Oppenheimer et al v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company

Filing 16

ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 07/30/2014. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01929-CMA-KMT
SHAUN OPPENHEIMER, and
DEBRA OPPENHEIMER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY 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 Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Co. has not
established this 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
This case concerns property damage sustained during the Black Forest Fire.
(Doc. # 3 at 2.) On June 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Colorado state court
alleging claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach
of contract, and statutory bad faith. (Id. at 2-5.) Defendant filed a Notice of Removal
on July 10, 2014, 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., 2009 WL 211661, at *2 (D. Colo. Jan. 28, 2009) (unpublished).
In the instant case, while Defendant asserts that the amount in controversy
exceeds $100,000 (Doc. # 1 at 3), Plaintiff, in her Complaint, did not specify a monetary
estimate of the damages it allegedly suffered (see Doc. # 3). Instead, Plaintiff merely
asks for “compensatory damages . . . [and] double damages . . . pursuant to C.R.S.
§ 10-3-1116.” (Id. at 6.) 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. # 1-8.) This Court has previously
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-

2

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)).
Defendant acknowledges that several federal courts in this district find it
impermissible to rely solely on the Civil Cover Sheet, yet asks this Court to view that
sheet as “evidence, in conjunction with Plaintiffs’ multitude of claims . . . , that the
amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.” (Doc. # 1 at 3.) The
Court declines Defendant’s request. It is clear from the allegations of the Complaint
that Defendant has been negotiating Plaintiff’s claims for several months. Plaintiffs
allege that Defendant “refused to pay the full proceeds of the Policy, although due
demand was made for proceeds to be paid in the amount sufficient to cover the
damaged property . . . .” (Doc. # 3 at 3.) Thus demands have been made, to which
Defendant has responded. Accordingly, it appears to this Court that Defendant is
on notice of the amounts claimed by Plaintiffs and, therefore, could have provided
evidence of that amount to meet its burden. Indeed, Defendant could have provided
this Court with information regarding the demand letters or provided affidavits regarding
the amount in controversy, both of which are often relied upon to establish the amount.
See Tejada, 2009 WL 2958727, at *1.
Here, 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

3

improper speculation.” Garner, 2011 WL 2463285, at *1 (citing Tafoya, 2009 WL
211661, at *2.) Thus, Defendant's Notice of Removal does not establish the requisite
jurisdictional amount by a preponderance of the evidence.
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: July

30

, 2014
BY THE COURT:

________________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

4