Arcuri v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company et al

Filing 29

ORDER Granting 7 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 10/16/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: 8th Judicial District Court - EDS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

PAIGE ANN ARCURI,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE )
INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation;
)
FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, a
)
corporation; MID-CENTURY INSURANCE )
COMPANY, a corporation; DOES 1 through )
10, inclusive, and ROE CORPORATIONS 1 )
through 10, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 2:13-cv-00416-GMN-NJK
ORDER

12
Pending before the Court is the Motion to Remand to State Court (ECF No. 7) filed by

13
14

Plaintiff Paige Ann Arcuri. Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

15

(“Defendant”) filed a Response on April 1, 2013. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff did not file a Reply

16

and the deadline to file a Reply has passed. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS

17

Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.

18

I.

19

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff originally filed her complaint in state court alleging that Defendant failed to

20

honor her uninsured/underinsured motorist (“UIM”) policy. (Compl., ECF No. 1-1.).

21

Subsequently, Defendant removed the action to this Court asserting that this Court has original

22

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). (Pet. for Removal 2:4-5, ECF No. 1.) Specifically,

23

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff is domiciled in Nevada and that Defendant is domiciled in

24

Illinois. (Id. at 2:11-12.) Defendant further states that “[t]he contractual limits of the policies

25

alone are sufficient to exceed the jurisdictional limit” and “[i]t is clear that Plaintiff is seeking

Page 1 of 5

1

punitive damages in excess of $75,000.” (Id. at 2:22-27.)

2

On March 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand to State Court. (Mot. to Remand,

3

ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has failed to carry its burden of proving by a

4

preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limit

5

(Id. at 5:11-13) and “[h]as failed to proffer any evidence to support its contention that the value

6

of this case exceeds $75,000.” (Id. at 6:1-2.) Furthermore, Plaintiff asserts “Farmers and/or

7

Mid-Century has taken the position that Plaintiff’s UIM [uninsured/underinsured motorist]

8

claim has a value of $8,301.05, and State Farm has taken the position that Plaintiff’s UIM claim

9

has a zero value after taking into consideration the $15,000 offset already received.” (Id. at

10

3:16-18.)

11

II.

12

LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only those powers granted

13

by the Constitution and by statute. See United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 810 (9th Cir.

14

2008). For this reason, “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court

15

lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

16

A defendant may remove an action to federal court only if the district court has original

17

jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “Removal statutes are to be ‘strictly

18

construed’ against removal jurisdiction.” Nevada v. Bank of America Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 667

19

(9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002)). The

20

party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of overcoming the presumption against

21

federal jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

22

Specifically, federal courts must reject federal jurisdiction “[i]f there is any doubt as to the right

23

of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); see also

24

Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam)

25

(noting that “[w]here it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in

Page 2 of 5

1

controversy, the removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the

2

amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold”).

3

District courts have subject matter jurisdiction in two instances. First, district courts

4

have subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions that arise under federal law. 28 U.S.C.

5

§ 1331. Second, district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions where no

6

plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as a defendant and the amount in controversy exceeds

7

$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

8

III.

9

DISCUSSION
In this case, Defendant based its removal of this action solely on diversity of citizenship

10

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). However, Defendant has failed to carry its burden of

11

establishing that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Neither party disputes

12

that the complete diversity requirement is satisfied. However, Defendant failed to show, by a

13

preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

14

In response to Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendant asserts that the amount in controversy is

15

met by the fact that “Ms. Arcuri demanded settlement in the sum of $50,000.00 from Mid-

16

Century Insurance prior to litigation, and also demanded settlement in the sum of $25,000.00

17

from State Farm, as well as $2,000.00 in medical payments coverage under the alleged

18

applicable terms for such coverage.” (Resp. to Mot. to Remand, ECF No. 10 at 6:8-11.)

19

However, these demands are not present on the face of the complaint. In the complaint,

20

Plaintiff seeks general damages in excess of $10,000.00, special damages, punitive damages in

21

excess of $10,000.00, and attorney’s fees. (Compl., ECF No. 1-1 at 10:4-8.) Defendant also

22

references the Plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages as an additional factor to take into

23

consideration.

24
25

In line with the presumption against removal jurisdiction, the Ninth Circuit has held that
a bare assertion of the amount in controversy, devoid of any indication from the face of the

Page 3 of 5

1

complaint, is not enough to establish federal jurisdiction. See Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1091. In

2

Matheson, the complaint sought “in excess of $10,000 for economic loss, ‘in excess’ of

3

$10,000 for emotional distress, and ‘in excess’ of $10,000 for punitive damages.” Id. However,

4

the complaint did not specify how much “in excess” the plaintiff was seeking. Id. Accordingly,

5

the court held that this assertion alone was insufficient to find that the defendant “made the

6

required showing of the amount in controversy.” Id.

7

Here, the request for relief contained in the Plaintiff’s complaint closely mirrors that

8

found in Matheson. Id. In Matheson, the Plaintiff asked for at least $30,000.00, well below the

9

jurisdictional amount. Id. The Plaintiff here seeks at least $20,000.00, even farther below the

10

jurisdictional minimum. Therefore, it is doubtful that removal was appropriate in the first

11

instance.

12

Defendant also attempted to carry its burden by alleging that “Plaintiff’s counsel refused

13

to stipulate that the value of the case did not exceed $75,000.” (Resp. to Mot. to Remand, ECF

14

No. 10 at 6:13-14.) This argument is also unpersuasive. Defendant fails to provide any legal

15

authority that permits such a conclusion from a failure to so stipulate. In fact, many district

16

courts within this circuit have declined to consider a refusal to stipulate to damages below the

17

jurisdictional amount when determining whether the amount in controversy requirement is met.

18

See, e.g., Soriano v. USAA Ins. Agency, Inc., No. 3:09-cv-00661-RCJ-RAM, 2010 WL 2609045

19

(D. Nev. June 24, 2010); Conrad Assocs. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 994 F. Supp. 1196,

20

1199 (N.D. Cal. 1998).

21

For the reasons discussed above, Defendant has failed to carry its burden of proving by a

22

preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Accordingly,

23

this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and the case must be

24

remanded to state court.

25

Page 4 of 5

1

IV.

CONCLUSION

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Remand is GRANTED and this case is

3

hereby remanded to the Eighth Judicial District Court. The Clerk of the Court shall remand this

4

case back to state court and thereafter close this court’s case.

5
6

October
DATED this 16th day of _____________, 2013.

7
8
9
10
11

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 5 of 5