Kuxhausen v. BMW Financial Services NA LLC, No. 12-57330 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseThis case arose when plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Crevier Motors and BMW, asserting ten California causes of action. At issue was whether BMW timely removed this proposed class action involving Crevier, a California automobile dealership, to federal court by invoking the diversity jurisdiction provision of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). Because nothing in plaintiff's complaint indicated that the amount demanded by each putative class member exceeded $25,000, it fell short of triggering the removal clock under 28 U.S.C. 1446(b). The court rejected plaintiff's remaining arguments. Because BMW timely removed under section 1446(b), the court reversed the district court's remand of plaintiff's proposed class action to Orange County Superior Court. In light of that conclusion, the court did not decide whether to join the other circuits in recognizing a "revival exception," which according to BMW gave it another thirty days to remove when plaintiff expanded her suit from one strictly against Crevier to one against all California-BMW dealerships.
Court Description: Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The panel reversed the district court’s remand to state court of plaintiff’s proposed class action involving a BMW California automobile dealership. Plaintiff alleged that defendant’s removal was untimely because it was filed more than thirty days after the filing of the original state complaint. The panel held that because the amount in controversy was not sufficiently stated by the initial pleading, plaintiff had not pled all the facts necessary for diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, and therefore the removal clock under Section 1446(b) was not triggered. The panel noted that nothing in plaintiff’s complaint indicated the value, even as an approximation, of other class members’ vehicle financing contracts, and BMW was not obligated to supply information which plaintiff had omitted. The panel further held that in light of its conclusion that BMW timely removed under Section 1446(b), it had no occasion to decide whether to join other circuits in recognizing a “revival exception,” which according to BMW gave it another thirty days to remove when plaintiff expanded her suit from one strictly against a Southern California dealership to one against all California-BMW dealerships.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.