Seabron v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 5

ORDER OF REMAND. Due to this Court's lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, this case is remanded to the District Court for Denver County, Colorado, where it was originally filed as Case No. 2011-CV-2226. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 4/22/11. (mnf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01058-PAB
KATHLEEN SEABRON,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER OF REMAND
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on defendant’s Notice of Removal (“Notice”)
[Docket No. 1]. Defendant alleges that the Court has jurisdiction based on diversity of
citizenship and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000 as required by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a)(1). See Docket No. 1 at 2, ¶ 2. In support of the amount in controversy,
defendant relies exclusively on the state court civil cover sheet which “indicat[es] that
simplified rules of civil procedure do not apply because the Plaintiff is seeking more
than $100,000 in damages.” Docket No. 1 at 2, ¶ 4.
In every case and at every stage of the proceeding, a federal court must satisfy
itself as to its own jurisdiction, even if doing so requires sua sponte action. Citizens
Concerned for Separation of Church & State v. City & County of Denver, 628 F.2d
1289, 1297, 1301 (10th Cir. 1980). Absent an assurance that jurisdiction exists, a court
may not proceed in a case. See Cunningham v. BHP Petroleum Great Britain PLC, 427
F.3d 1238, 1245 (10th Cir. 2005). Courts are well-advised to raise the issue of

jurisdiction on their own, regardless of parties’ apparent acquiescence. First, it is the
Court’s duty to do so. See Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir. 1995)
(“[I]f the parties fail to raise the question of the existence of jurisdiction, the federal court
has the duty to raise and resolve the matter.”). Second, “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction
cannot be conferred or waived by consent, estoppel, or failure to challenge jurisdiction
early in the proceedings.” Laughlin, 50 F.3d at 873. Finally, delay in addressing the
issue only compounds the problem if it turns out that, despite much time and expense
having been dedicated to a case, a lack of jurisdiction causes it to be dismissed or
remanded regardless of the stage it has reached. See U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Pinkard
Const. Co., No. 09-cv-00491-PAB-MJW, 2009 WL 2338116, at *3 (D. Colo. July 28,
2009).
It is well established that “[t]he party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the
burden of establishing such jurisdiction as a threshold matter.” Radil v. Sanborn W.
Camps, Inc., 384 F.3d 1220, 1224 (10th Cir. 2004). Therefore, when a defendant
removes a case from state court asserting the existence of diversity jurisdiction, the
removing defendant has the burden of establishing that the jurisdictional prerequisites
of § 1332 have been satisfied. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 251 F.3d 1284, 1290
(10th Cir. 2001). Where uncertainties exist regarding the Court’s jurisdiction, those
uncertainties are resolved in favor of remand. Martin, 251 F.3d at 1290; see also
Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir. 1995) (“[T]here is a presumption
against removal jurisdiction.”).
If at any time, “a federal court determines that it is without subject matter

2

jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue.” Cunningham v. BHP Petroleum Great
Britain PLC, 427 F.3d 1238, 1245 (10th Cir. 2005). Where a case has been removed
from state court and a court determines any time prior to final judgment that jurisdiction
is lacking, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) mandates that the case be remanded to state court.
See McPhail v. Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947, 951 (10th Cir. 2008).
“Both the requisite amount in controversy and the existence of diversity must be
affirmatively established on the face of either the petition or the removal notice.”
Laughlin, 50 F.3d at 873. “The amount in controversy is ordinarily determined by the
allegations of the complaint, or, where they are not dispositive, by the allegations in the
notice of removal.” Martin, 251 F.3d at 1290 (quoting Laughlin, 50 F.3d at 873). When
the plaintiff’s damages are unspecified, the defendant must establish the jurisdictional
amount by a preponderance of the evidence. Martin, 251 F.3d at 1290.
Here, there is no specific dollar amount suggested by the complaint. Because
the complaint fails to establish a sufficient amount in controversy, I look to the Notice to
determine if defendant has “affirmatively established” the amount in controversy.
Laughlin, 50 F.3d at 873. The Notice, however, relies exclusively upon the state court
civil cover sheet in support of its allegation regarding the amount in controversy. See
Docket No. 1 at 2, ¶ 4 (citing Docket No. 1-3 at 2). It is firmly established in this District
that state court civil cover sheets indicating that a plaintiff is “seeking a monetary
judgment for more than $100,000 against another party” do not by themselves
affirmatively establish the amount in controversy. See Baker v. Sears Holdings Corp.,
557 F. Supp. 2d 1208, 1214 (D. Colo. 2007); Bauer v. Kipling, No.

3

10-cv-01615-WYD-MEH, 2010 WL 2867868, at *2 (D. Colo. July 21, 2010); Graff v.
Allergan, Inc., No. 10-cv-01296-CMA-BNB, 2010 WL 2400063, at *1 (D. Colo. June 14,
2010); Asbury v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. 08-cv-01522-REB-CBS, 2009 WL
310479, at *1-2 (D. Colo. Feb. 9, 2009).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that, due to this Court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, this case is
REMANDED to the District Court for Denver County, Colorado, where it was originally
filed as Case No. 2011-CV-2226

DATED April 22, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

4