Casas v. Geico Indemnity Company
Filing
17
ORDER Granting 11 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Casas request for attorneys fees is DENIED. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 12/04/2013. (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
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
Mario Casas, Jr.,
Case No.: 2:13-cv-1567-JAD-CWH
11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
Order Granting Motion to Remand
[Doc. 11]
Geico Indemnity Company,
Defendant.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
On July 11, 2013, Plaintiff Mario Casas, Jr. sued Defendant Geico Indemnity
Company in Nevada State Court, alleging that on June 8, 2012, through no fault of his own,
he sustained personal injuries in an automobile accident, for which Geico, his insurer, was
obligated to compensate him. Doc. 1 at 8. Casas claims that his policy provided uninsured
and underinsured motorist coverage of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per occurrence. See
id. His medical bills from the accident allegedly totaled $16,067 at the time he filed the
Complaint, and he continues to incur expenses. See id. at 8-9. Casas sued Geico for breach
of contract (Count 1), alleging that he had suffered damages “in a sum in excess of $10,000.”
Id. at 11. He also alleges that Geico breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing (Count 2), violated Nevada insurance trade practices (Count 3), and was unjustly
enriched by the coverage denial (Count 5), alleging damages in excess of $10,000 for all
claims. Id. at 11-13. Casas also alleges that Geico owed him “a fiduciary duty to act in his
28
Page 1 of 5
1
best interest and in good faith,” which Geico “malicious[ly]” breached; Casas claims
2
damages in excess of $10,000 for this bad faith conduct, as well as statutory damages under
3
NEV. REV. STAT. ANN. § 41.085 including, but not limited to, “special damages[] such as
4
funeral expenses; and exemplary or punitive damages.” (Count 4). Id. at 12-13. Finally,
5
Casas claims that Geico owes him attorney’s fees for being obligated to bring the instant
6
action, although he does not specify the amount of these damages (Count 6). Id. at 14. All in
7
all, Casas’ prayer for relief requests a judgment against Geico “in an amount in excess of Ten
8
Thousand Dollars ($10,000),” and “punitive damages in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars
9
($10,000).” Id.
10
On August 29, 2013, Geico removed this case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §
11
1441(b), alleging that removal is proper, because the parties are from different states and the
12
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Id. at 2. Geico contends that while the policy
13
limitations provide Casas a maximum of $15,000 in recovery, he had alleged punitive
14
damages, thereby raising his theoretical recovery above the $75,000 amount-in-controversy
15
threshold. Id. at 2-3. Casas seeks remand on the basis that Geico has not demonstrated that
16
this case exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold for diversity jurisdiction and he asks
17
for an award of attorney’s fees for improper removal. Doc. 11 at 2-3. Geico has filed a
18
response, Doc. 13, and Casas has filed a reply. Doc. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the
19
motion is to remand granted but the request for attorney’s fees is denied.
20
Discussion
21
28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) provides for removal to federal court based on diversity of
22
citizenship. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), “[t]he district courts shall have original
23
jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
24
$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states.” Where a
25
state court plaintiff does not originally specify a particular amount of damages, the removing
26
Defendant has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in
27
controversy exceeds the federal jurisdictional amount. Sanchez v. Monumental Life
28
Insurance Co., 102 F.3d 398, 403 (9th Cir. 1996). “Under this burden, the defendant must
Page 2 of 5
1
provide evidence establishing that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the amount in controversy
2
exceeds that amount.” Id. at 404 (citation omitted). “Jurisdiction may not be maintained by
3
mere averment.” McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Indiana, 298 U.S. 178, 189
4
1936); Sanchez, 102 F.3d at 403 (citations omitted). If the Court finds that the amount-in-
5
controversy threshold is not satisfied, it should remand the case to state court pursuant to 28
6
U.S.C. § 1447(c).
7
A.
8
9
The Jurisdictional Threshold Is Not Likely to Be Met
The parties do not dispute that Casas’ damages do not meet the jurisdictional
threshold unless punitive damages are included; thus, the gravaman of the parties’ arguments
10
centers on the probable amount of punitive damages. Casas argues that the $15,000 policy
11
limitation and approximately $16,000 in medical damages he had incurred make it highly
12
speculative to conclude that his recovery will exceed $75,000 even with punitive damages.
13
Docs. 11 at 2-3; 14 at 3. Geico argues that up to $300,000 in punitive damages could be
14
awarded in this action under Nevada’s statute. Doc. 13 at 4 (citing NEV. REV. STAT. ANN. §
15
42.005(1)(b)).
16
As a general matter, “punitive damages are part of the amount in controversy in a civil
17
action.” Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 945 (9th Cir. 2001). Thus, a district court
18
may consider punitive damages in determining the amount in controversy when such
19
damages are available as a matter of state law. Davenport v. Mutual Benefit Health &
20
Accident Ass’n, 325 F.2d 785, 787 (9th Cir. 1963). In Nevada, “[a] plaintiff may recover
21
punitive damages when evidence demonstrates that the defendant has acted with ‘malice,
22
express or implied.’” Wyeth v. Rowatt, 244 F.3d 765, 783 (Nev. 2010) (quoting NEV. REV.
23
STAT. ANN. § 42.005(1)). Casas’ complaint alleges that Geico acted “maliciously” when
24
failing to make good on its coverage obligations. Doc. 1 at 12-13. Thus, his request for
25
punitive damages is properly considered in reaching the jurisdictional amount. NEV. REV.
26
STAT. ANN. § 42.005(b) caps punitive damages at “[t]hree hundred thousand dollars if the
27
amount of compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff is less than $100,000,” id., and an
28
award in this range would obviously satisfy the jurisdictional minimum. Thus, if Casas were
Page 3 of 5
1
to prevail on his bad faith claim, for which he requests damages “in excess” of $10,000,
2
Geico theoretically could be found liable for to punitive damages in an amount that—when
3
combined with compensatory damages—gets Casas over the $75,000 amount-in-controversy
4
threshold. But Geico’s burden is not merely to hypothesize to a threshold-satisfying
5
recovery; as the removing party, Geico must prove that a threshold-beating recovery of
6
punitive damages is more likely than not. Sanchez, 102 F.3d at 403-04. Although Geico
7
cites to Flores, 2010 WL 185949 (D. Nev. Jan. 14, 2010), which references various jury
8
verdicts with high punitive damages-to-compensatory-damages ratios, Geico offers zero
9
analysis as to why a similar award should be anticipated under the facts of this case. This
10
bare citation, without more, is insufficient to demonstrate that recovery of an amount in
11
excess of $75,000 is “more likely than not” in given the particular facts of this case.1
12
Therefore, Geico has not met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that
13
federal jurisdiction is appropriately exercised in this case.
14
B.
Casas Is Not Entitled to Attorney’s Fees
15
Casas also contends that he is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees for being
16
obligated to contest a meritless removal from state court. Doc. 11 at 7. According to Casas,
17
because Geico made only “conclusory statements unsupported by objective evidence,” and
18
“did not even contact Plaintiff’s counsel to inquire as to the amount of the claim that [Casas]
19
was seeking,” Geico had no objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal. Id.
20
“An order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual
21
expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)
22
(emphasis added). Such fees may be awarded where a defendant has no “objectively
23
reasonable basis for seeking removal” and, by contrast, should be denied when such an
24
objectively reasonable basis exists. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141
25
(2005). Any award of such fees is ultimately left to the discretion of the district court. Gotro
26
27
28
1
Geico also argues that an award of attorney’s fees may be used to meet the jurisdictional threshold, Doc.
13 at 3. Nevada follows the American Rule for an award of attorneys fees; they are not recoverable unless
authorized by agreement, statute, or rule. See Young v. Nevada Title Co., 744 P.2d 902, 905-06 (Nev. 1987).
Geico has identified no agreement, statute, or rule that would provide for an award of attorney’s fees here.
Page 4 of 5
1
2
v. R & B Realty Group, 69 F.3d 1485, 1487 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).
Geico’s failure to demonstrate that the damages in this case would “more likely than
3
not” exceed the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold was a failure of degree, not categorically
4
frivolous. For this reason, the Court finds that Geico had an objectively reasonable basis for
5
seeking removal, and thus denies Casas’ request for attorney’s fees.2
Conclusion
6
7
8
9
Accordingly, based upon the foregoing reasons and with good cause appearing and no
reason for delay,
It is HEREBY ORDERED that Casas’ Motion to Remand [Doc. 11] is GRANTED.
10
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Casas’ request for attorney’s fees is DENIED.
11
DATED: December 4, 2013.
12
_________________________________
JENNIFER A. DORSEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
The Court also notes that Casas failed to submit a statement itemizing his requested attorney’s fees
which the Court could analyze. See Herrera v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 2013 WL 1182099, at *3 (D. Nev.
Mar. 18, 2013) (denying request for attorney’s fees where prevailing party on remand motion failed to, inter alia,
provide an itemized breakdown of attorney’s fees). This supplies a second, independent basis for denying the
fee request.
Page 5 of 5
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?