Stolkey v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC

United States District Court
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
DENNIS STOLKEY §
v. ; CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-3295-S
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC :
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC’s Amended Notice of Removal (“Amended
Notice of Removal”) [ECF No. 5]. The Court has reviewed and considered the Amended Notice
of Removal, the original Notice of Removal [ECF No. 1] and its attachments, including Plaintiff's
Original Petition (“Petition”) [ECF No. 1-2], and the applicable law. For the reasons that follow,
the Court sua sponte remands this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
1. BACKGROUND
According to the Petition, Plaintiff Dennis Stolkey leased a 2024 Mercedes-Benz GLS 600
4Matic from Park Place Motorcars Dallas. Pet. 17. The vehicle was covered by Defendant
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC’s written warranty. /d. 411. The dealership assigned its rights under
the warranty to Plaintiff when he leased the vehicle. /d. { 14. Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle
required repairs for the same defect four different times. Jd. [{ 20-21. When the repairs did not fix
the problem, Plaintiff attempted to revoke his acceptance of the vehicle, but Defendant refused his
demand. Id. [J 23-27. Plaintiff sued for breach of the written warranty and breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability. Jd. | 30-49. For both causes of action, Plaintiff seeks “[m]onetary
relief of $49,999 or less ..., which represents Plaintiffs actual damages,” unspecified
non-monetary relief, costs, and fees. Id. {§ 40, 49.
Case 3:25-cv-03295-S Document 6 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

Defendant removed to this Court, predicating federal subject-matter jurisdiction on
diversity of citizenship.! Notice of Removal 46. The Court identified defects in Defendant’s
jurisdictional allegations and ordered Defendant to file an amended notice of removal. Order,
Dec. 2, 2025 [ECF No. 4]. Defendant did so, and the Court now concludes that Defendant has not
met its burden to show that federal jurisdiction exists.
IL LEGAL STANDARD
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by
Constitution and statute.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). A federal court must presume that a case lies outside its limited jurisdiction, and
the party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the contrary. Energy Mgmt. Servs.,
LLC y. City of Alexandria, 739 F.3d 255, 257 (Sth Cir. 2014). The Court must examine its
jurisdiction sua sponte, Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012), and “[i]f at any time before
final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be
remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
The two principal bases upon which a district court may exercise jurisdiction are: (1) the
existence of a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) complete diversity of citizenship
among the parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Jurisdiction under Section 1332(a) requires both diversity
among the parties and an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000, excluding interest and costs.
Id.
“The amount in controversy is not proof of the amount the plaintiff will recover but an
estimate of the amount that will be put at issue in the course of the litigation.” Durbois v. Deutsche
' Defendant has not attempted to invoke federal jurisdiction under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15
U.S.C. § 2310, which Plaintiff cites in his Petition and which establishes federal jurisdiction over certain
breach-of-warranty claims where the amount in controversy is at least $50,000.
Case 3:25-cv-03295-S Document 6 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 37 F.Ath 1053, 1057 (5th Cir. 2022) (quotation marks omitted). In cases
removed on the basis of diversity, “the sum demanded in good faith in the initial pleading” is
ordinarily “deemed to be the amount in controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2). But where, as here,
the pleading does not demand a specific amount, “the removing defendant must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds” the jurisdictional
threshold. De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 11 F.3d 55, 58 (Sth Cir. 1993). The removing defendant may
do so in one of two ways: “(1) by establishing that it is “facially apparent’ that the claims are likely
to exceed $75,000, or (2) by setting forth the facts in controversy that support a finding of the
requisite amount.” Guijarro v. Enter. Holdings, Inc., 39 F Ath 309, 314 (Sth Cir. 2022).
Il. ANALYSIS
Defendant does not address Plaintiff's statements in the Petition that “the damages in this
matter are not greater than the $75,000 minimum amount in controversy” or that Plaintiff seeks
“{mJonetary relief of $49,999 or less.” Pet. [{ 6, 40, 49. Instead, Defendant asserts that the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000 because “Plaintiff states that he is seeking monetary relief that
includes revocation/rescission of a sales contract for the subject vehicle valued at $186,807” and
Plaintiff has made payments on the vehicle of over $100,000. Am. Notice of Removal § 2. But
Plaintiff is not seeking rescission or revocation of a contract; Plaintiff pleaded causes of action for
breach of warranty. Pet. {§[ 30-49. The two theories are mutually exclusive. Impact Finishing, Inc.
v. Wild Card, Inc., 713 F. Supp. 3d 322, 350 (N.D. Tex. 2024). Plaintiff, as master of his complaint,
may choose one or the other cause of action, even if his choice to pursue one over the other prevents
Defendant from invoking this Court’s jurisdiction. Royal Canin U. S. A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604
USS. 22, 35 (2025).
For breach-of-warranty claims governed by Texas law, like those raised by Plaintiff, “[t]he
measure of damages .. . is the difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of
Case 3:25-cv-03295-S Document 6 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted, unless special
circumstances show proximate damages of a different amount.” TEx. Bus. & CoM. CODE
§ 2.714(b). In other words, “Texas law allows recovery for the diminished value of the good caused
by the breach of warranty.” Scarlott vy. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 771 F.3d 883, 888 (Sth Cir. 2014). It
appears that the value of the vehicle, had it been as warranted, would have been $186,807 at the
time of acceptance. Am. Notice of Removal § 2. But Defendant presents no evidence or argument
from which the Court could determine the actual value of the allegedly defective vehicle. Without
evidence of the diminished value of the vehicle, the Court is unable to determine the amount in
controversy. See Scarlott, 771 F.3d at 890. Defendant therefore has not met its burden to establish
federal jurisdiction.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court REMANDS this case to the 68th Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED January 5, 2026.
MEL
KAREN GREN SCHOLER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-03295-S Document 6 Filed 01/05/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>