Duepner v. Government Employees Insurance Company et al

Filing 45

ORDER granting 39 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. The Clerk shall remand this case to Maricopa County Superior Court. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/10/2014. (See Order for details)(ALS)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

James Duepner,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

No. CV14-00244 PHX DGC
ORDER

v.
Government Employees Insurance
Company and GEICO Casualty Company,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand. Doc. 39. The motion is fully briefed, and

16

no party has requested oral argument. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant

17

the motion.

18

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, any civil action brought in state court over which the

19

federal district courts have original jurisdiction may be removed to the federal district

20

court for the district where the action is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). There is a “strong

21

presumption” against removal and “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any

22

doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564,

23

566 (9th Cir. 1992). “The ‘strong presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means that

24

the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Id. “If at

25

any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter

26

jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

27

Removal in this case was based on diversity jurisdiction and an amount in dispute

28

of more than $75,000. Where, as here, “the complaint does not demand a dollar amount,

1

the removing defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence

2

that the amount in controversy exceeds [$75,000].” Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

3

Co., 116 F.3d 373, 376 (9th Cir. 1997). To meet its burden, the defendant “must provide

4

evidence establishing that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the amount in controversy

5

exceeds [$75,000].” Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir.

6

1996).

7

Defendants argue that Plaintiff filed an offer of judgment with the complaint for

8

$199,960 and called defense counsel’s attention to a much higher bad faith judgment in

9

another state. Defendants also note that the complaint alleges egregious wrongs on the

10

part of Defendants.

11

Plaintiff notes that he has communicated an offer to settle this case for $70,000,

12

and asserts that he will serve an offer of judgment in this amount if the case is remanded

13

to state court. (Offers of judgment in federal court may be filed only by defendants. See

14

Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a).) In addition, Plaintiff notes that the actual loss from the vehicle

15

break-in in this case is less than $5,000.

16

It appears to the Court that this case is likely worth less than $75,000. The fact

17

that a high bad faith verdict has been entered in another state, that the complaint alleges

18

egregious wrongs, or even that Plaintiff initially demanded more than $75,000 do not

19

establish by a preponderance of the evidence that this case, which concerns personal

20

property lost from the break-in of a vehicle, in fact is worth more than $75,000. As noted

21

above, this Court should remand a matter to state court if there is any doubt about the

22

Court’s jurisdiction. The Court finds substantial doubt that the amount in controversy in

23

this case will exceed $75,000, and therefore will remand the case to state court. See

24

Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1118 (9th Cir. 2004) (“If the district court

25

determines that it is sufficiently doubtful that the amount-in-controversy requirement has

26

been met and thus that federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the district court

27

should . . . remand to state court”).

28

///
‐ 2 ‐ 

1
2
3

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. 39) is granted. The
Clerk shall remand this case to Maricopa County Superior Court.
Dated this 10th day of July, 2014.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
‐ 3 ‐