Beatrice Ward et al v. Allstate Insurance Company et al

Filing 14

ORDER REMANDING CIVIL ACTION TO SUPERIOR COURT by Judge R. Gary Klausner. The Court finds that Allstate has failed to satisfy its burden of showing diversity jurisdiction. Therefore, the above-entitled case is ordered REMANDED to the Superior Court for all further proceedings. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (bp)

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-2945-RGK (PJWx)

Title

BEATRICE WARD, et al v. ALLSTATE INS. CO., et al

Present: The
Honorable

Date

May 14, 2015

R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Sharon L. Williams (not present)

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CIVIL ACTION TO
SUPERIOR COURT

On April 21, 2015, Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”) removed this action from the Los
Angeles County Superior Court to the United States District Court, Central District of California on the
basis of diversity.
Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, et seq. The Ninth Circuit
has held unequivocally that the removal statute is construed strictly against removal. Ethridge v. Harbor
House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988). The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction
means that “the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles,
Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d
709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 264 F.3d
952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the case is
properly in federal court.”).
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. With regard to amount in controversy, 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).
Allstate asserts that the amount in controversy requirement is met because Plaintiff expressly
alleges that damages exceed $50,000, and further claims punitive damages and attorneys fees. In support
of its position, Allstate introduces the finding of another district court case that stated punitive damages
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2

would likely be substantial because of Allstate’s net worth. Also in support of its position, Allstate
further states that attorneys fees will likely be recoverable by both plaintiffs in this case. The Court finds
these facts insufficient to satisfy Allstate’s burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that
the amount in controversy requirement is met.
Allstate also argues that although Defendant James Cashman is a California citizen, he is
fraudulently joined, and should not be considered for purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction.
However, based on the face of the Complaint, it is not clear that Mr. Cashman was fraudulently joined.
Nor has Allstate met its burden of establishing fraudulent joinder.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Allstate has failed to satisfy its burden of showing
diversity jurisdiction. Therefore, the above-entitled case is ordered REMANDED to the Superior Court
for all further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2