Barrientos-Hernandez v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 6

ORDER Sua Sponte Remanding Case to State Court by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 4/15/13. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00936-CMA-BNB
JOSE BARRIENTOS-HERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT

This matter is before the Court sua sponte on the Notice of Removal filed by
Defendant American Family Mutual Insurance Company. (Doc. # 1.) For the reasons
that follow, the Court finds that Defendant has not established subject matter
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands the case to the District Court, Boulder
County, Colorado, for further proceedings.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Jose Barrientos-Hernandez initiated this action by filing a Complaint in
Colorado State court on January 11, 2013. (Doc. # 1-7.) Plaintiff served the Summons
and Complaint on Defendant on March 21, 2013. (See Doc. # 1.) Defendant filed
its Notice of Removal on April 11, 2013, asserting diversity jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Id.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD
In every case and at every stage of a proceeding, a federal court must “satisfy
itself of its own jurisdiction,” even if doing so requires sua sponte action. Citizens
Concerned for Separation of Church & State v. City & Ctny. of Denver, 628 F.2d 1289,
1301 (10th Cir. 1980); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (court may sua sponte remand an
action where “it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction”).
A defendant may remove a state civil action “to the district court of the United
States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending”
when the federal district court has original jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(a). District courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions where the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and
costs, and is between . . . of different States . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that such
jurisdiction exists. Montoya v. Chao, 296 F.3d 952, 955 (10th Cir. 2002). Thus, when
a defendant removes a case from state court asserting the existence of diversity
jurisdiction, the removing defendant must establish that the jurisdictional requirements
of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 have been satisfied. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 251 F.3d
1284, 1290 (10th Cir. 2001). A removing defendant must prove jurisdictional facts –
including that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 – by a Apreponderance of the
evidence.@ McPhail v. Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947, 953 (10th Cir. 2008). Although proof
that the amount in controversy requirement has been satisfied may arise in several

2

ways, see, e.g., id. at 954, conclusory assertions or outright speculations do not suffice,
see Tafoya v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. 08-cv-01656, 2009 WL 211661, at *2
(D. Colo. Jan. 28, 2009) (unpublished). Removal statutes are construed strictly, and
any doubts about the correctness of removal are resolved in favor of remand. Fajen v.
Found. Reserve Ins. Co., Inc., 683 F.2d 331, 333 (10th Cir. 1982). “Moreover, there is a
presumption against removal jurisdiction.” Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873
(10th Cir. 1995).
III. DISCUSSION
“Where a plaintiff has not instituted suit in federal court, ‘[t]here is a strong
presumption that the plaintiff has not claimed a large amount in order to confer
jurisdiction on a federal court . . . .’” Huffman v. Saul Holdings Ltd. P’ship, 194 F.3d
1072, 1079 (10th Cir. 1999) (quoting St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co.,
303 U.S. 283, 290 (1938)). “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.” Laughlin, 50 F.3d at 873. When a plaintiff=s alleged damages are
not specified in the complaint, as in this case, a removing defendant must establish by
a preponderance of the evidence the jurisdictional amount. See Martin, 251 F.3d at
1290.
In its Notice of Removal, Defendant asserts that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000. (See Doc. # 1.) In support of this assertion, Defendant cites only the
state court Civil Cover Sheet. (Id.) However, the law is firmly established in this district

3

that a civil cover sheet is not sufficient evidence to satisfy the amount in controversy
requirement. See, e.g., O’Neill v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. 10-cv-02183, 2010 WL
4038845, at *2 (D. Colo. Oct. 14, 2010) (unpublished) (collecting cases to support the
finding that “reliance solely on the civil cover sheet filed in state court to establish
jurisdictional amount is insufficient”). As such, the Court finds that Defendant has failed
to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
requirement is satisfied.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to
established the amount in controversy requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Therefore,
it is ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the District Court, Boulder County,
Colorado, for further proceedings.
DATED: April

15

, 2013
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

4