Warranty Act causes of action. (See Comp1., 1W 16, 21, 24, 28). In addition, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages. (Comp1., Prayer for Relief, p. 11:6). Plaintiff alleges breach of the express and implied warranties under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Cal. CiV. Code § 1790 et seq.), and fraud by omission against FCA (See Comp1., generally). / / / / / / 422129983y1 DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL \D OO \J Ch Lh 4> U0 b3 ha h) b9 b) b0 b0 b) b) b3 bJ ha ha ha ha ha pd ha ha ha ha GO \J Ch Ln 4> U0 b3 hi CD VD OO \J Ch Lh 4> DO 53 F‘ <3 Case 2:20-cv-02223 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 Page 5 of 11 Page ID #:5 16. . Plaintiff alleges that on or about July 4, 2013, Plaintiff purchased a 2013 Dodge Ram 2500, VIN: 3C6UR4CL2DG529463, and it was delivered with, and later developed, defects such as various engine defects. (Comp1., 1H 8, 10). Plaintiff alleges he presented the vehicle for repairs and further alleges the “[s]aid defects substantially impair the use, value or safety of the Vehicle.” (See Comp1., 1m 10, 18). ' 17. Plaintiff alleges he is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and fraud by omission causes of action asserted against FCA including: actual damages; restitution; civil penalty in the amount two times Plaintiff’s actual damages pursuant to Civil Code section 1794, subdivision (c) or (e); consequential and incidental damages; costs of the suit and Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Civil Code section 1794, subdivision (d); punitive damages; rescission of the purchase contract; prejudgment interest; and other relief as the Court may deem proper. (Compl., Prayer for Relief, pp. 10:26- 1 1:12). 18. The calculation of the‘ amount in r controversy includes punitive damages. Gonzales v. CarMax Auto Superstores, LLC, 840 F.3d 644, 648-49 (9th Cir. 2016). In addition, the amount in ’ controversy calculation includes civil penaltiés under the Song-Beverly Act. Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 1009 (N.D. Cal. 2002). The amount ih controversy calculation also includes reasonable estimates of attorney’s fees. Id. at \101 1; Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp, 506 F.3d 696, 700 (9th Cir. 2007); Galt G/S v. JSS ' Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 1998). ‘ 19. Additionally, the Brady Court agreed with the substantial line of cases that held that a reasonable estimate of fees likely to be recovered may be used in calculating the amount in controversy. See Miera v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 143 F.3d 1337, 1340 (10th Cir.1998); Simmons v. PCR Technology, 209 F.Supp.2d 1029, 1034-35 (N.D.Ca1.2002); Gerig v. Krause Publications, Ina, 58 22129983v1 5 DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL \oooqamhwtop- NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHt-AHr-d Case 2:20-cv-02223 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 Page 6 of 11 Page ID #26 F.Supp.2d 1261, 1265 (D.Kan.1999); Plus System, Inc. v. New England Network, Ina, 804 F.Supp. 111, 116-17 G).Colo.1992). In doing so, the Court noted that Mercedes Benz USA submitted a declaration detailing fee awards in similar lemon law cases wherein attorney's fees of over $60,000 were awarded. Brady v. Mercedez Benz, 243 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 1009 (N.D. Cal. 2002). As a result, this Court may also consider the reasonable estimate of fees in this case as part of the amount in controversy analysis. I 20f The Song-Beverly Act allows for the recovery of attomey’s fees, Which regularly exceed $100,000. (Seé Declaration of Richard L. Stuhlbarg [“Stuhlbarg Decl.”], 11 5, filed concurrently herewith). _ 21. If Plaintiff was to prevail on his Song-Beverly Act ciaims, he could be awarded damages of $75,000.00 or more if awarded statutory civil penalties, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. Plaintiff alleges he suffered damages of not less than $25,001.00, and adding $50,002.00 as a two times civil penalty pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act, totals at least $75,003.00. (Hernandez Decl., 1m 5-8). Additionally, while punitive damages are typically limited to a single digit multiplier, such an award in this case could éxceed $225,000 based on the damages alleged in the complaint. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. C0. v. Campbell, 538 US 408, 424-425 (2003). Adding these amounts to reasonable attorney fees which a party is entitled to under the Song-Beverly Act, which can be reasonably considered to b_e at least $35,000.00, it is more likely than not that thg amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Stuhlbarg Dec1., 11 6). 22. Thus, the total amount in controversy therefore exceeds $75,000.00. The amount in controversy is satisfied. (Stuhlbarg Decl., 1H 5-6; Cal. CiV. Code § i793.2(d)(2)(B)-(C); § 1794(0)). / / / / / / / / / 22129983v1 6 DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL VD OO \J O\ Lh 4> UO b3 ha b3 b3 b) b) b) h) b) b) b9 pd ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha OO \d O\ Lh $5 DJ b0 hi CD \D 00 ~d O\ Lh $> DJ b0 h‘ CD Case 2:20-cv-02223 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 Page 7 of 11 Page ID #:7 IV. DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP EXISTS 23. The basic requirement in diversity cases is that all Plaintiff be of different citizenship than all defendants. Any instance of common citizenship prevents federal diversity jurisdiction. For diversity purposes, a natural person is a ”citizen" of fhe state which he or she is domiciled. (Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd, 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983).) A natural person's domicile is the place he or she resides with the intention to remain or t0 which he or she intends to return. (Kanter v. Warner-Lambert C0., 265 F.3d. 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001).) A party's residence is prima facie evidence of domicile, and only if that pany disputes domicile is the removing parry required t9 provide proof of domiciliary - intent. See, e.g,, State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. C0. v. Dyer, 19 F.3d 514, 520 (10th Cir. 1994). A corporation, on the other hand, is deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and 0f the State where it has its principal place ofbusiness. (28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1).) 24. A corporation’s principal place of business refers to the place Where its high-level officers "direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities." (See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010).) "[T]he citizenship of an LLC for purposes of the diversity jurisdiction is the citizenship of its members." (Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998) cited by Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) and GAMC Comm’l Credit LLC v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Ina, 357 F.3d 827, 829 (8th Cir. 2004) ‘ 25. A case is removable on diversity grounds if diversity of citizenship can be ascertained from the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint or this fact is disclosed in pleadings, motions or papers "from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable..." (28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(3).) P / / / / / / 22129983v1 7 DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL \OOOQQU‘I-PUJNr-t NNNN-wammhfiwHHHHHHHH mQQMAri-cxoooqcxmhmwwo Case 2:20-cv-02223 y Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 Page 8 of 11 Page |D’#:8 26. A party's residence is prima facie evidence of domicile, and only if that party disputes domicile is the removing party required to provide proof of domiciliary intent. (See, e.g., State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. C0. v. Dyer, 19 F.3d 514, 520 (10th Cir. 1994).) “It is assumed that a person’s current residence i~s also his domicile.” (13E Charles Alan Wright & Atthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure §3612 (3d. ed. 2013). 27. Plaintiff is, and was at the time of filing of the Complaint, a citizen and resident of California. (Compl., fl 2 (establishing that Plaintiff resides in California); Ervin v. Ballard Marine C0nstr., Inc. (N.D.Ca1. Aug. 11, 2016, No. 16-cv-02931-WHO) 2016 U.S.Dist.LEX[S 106507, at *8 [internal citations omitted] (Plaintiff’s complaint stated only that he was a resident of Oregon, it made no statement aé to Plaintiff’s citizenship. The Court found that for diversity purposes a plaintiff is a citizen of the state in which he or she resides in the absence of evidence to the contrary.)). Plaintiff also is, and was at the time of purchase of the Subj ect Vehicle, a resident of California, specifically a resident 0f San Jose, Santa Clara County, California, and has resided there since 1995. (Hernandez Decl., 11 20, TransUnion Report.) Plaintiff, based on belief ' and information, had no intention to leave California. 28. FCA is, and was at the ,time Plaintiff commenced this action, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in Michigan. This Court can take judicial notice of these facts. (See Excerpt from FCA’s 2014 Form 10-K filing, Exhibit N to Hernandez Decl., 11 21; see also Fed. R. EVid. 201(b)(2) (courts may judicially notice facts that “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned”). _ 29. Complete diversity existed as 0f the time this action was fil'ed, as well as the date of this notice; (See Salveson v. Western State Bank Card Assn, 731 F.2d 1423 (9th Cir. 1984).) 22129983v1 8 DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL \oooq‘oxmhwwpd OOQONUI-bUJNr-AOKOOOQ-QUIAUJNt-do Case 2:20-cv-02223 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 Page 9 of 11 Page ID #29 A. Defendant Stevens Creek and Fraudulent Joinder 30. As indicated in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Stevens Creek is a business entity organized 'and in existence under the laws! of the State of California. (Comp1., 1] 5) Defendant FCA contends that Plaintiff fraudulently joined Stevens Creek in this action for no reason other than -to defeat diversity jurisdiction and prevent removal, of the action to federal court. See In re Briscoe, 448E. 3d 201, 217 (3d Cir. 2006) (“[fraudulent joinder exists where] there is no reasonable basis in fact or colorable ground supporting the claim against the joined defendant, or no real intention in good faith to prosecute the action against the defendants or seek a joint judgment”). ~ 31. Here, Plaintiff has sued FCA for six causes of action except the seventh cause of action for “Negligent Repair” which is claimed only against Stevens Creek. FCA believes Plaintiff has no intention of prosecuting this claim against Stevens Creek. Indeed, a review of the Complaint’s allegations regarding Stevens Creek arc bare-boned, non-specific allegations as related to Stevens Creek. (Comp1., generally and 1m 46-50). 32. Accordingly, it is evident these claims were only brought to defeat the claim of diversity and removal to Federal Court. Indeed, FCA’s counsel’s vast litigation experience in opposing these type of cases has been that individual dealerships have not been regularly sued. (Stuhlbarg Decl., 1] 7). Because Plaintiffs joinder of Stevens Creek is fraudulent, this Court has the jurisdiction to accept this matter. Accordingly,' complete diversity exists for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 jurisdiction. ‘ ‘. V. CONCLUSION 33. Consequently, the State Action may be removed to this Court by FCA in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1441 because: (i) this action is a civil action pending within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, (ii) the action is between citizens of different 22129983v1 9 DEFENDANT FCA US ELC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL \OOOVQU‘I-PUJNv-I NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH WQQMLWNHOKOOOQQMhUJNHO Case 2:20-cv-02223 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 Page 10 of 11 Page ID #:10 states, and (iii) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. DATED: March 6, 2020 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP By /s/M0nica Y. Hernandez Rlchard L. Stuhlbarg Monlca Y. Hernandez Attome s for Defendant, FCA U LLC 22129983v1 10 DEFENDANTFCA US LLC’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL \OOOQO\UIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-dr-AHHHHHHHp-d OOQONUl-bUJNr-dOKOOOQONUI-PUJNHO Case 2:20-cv-02223 Document 1 Filed 03/06/20 Page 11 of 11 Page ID #211 PROOF 0F SERVICE ' F.R.C.P Rule 5(b)(2) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO I am employed in the County Qf SanDiego, Statg of California. I am over the a epf 18 and not anpalty to _the vylthm actlon; my busmess address ls 750 B Street, ulte 1740, San Dlego, Callforma 92101. On March 6, 2020 I served the forfigoin document described asIDEFENDANT FCA US _LL ’ NOTICE CHE O on all 1nt_erested part1es 1n th1s actlon lfgyuenclosmg a true copy the original of them 1n an envelope addressed as o ows: Tionna Dolin, Esq. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF Strategic Legal Practices, APC ' ’ > 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430 Tel: 3 10- 929-4933 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Fax: 3 10- 943-3838 ' Email: tdolin@s1pattomey.com g BY MAIL (E.R.C.P. R_u_le 5£b1)(2)).: I served _the documents by p_1acin the envelope for_ (pollecjuon and ma111n o_ lowmg ou_r ordlnary bus1r_1ess practlces. _am readlly famlhar vy1_th the fum‘s us1ness practlce for _ collectm and rogessm doquments _for ma111_ng. On the same day the document; 1s p1ac_ed or col _ectlon an mallm , 1t ;s deposfled 1n the ordmayy course of-busmess yv1th the Umted States Postal erv1ce 1n a sealed envelopq w1th postage full prepald. I am aware.that on mot1on of the pa_rty served, serv1ce 1s presumed 1nva11 1f_the post_aL cancellatlon date or postage date 1s more than 1 day after the date of deposfl for ma111ng 1n affidav1t. Executed on March 6, 2020, at San Diego, California. (Federal) I deplarq thatI_ am employed in the office of a member of the bar of t 1s court at whose d1rect10n th1s serv1ce was made. SE‘elia €€avanaugh U 22129933v1 > 1 1 _ (DmNO5U1-thA NNNNNN NNNAAJAAAAAAA m N O3 U1 h OJ N -3 O (O m N O3 U'l -h (D'N -* o PROOF 0F SERVICE CCP 1013A(3) STATE 0F CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 0F SAN DIEGO I am employed in the County of San Diego, State of California. l am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 750 B Street, Suite 1740, San Diego, California 92101. . On March 11, 2020, I served the foregoing document described as NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT on all interested parties in this action by placin ( )the original (XX) true copy(ies) thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as fol ows: SEE ATTACHED'SERVICE LIST (XX) BY MAIL (CCP §1013(a) and §201 5.5): As follows: | served the documents by placing the envelope for collection and mailing following our ordinary business practices. | am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at San Diego, California in the ordinary course of business. | am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. g) BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERYINEXT DAY DELIVERY (CCP §1013(a) and 2015.5): l sealed such document(s in separate envelopes for each addressee and deposited each for collection and mai ing via overnight mail/next day delivery in a box or other facility regularly maintained by the U.S. Postal Service or an express service carrier, or delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the U.S. Postal Seryigedofr an express service carrier to receive documents, with delivery fees paid or provn e or. g ) BY FACSIMILE (CRC 2.306 and §2015.5): The document(s) were transmitted by acsimile transmission to each of the parties at the facsimile number(s) listed on the attached service/mailing, list and the transmission s) reported as complete and without error. The facsimile machine I used complied wit the California Rules of Court, Rule 2.306(9), and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to CRC, Rule 2.306(9), l caused the facsimile machine to print a transmission(s) record, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto. ( ) BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE (CCP 1010.6.(b)(6): Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, | caused the documents to be sent [Q Ehe addressees persons at the electronic notification listed on the Service/Mailing Is . ( ) BY PERSONAL SERVICE (CCP §1011 and §2015.5): | caused to be delivéred such envelope by hand to the addressee. 'Executed on March 11, 2020, at San Diego, California. (X) (State) l declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. ~ ~ $445M”; WW a'ny wakins 22161580v1 3 NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT OQNOU'IAOONA N N N N M N 'N N N _\ _\ _\ A _x _\ A ._L _\ .x m N O) U1 ¥ OD N -3 O CO m V O) U'l A 00 N -* O SERVICEIMAILING LIST Federico Magana v. FCA US LLC, et al. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No: 20$TCV04385 Tionna Dolin, Esq. STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90067 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF Tel: 310/ 929-4900 Fax: 310/ 943-3838 Email: tdolin@sLQattornev.com -22161580v1 . 4 NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT THE DOCUMENT T0 WHICH THIS CER TIFICATE IS ATTACHED IS A FU TRUE, AND CO RRECT COPY ‘ 'Y THIS OFFICE
