Wheeler v. United Financial Casualty Company

Filing 15

ORDER signed by District Judge Stanley A Bastian on 11/15/16 ORDERING that Plaintiff's Motion for Remand, ECF No. 6 , is DENIED; The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order and forward copies to counsel. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

AT SACRAMENTO

9
10 BETH WHEELER,
11

Plaintiff,

12

No. 2:16-cv-01875-SB

v.

ORDER DENYING

13 UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

14 COMPANY, individually and d/b/a

REMAND

15 Progressive, Progressive Insurance, and
16 Progressive.com; DOES 1 to 15,
17

Defendant.

18
19

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand, ECF No. 6. Defendant

20 removed this case from Shasta County Superior Court, Case No. 184800, to the
21 United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, on August 8,
22 2016. ECF No. 1. The matter was reassigned to this Court on October 3, 2016.
23 ECF No. 8. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
24
25

Facts
An overview of the facts demonstrates that on March 14, 2013, Plaintiff

26 was injured in an automobile collision with a vehicle driven by an individual
27 named Adam Lamar. ECF No. 1-1. Mr. Lamar carried $15,000 per person
28 liability insurance coverage for this accident. ECF No. 1-1. At all relevant times,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND + 1

1 Plaintiff was insured under a written policy of insurance from Defendant which
2 provided uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) insurance coverage. ECF No.
3 1-1.
After settling her claim with Mr. Lamar pursuant to the $15,000 policy

4

5 limit, Plaintiff pursued a UIM claim against Defendant. ECF No. 1-1. In her
6 Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s insurance adjuster mishandled her
7 claim by valuing her UIM claim at zero and later offering $1,000 in settlement.
8 ECF No. 1-1. Unable to resolve the UIM claim, the parties engaged in a binding
9 arbitration proceeding, whereby Plaintiff was awarded $39,855 total damages
10 less a $17,000 credit. ECF No. 1-1. The award consisted of damages for future
11 medical bills, past and future lost wages, and past and future pain and suffering.
12 ECF No. 1-1.
Dissatisfied with Defendant’s handling of her UIM claim, Plaintiff filed

13

14 the instant lawsuit in Shasta County Superior Court, asserting claims for breach
15 of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. ECF No. 116 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks general and compensatory damages including
17 damages for injuries arising from humiliation, mental anguish and loss of
18 enjoyment of life, non-economic damages, attorneys’ fees and other litigation
19 expenses, and punitive or exemplary damages. ECF No. 1-1. Pursuant to
20 California state law, Plaintiff does not assert a numerical value for damages
21 sought in her Complaint. However, Plaintiff’s Statement of Damages details her
22 claims for the following relief: (1) $200,000 for pain, suffering, and
23 inconvenience, (2) $100,000 for emotional distress, (3) $50,000 for future
24 medical expenses, and (4) punitive damages in the amount of $5,000,000, for a
25 total of $5,350,000 in monetary damages. ECF No. 1-1. Punitive damages are
26 recoverable in this case. See Lunsford v. Am. Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co., 18
27 F.3d 653, 656 (9th Cir. 1994).
28 //
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND + 2

1

On August 8, 2016, Defendant filed its Notice of Removal Under 28

2 U.S.C. § 1441(b), ECF No. 1, alleging that the District Court has diversity
3 jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s Notice
4 of Removal on August 10, 2016, claiming that the amount in controversy has not
5 been satisfied. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff’s opposition was stricken as procedurally
6 improper and Plaintiff was directed to file a properly noticed motion to remand.
7 ECF No. 4. Plaintiff filed her Motion to Remand on September 23, 2016. ECF
8 No. 6. Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion on the ground that the amount in
9 controversy has been satisfied. ECF No. 10. Diversity of citizenship between the
10 parties is not contested.
Analysis

11
12

The strong presumption against removal means that the defendant has the

13 burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that removal is
14 proper. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 28 U.S.C. §
15 1441(a) allows a defendant to remove a case from a state court to a federal
16 district court so long as the district court has “original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. §
17 1332(a)(1) grants subject matter jurisdiction to this Court when there is diversity
18 of citizenship of parties, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
19

In determining whether the removing party has satisfied its burden, the

20 Ninth Circuit has “endorsed the Fifth Circuit’s practice of considering facts
21 presented in the removal petition as well as any ‘summary-judgement-type
22 evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of removal.’”
23 Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003)
24 (quoting Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir.
25 1997)). Moreover, conclusory allegations regarding the amount in controversy
26 are insufficient. Id. at 1090-91.
27

Plaintiff has demanded damages in the amount of $5,350,000 as quantified

28 in her Statement of Damages. ECF No. 1. California courts consider Plaintiff’s
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND + 3

1 Statement of Damages a “serious estimate of the damages in a given case,” which
2 “carries more weight than a typical settlement demand or an informal
3 correspondence between the parties.” Surber v. Reliance Nat. Indem. Co., 110 F.
4 Supp. 2d 1227, 1230 (N.D. Cal. 2000). Although not binding for the purposes of
5 determining whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action,
6 multiple California district courts have found that a plaintiff’s Statement of
7 Damages, standing alone, constitutes sufficient evidence of the amount in
8 controversy. See e.g., Ortiz v. Sodexho, Inc., No., 2011 WL 3204842 (S.D. Cal.)
9 (citing Sanchez, 102 F.3d at 404) (stating Defendant carried its burden by
10 establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, the amount in controversy
11 when Plaintiff submitted its Statement of Damages for over $1,000,000); Subair
12 v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-01112-MCE-EFB, 2010 WL 2925074 (E.D.
13 Cal.).
14

Despite asserting that her damages are in excess of $5,000,000, Plaintiff

15 now contends that her initial estimate of damages was inaccurate and that she
16 would settle this matter in full for $65,000. However, Plaintiff is unwilling to
17 stipulate that the amount in controversy is less than the $75,000 threshold.
18 Plaintiff’s post-removal settlement contentions are immaterial. The Court is
19 directed to analyze the evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time
20 of removal. See Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090. As the Supreme Court has noted,
21 “events occurring subsequent to removal which reduce the amount recoverable,
22 whether beyond the plaintiff’s control or the result of his [or her] volition, do not
23 oust the district court’s jurisdiction once it has attached.” St. Paul Mercury
24 Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 293 (1938). “If plaintiff could, no
25 matter how bona fide his [or her] original claim in the state court, reduce the
26 amount of his [or her] demand to defeat federal jurisdiction, the defendant’s
27 supposed statutory right of removal would be subject to the plaintiff’s caprice.”
28 Id. at 294. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has “discouraged reliance on postORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND + 4

1 removal stipulations and affidavits” to establish the amount in controversy. See
2 Simmons v. PCR Tech., 209 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1033 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (citing St.
3 Paul Mercury Indemn. Co., 303 U.S. at 292). Consequently, the Court gives little
4 credence to Plaintiff’s post-removal statements and actions and finds that
5 Plaintiff’s claim for $5,350,000 satisfies the amount in controversy. 28 U.S.C. §
6 1332(a)(1).
7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

8

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand, ECF No. 6, is DENIED.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order

10 and forward copies to counsel.
11

DATED this 15th day of November, 2016.

12
13
14

_______________________________
Stanley A. Bastian
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND + 5