Geannaris v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 6

ORDER granting 5 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 7/20/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CC: Certified Order and Docket Sheet mailed to State Court - SD)

Geannaris v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company

Doc. 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA *** ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

SANDI GEANNARIS, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

2:10-cv-0877-LRH-lrl ORDER

Before the court is plaintiff Sandi Geannaris's ("Geannaris") motion to remand filed on June 23, 2010. Doc. #5.1 Defendant American Family Mutual Insurance Company ("American") did not file an opposition to the motion. I. Facts and Procedural History On January 27, 2009, Geannaris was involved in an automobile accident that resulted in injuries requiring medical treatment. Geannaris was insured by American and had a $25,000 policy limit for medical expenses. American allegedly denied Geannaris coverage of her medical expenses. Subsequently, on May 6, 2010, Geannaris filed a complaint in the Eight Judicial District Court for the District of Nevada against American for breach of contract and bad faith. Doc. #1,

Refers to the court's docket entry number.

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Exhibit 2. American removed the action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Doc. #1. Thereafter, Geannaris filed the present motion to remand arguing that the amount in controversy has not been met. Doc. #5. II. Legal Standard Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, "any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A district court has original jurisdiction over civil actions where the suit is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $75,000.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In a diversity case, if a complaint does not specify the amount of damages, "the removing defendant bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $[75],000.00." Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). Removal of a case to a district court may be challenged by motion. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c). A federal court must remand a matter if there is a lack of jurisdiction. Id. Removal statutes are construed restrictively and in favor of remanding a case to state court. See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). III. Discussion Geannaris concedes that the parties are diverse for diversity jurisdiction, but argues that American's notice of removal is insufficient to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Geannaris's complaint only requests damages in excess of $10,000.00 as required under the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, Geannaris alleges that she only had a policy with American for coverage of medical expenses in the amount of $25,000. Therefore, the court finds that the amount in controversy has not been met and the 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

exercise of diversity jurisdiction is improper. Additionally, the failure of a party to file points and authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of that motion. LR 7-2(d). Here, American did not file an opposition to Geannaris's motion to remand. Accordingly, the court shall grant Geannaris's motion to remand.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to remand (Doc. #5) is GRANTED. The present action, 2:10-cv-0877-LRH-LRL, is REMANDED to the Eight Judicial District Court for the District of Nevada. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 20th day of July, 2010.

__________________________________ LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3