Romero et al v. Mendota Insurance Company et al
Filing
14
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 8 Motion to Remand to State Court. The Clerk of Court is directed to remand this action back to Maricopa County Superior Court and terminate this action. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and costs is DENIED. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 11/16/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Remand Letter) (ATD)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Ray Romero, et al.,
No. CV-16-03149-PHX-GMS
Plaintiffs,
10
ORDER
11
v.
12
Mendota Insurance Company, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
16
17
18
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, (Doc. 8). For the
following reasons the Court remands this action back to state court.
BACKGROUND
19
Plaintiffs Ray Romero and Jacquelyn Romero (“Romeros”) filed a breach of
20
contract action against their insurance carrier, Defendant Mendota Insurance Company,
21
(“Mendota”), on August 11, 2016 in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona. (Doc. 1-
22
1.) The Romeros were covered under an automobile insurance policy by Mendota that
23
included uninsured motorist coverage with limits of $25,000/50,000. (Doc. 1-1 at 3.) In
24
October of 2015, the Romeros were hit by a hit and run driver. (Id. at 2.) They incurred
25
medical expenses, lost wages, and other damages from the incident.
26
Romeros allege that Mendota’s failure to process their claims from this incident
27
constitutes a breach of their contract, and a breach of its duty of good faith and fair
28
dealing. (Id.) The Complaint does not allege any federal law claims. (Doc. 1-1.)
(Id. at 3.) The
1
Mendota filed a Notice of Removal based on diversity jurisdiction on September
2
9, 2016. (Doc 1.) It is uncontested that Mendota is a foreign corporation operating in
3
Arizona and the Romeros are Arizona citizens. (Doc. 1-1 at 1.) The Romeros’ Complaint
4
does not list a specific amount of damages, but it does request compensatory as well as
5
punitive damages. (Id.) According to their motion, “both Plaintiffs incurred a little less
6
than $8,000 in medical treatment.” (Doc. 8 at 1.) The Romeros also certified that their
7
claims are not subject to compulsory arbitration under the Arizona Rules of Civil
8
Procedure because the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000. (Doc. 1-3 at 2.)
9
Romeros filed this Motion to Remand based on the premise that the Defendant cannot
10
establish that the amount in controversy requirement is met, and that they are entitled to
11
their costs incurred during the removal. (Doc. 8.)
12
13
The
DISCUSSION
I.
Legal Standard
14
Pursuant to the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, any civil action brought in state
15
court over which the federal district courts have original jurisdiction may be removed to
16
the federal district court for the district where the action is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
17
Courts strictly construe the statute against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,
18
980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). There is a “strong presumption” against removal and
19
“[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in
20
the first instance.” Id. “The ‘strong presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means
21
that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Id. “If
22
at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter
23
jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”
24
Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Where doubt
25
regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.”).
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see Matheson v.
26
Where a complaint does not demand a specific dollar amount, the defendant
27
“bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in
28
controversy exceeds [$75,000].” Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398,
-2-
1
404 (9th Cir. 1996); see Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090 (“Where it is not facially evident
2
from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in controversy, the removing party must
3
prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy meets the
4
jurisdictional threshold.”).
5
establishing that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the amount in controversy exceeds
6
[$75,000].” Sanchez, 102 F.3d at 404; see Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566–67 (“If it is unclear
7
what amount of damages the plaintiff has sought. . . then the defendant bears the burden
8
of actually proving the facts to support jurisdiction, including the jurisdictional amount.”)
9
(emphasis in original); McNutt v. GM Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298 U.S. 178, 189
10
(1936) (“[T]he court may demand that the party alleging jurisdiction justify his
11
allegations by a preponderance of evidence.”).
12
13
14
II.
To meet its burden, Defendant “must provide evidence
Defendant Did Not Provide Sufficient Evidence to Illustrate That it is More
Likely Than Not that the Amount in Controversy Exceeds $75,000, and Thus
This Case Must be Remanded.
15
In order to successfully remove a lawsuit to federal court, the defendant must
16
“provide evidence establishing that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the amount in
17
18
controversy exceeds [$75,000].” Sanchez, 102 F.3d at 404. This standard requires the
19
defendant to present specific facts in support of jurisdiction rather than relying on
20
conclusory allegations. See Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090–91 (“Conclusory allegations as
21
to the amount in controversy are insufficient.”).
22
23
A defendant must point to “the underlying facts supporting its assertion that” the
24
amount-in-controversy requirement is met. Gaus, 980 F.2d at 567 (emphasis in original).
25
Therefore, the “amount-in-controversy inquiry in the removal context is not confined to
26
27
28
the face of the complaint.” Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir.
2004). Defendants may submit “facts presented in the removal petition as well as any
-3-
1
2
summary judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of the
removal.” Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090 (internal quotations omitted). Such evidence may
3
4
5
6
include a settlement letter or a judicial admission by the plaintiff. See Cohn v. Petsmart,
Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2002) (“A settlement letter is relevant evidence of the
amount in controversy if it appears to reflect a reasonable estimate of the plaintiff's
7
8
claim.”); Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 376 (9th Cir. 1997)
9
(accepting a plaintiff’s judicial admission as evidence of the amount in controversy).
10
This is not a light burden for the defense, and “[w]here doubt regarding the right to
11
12
removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.” Matheson, 319 F.3d 1089,
13
1090 (9th Cir. 2003). In Matheson, the Ninth Circuit found that the fact that a plaintiff
14
made three separate claims for damages in excess of $10,000 was insufficient to illustrate
15
that the total amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Id. at 1091. The Ninth Circuit
16
17
18
19
explained that “how much ‘in excess’ is not explained,” and that without additional facts
it could not determine that the amount in controversy requirement was met.
Id.
Likewise, in Valdez, the Ninth Circuit held that a plaintiff’s request for general damages
20
21
in excess of $50,000 as well as an undisclosed amount of punitive damages was
22
insufficient to establish that the amount in controversy requirement was met. Valdez, 372
23
F.3d at 1117.
24
25
Defendant Mendota did not establish that the amount in controversy requirement
26
is met, and thus this case is remanded back to the state courts. The Romeros’ policy had
27
a $50,000 limit, and they certified that the claim was worth more than $50,000. (Doc. 1-
28
1 at 3; Doc. 1 at 3.) However, beyond this, Mendota failed to allege specific facts to
-4-
1
2
support its conclusory assertion that it is more likely than not that there is a “reasonable
inference” that the “amount in controversy exceeds the sum of [$]75,000.” (Doc. 1 at 3.)
3
Because “doubt regarding the right to removal exists,” this case will be remanded
4
5
6
back to state court. Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th
Cir. 2003). The Romeros assert that they each incurred a “little less than 8,000 dollars in
7
8
medical treatment.” (Doc. 8 at 1.) They did certify that their claims were in excess of
9
$50,000, but as in Matheson, it is unclear “how much ‘in excess.’ ” Matheson, 319 F.3d
10
at 1091. Given the relatively low amount of their medical expenses, it does not seem
11
12
likely that the total award would be over $25,000 in excess of $50,000. Therefore, in the
13
face of “doubt regarding the right to removal,” this case is remanded back to the Superior
14
State Court of Arizona. Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090.
15
III.
The Romeros’ Request for Costs is Denied.
16
17
18
19
Pursuant to § 1447(c), costs “incurred as a result of the removal” may be awarded
to a plaintiff following an improper removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). However, “[a]bsent
unusual circumstances, courts may award attorney's fees under § 1447(c) only where the
20
21
removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin v.
22
Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). Awarding costs for removal is the
23
exception, not the rule. See id. (“If fee shifting were automatic, defendants might choose
24
25
to exercise this right only in cases where the right to remove was obvious.”). A decision
26
to award fees under § 1447(c) “should recognize the desire to deter removals sought for
27
the purpose of prolonging litigation and imposing costs on the opposing party, while not
28
undermining Congress’ basic decision to afford defendants a right to remove as a general
-5-
1
matter, when the statutory criteria are satisfied.” Id. at 140.
2
Defendant Mendota’s attempt to remove this case was not unreasonable, and thus
3
4
5
6
the Romeros’ request for costs is denied. The Romeros’ certified that this case was worth
more than $50,000. (Doc. 1 at 3.) They are seeking punitive damages, and there is a
chance that the ultimate resolution of this case exceeds $75,000.
(Doc. 1-1 at 5.)
7
8
Defendant Mendota did not allege sufficient facts to establish this by the preponderance
9
of the evidence, but that does not mean that its attempt to do so is unreasonable.
10
Furthermore, nothing in the record suggests that Defendant Mendota’s attempt to remove
11
12
13
this case was fueled by a desire to increase costs or prolong litigation. Therefore, the
Romeros’ request for fees is denied.
14
CONCLUSION
15
Defendant Mendota failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
16
17
18
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Therefore, this case must be remanded back
to the Superior Court of the State of Arizona.
19
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs Ray and Jacquelyn Romero’s
20
21
Motion to Remand (Doc. 8) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to remand
22
this action back to Maricopa County Superior Court and terminate this action.
23
///
24
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
-6-
1
2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and
costs is DENIED.
3
4
Dated this 16th day of November, 2016.
5
6
Honorable G. Murray Snow
United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?