Nguyen v. AAA Northern California Nevada & Utah Insurance Exchange

Filing 16

ORDER Remanding Case to State Court. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 06/18/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CC: Certified Copy of Order and Docket Sheet Sent to State Court - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8

VAN NGUYEN,

9
10
11
12
13
14

2:13-CV-632 JCM (GWF)

Plaintiff(s),
v.
AAA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
NEVADA & UTAH INSURANCE
EXCHANGE, et al.,
Defendant(s).

15
16
17
18

ORDER
Presently before the court is the matter of Nguyen v. AAA Northern California Nevada &
Utah Insurance Exchange, case number 2:13-cv-00632-JCM-GWF.

19

Defendant removed this action from state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Defendant

20

cited this court’s diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as the basis for removal. Plaintiff is a

21

Nevada citizen, defendant is a California citizen, and the three causes of action are all state common

22

law causes of action.

23

After reviewing the petition for removal and the statement regarding removal, this court

24

issued an order to show cause why this case should not be sua sponte remanded back to state court.

25

(Doc. # 12). After reviewing the relevant documents, this court was unconvinced the amount in

26

controversy exceeded $75,000, and ordered defendant to file supplemental briefing on the issue.

27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Defendant filed a supplemental briefing. (See doc. # 14). After reviewing the supplement,

2

the court finds remand is appropriate because it does not have jurisdiction for the reasons stated

3

infra.

4

There is a strong presumption against diversity jurisdiction, especially in removal cases, and

5

federal jurisdiction “must be rejected if there is any doubt as the to the right of removal...” Gaus v.

6

Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d

7

1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)). The burden of proof for removal is on the defendant. See Gaus, 980

8

F.2d at 566 (citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 (9th Cir. 1990)).

9

Finally, “when the plaintiff fails to plead a specific amount of damages,” such as in this case, “the

10

defendant seeking removal must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in

11

controversy requirement has been met.” Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank National Ass’n., 479 F.3d 994,

12

998 (9th Cir. 2007).

13

It is true that plaintiff initially demanded the $100,000 policy limit in this case. However,

14

this initial demand (that exceeds the minimum amount of controversy requirement) is overcome by

15

two subsequent developments. First, plaintiff offered to settle the entire case for $45,000, and the

16

defendant rejected that offer. The court infers that defendant rejected this settlement offer because

17

defendant values this lawsuit at less than $45,000 and not more than $45,000. Second, defendant

18

has represented that the parties are contemplating binding arbitration in this case with an award

19

capped at $70,000.

20
21

A preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the minimum amount in controversy is
not satisfied and that this court does not have jurisdiction.

22

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the matter of Nguyen v.

23

AAA Northern California & Utah Insurance Exchange, case number 2:13-cv-00632-JCM-GWF, be

24

remanded back to state court.

25

DATED June 18, 2013.

26
27
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-