Kristi Bakken v. Hartford Insurance Company et al
Filing
14
ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner remanding case to Superior Court of California, Santa Monica, Case number SC120756 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 CV103 Letter) (shb)
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV13-8756-RGK (FFMx)
Title
KRISTI BAKKEN v. HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY
Present: The
Honorable
Date
January 7, 2014
R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Sharon L. Williams (Not Present)
Not Reported
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present
Not Present
Proceedings:
(IN CHAMBERS) Order Remanding Action to State Court
On May 17, 2013, Kristi Bakken (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Hartford Insurance
Company (“Defendant”) alleging claims for 1) Breach of Contract; and (2) Breach of Implied Covenant
of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.
On November 26, 2013, Defendant removed the action to this Court alleging jurisdiction on the
grounds of diversity of citizenship. Upon review of Defendant’s Notice of Removal, the Court hereby
remands the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, district courts shall have original jurisdiction over any civil action
in which the parties are citizens of different states and the action involves an amount in controversy that
exceeds $75,000. After a plaintiff files a case in state court, the defendant attempting to remove the case
to federal court bears the burden of proving the amount in controversy requirement has been met.
Lowdermilk v. United States Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2007). If the complaint does
not allege that the amount in controversy has been met, the removing defendant must supply this
jurisdictional fact in the Notice of Removal by a preponderance of the evidence. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980
F.2d 564, 566-567 (9th Cir. 1992).
In her Complaint, Plaintiff prays for damages arising out of an automobile accident with a
motorist that maintained automobile liability coverage of only $15,000 and medical expense coverage of
only $10,000. Plaintiff also seeks attorneys’ fees, prejudgment interest, and punitive damages. Because
Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege an ascertainable amount in controversy, Defendant must show the
minimum jurisdictional amount by a preponderance of the evidence. In its Notice of Removal,
Defendant states only generally that the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. This general statement
fails to satisfy Defendant’s burden of showing the requisite jurisdictional amount in controversy.
CV-90 (10/08)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
In light of the foregoing, the action is hereby remanded to state court for all further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (10/08)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2
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?