Case Explained: NAVAPEREZ, ET AL. V. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-10

Docket: 8:25-cv-00720-DOC-DFM

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s sua sponte order remanding the case to state court, holding that the district court erred in concluding Nissan failed to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction. Under the standard established in *Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens*, a defendant’s notice of removal need only include a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000; this allegation is accepted unless contested or questioned by the court. If questioned, the district court must provide the defendant a fair opportunity to submit evidence proving the threshold is met by a preponderance of the evidence. The court reasoned that Nissan’s notice plausibly alleged an amount exceeding $75,000 by combining estimated actual damages ($36,344.48), potential civil penalties up to double that amount, and conservative estimates for attorneys’ fees ($15,000). The Ninth Circuit clarified that the amount in controversy encompasses all relief a court may grant, including compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees awarded under fee-shifting statutes like California Civil Code § 1794(d). By excluding these elements as “speculative” without affording Nissan an opportunity to present proof, the district court violated procedural requirements. Consequently, the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, allowing Nissan to demonstrate that the total potential liability exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.