Wright v. AMCO Insurance Company
Filing
19
ORDER remanding case to the District Court, El Paso County, Colorado, by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 9/19/13. (dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01881-CMA-BNB
NELLIE WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. For the reasons discussed below,
the Court concludes that Defendant AMCO Insurance Co. has not established the
Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this case. As such, the Court remands this case
to the District Court, El Paso County, Colorado, for further proceedings.
I. BACKGROUND
On or about July 20, 2012, Plaintiff Nellie Wright was involved in a motor vehicle
accident with an uninsured motorist. (Doc. # 5 at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that she filed a
claim under the uninsured motorist coverage provision of her insurance policy with
Defendant. (Id.) On June 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Colorado state court
alleging claims for breach of contract, bad faith, and a statutory claim under Colo. Rev.
Stat. § 10-3-1116. (Doc. # 5 at 3-4.) Defendant filed a Notice of Removal on July 15,
2013, alleging diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. # 1.)
II. DISCUSSION
Section 1332(a) sets forth two requirements for diversity jurisdiction: (1) an
“amount in controversy [that] exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 exclusive of interest
and costs” and (2) diversity of citizenship between the parties. 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). A removing defendant
must prove jurisdictional facts by a “preponderance of the evidence,” including that the
amount in controversy may exceed $75,000. McPhail v. Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947,
953 (10th Cir. 2008). Such proof may arise in a variety of ways, see id. at 954, but
conclusory assertions or outright speculation do not suffice, Tafoya v. American Family
Mutual Insurance Co., No. 08–cv–01656, 2009 WL 211661, at *2 (D. Colo. Jan. 28,
2009) (unpublished).
In the instant case, while Defendant asserts that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000 (Doc. # 1 at 3), Plaintiff, in her Complaint, did not specify a monetary
estimate of the damages it allegedly suffered (see Doc. # 5 at 4-5). Instead, Plaintiff
merely asks for “general damages, economic damages, all statutory and necessary
costs . . . and further relief as this Court shall deem proper, just and appropriate under
the circumstance.” (Id.) The sole instance of Plaintiff’s estimate of damages is found
on the state court Civil Cover Sheet accompanying Plaintiff’s Complaint, which includes
a check-marked box indicating that Plaintiff is seeking a monetary judgment for more
than $100,000.00 against Defendant. (Doc. # 1-3.) This Court has previously
2
addressed the evidentiary value, or lack thereof, of the state court Civil Cover Sheet
in, for example, Garner v. Vaki, No. 11-cv-01283, 2011 WL 2463285, at *1 (D. Colo.
June 21, 2011) (unpublished), and Tejada v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Co.,
No. 09-cv-02096, 2009 WL 2958727, at *1 (D. Colo. Sept. 10, 2009) (unpublished).
In both Garner and Tejada, the Court stated that “the Colorado Civil Cover Sheet,
by itself, does not establish the requisite amount in controversy to sustain diversity
jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Baker v. Sears Holding Corp., 557 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (D. Colo.
2007)).
Other sources of evidence often relied on to establish the amount in controversy,
including “interrogatories obtained in state court before the notice of removal was filed,
a proposed settlement amount, or affidavits,” are not present in this case. See Tejada,
2009 WL 2958727, at *1. As such, there is insufficient evidence that the value of this
action exceeds the amount in controversy requirement of $75,000. Any attempt by the
Court to calculate the potential amount of damages “would simply be guesswork and,
thus, amount to improper speculation.” Garner, 2011 WL 2463285, at *1 (citing Tafoya,
2009 WL 211661, at *2.) Thus, the Court concludes that Defendant's Notice of Removal
does not establish the requisite jurisdictional amount by a preponderance of the
evidence.
3
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is REMANDED
to the District Court, El Paso County, Colorado, for further proceedings.
DATED: September
19
, 2013
BY THE COURT:
________________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge
4
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?