Annis Webb v. Life Insurance Company of North America et al

Filing 10

MINUTE OF (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT by Judge S. James Otero. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action and REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. This action shall close. Remanding case to Los Angeles Superior Court, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Case number BC486420 Case Terminated. Made JS-6, (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (sch)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
cc: Los Angeles Superior
Court, case No. BC486420: order, docket and remand letter
DATE: August 1, 2012

CASE NO.: CV 12-06180 SJO (JCx)
TITLE:

Priority
Send
Enter
Closed
JS-5/JS-6
Scan Only

Annis Webb v. Life Insurance Company of North America, et al.

========================================================================
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Victor Paul Cruz
Courtroom Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

COUNSEL PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:

COUNSEL PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

Not Present

Not Present

========================================================================
PROCEEDINGS (in chambers): ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT [Docket
No. 1]
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Life Insurance Company of North America's
("Defendant") Notice of Removal filed on July 18, 2012. Defendant removed the action pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 based on diversity jurisdiction. For the following reasons, the Court
REMANDS this action to Los Angeles County Superior Court.
I.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Cheryl Gollnick ("Plaintiff") filed the Complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court on
June 13, 2012. (See Notice of Removal ("Notice") Ex. A ("Compl."), July 18, 2012, ECF No. 1.)
The Complaint sets forth the following allegations. After undergoing knee replacement surgery,
Plaintiff began to experience chronic pain in her right hip area. (Compl. ¶ 18.) Due to the chronic
pain, Plaintiff could not perform her duties as a warrant specialist for the Sheriff's Department in
the County of Bernalillo, New Mexico. (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 15-16.)
Plaintiff submitted a disability claim to Defendant for payment under the terms of the Disability
Income Policy, Policy Number SLK-030001 (the "Policy"), issued by Defendant to the County of
Bernalillo, Plaintiff's employer. (Compl. ¶ 12.) Under the Policy, an employee is entitled to the
lesser of 50% of an employee's weekly covered earnings or the maximum disability benefit,
reduced by any other income benefits. (Compl. ¶ 13.) Defendant refused to pay the benefits to
which Plaintiff believes she is entitled. As a result, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit alleging two
causes of action: (1) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; and (2) breach of contract.
(See generally Compl.) Other than providing the maximum disability benefit amount an employee
may be eligible for, which is $10,000 per month after 6 months of disability (Compl. ¶ 13), the
Complaint does not set forth numerical figures to suggest how much money is at stake in this
action (see generally Compl.).

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL GEN

:
Page 1 of

4

Initials of Preparer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

DATE: August 1, 2012

CASE NO.: CV 12-06180 SJO (JCx)
II.

DISCUSSION

A defendant may remove an action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See
28 U.S.C. § 1441. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity and an amount in controversy
exceeding $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
A.

Sua Sponte Consideration of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The Court raises the issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. "If 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 Ninth Circuit has specifically held that "a court may raise
the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the
action, even on appeal." Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002). As such, the
Court finds it appropriate to determine whether jurisdiction exists.
B.

Complete Diversity

A person is a citizen of the state where he or she is domiciled. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert
Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2011). In the Notice of Removal, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff
is a citizen of New Mexico because she resides in Albuquerque, New Mexico. (Notice ¶ 4.)
Because a person's residence can be prima facie evidence of citizenship, State Farm Mut. Auto.
Ins. Co. v. Dyer, 19 F.3d 514, 520 (10th Cir. 1994), the Court accepts that Plaintiff is a citizen of
New Mexico for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
"[A] corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has
been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of
business . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Defendant is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal
place of business in Pennsylvania. (Notice ¶ 5.) Nothing in the record contradicts this assertion
and the Court finds no evidence outside the record. Therefore, Defendant is a citizen of
Pennsylvania.
Because Plaintiff and Defendant do not share citizenship with each other, complete diversity
exists.
C.

Amount-in-Controversy Requirement

The Ninth Circuit "strictly construe[s] the removal statute against removal jurisdiction." Gaus v.
Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). This "strong presumption" against removal to
federal court means that "the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is
proper." Id. (citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir.
1990)). For removal based on diversity jurisdiction, the removing party has the burden of showing
that "the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and
costs." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). "Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than
Page 2 of

4

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

DATE: August 1, 2012

CASE NO.: CV 12-06180 SJO (JCx)

$75,000 is in controversy, the removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold." Matheson v. Progressive
Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003); accord Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372
F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). The removing party "need[s] to provide evidence establishing
that it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeds that amount." Valdez, 372
F.3d at 1117 (internal quotation marks omitted). Courts may consider facts "presented in the
removal petition as well as any 'summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in
controversy at the time of removal.'" Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090 (quoting Singer v. State Farm
Mut. Auto Ins., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997)).
It is not facially evident from the Complaint that more than $75,000 is in controversy. In the
Complaint, Plaintiff requests compensatory damages, including lost benefits, damages for mental
and emotional distress, exemplary damages, and attorneys' fees, in amounts to be proven at trial.
(See generally Compl.) Plaintiff has not provided records of her covered earnings, nor has she
provided any other monetary figures or general facts from which the Court could infer an amount
in controversy. Because it is not facially evident from the Complaint that more than $75,000 is at
issue, Defendant has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090.
"Conclusory allegations as to the amount in controversy are insufficient." Id. at 1090-91.
Defendant must provide "the underlying facts supporting its assertion that the amount in
controversy exceeds [the statutory minimum]." See Gaus, 980 F.2d at 567. In the instant case,
Defendant has failed to provide any facts justifying its assertion that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000. (Notice ¶ 4.) Defendant avers that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000
because Plaintiff seeks past disability insurance benefits from January 25, 2011, as well as "bad
faith" damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. (Notice ¶ 3.) Such assertions do not
satisfy Defendant's burden to prove the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the
evidence. Defendant, as Plaintiff's insurer, has access to the maximum amount of disability
benefits Plaintiff could be awarded; Defendant could have at least calculated for the Court
Plaintiff's alleged lost benefits to date. Defendant has not attempted to place any numerical value
on Plaintiff's claim for lost benefits, nor has Defendant attempted to place a value on any of the
other relief Plaintiff seeks.
Defendant's unsupported allegation that Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $75,000 is
insufficient to establish that it is more likely than not that the amount-in-controversy requirement
is met. Defendant has failed to meet its burden of establishing jurisdiction. The Court remands
the action.
///
///
///

Page 3 of

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

DATE: August 1, 2012

CASE NO.: CV 12-06180 SJO (JCx)
III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action
and REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. This action
shall close.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 4 of

4