Dube v. Hogan et al

Filing 16

ORDER Denying 6 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and Defendant's request for Rule 11 Sanctions. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 7/22/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10

THOMAS DUBE, as Parent and Legal Guardian of
JORDAN DUBE, a minor,

11

Plaintiffs,

12

v.

13
14

Case No.: 2:14-cv-00495-JAD-VCF
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
REMAND [Doc. 6]

JENNIFER HOGAN; JACOB HOGAN; WESTERN
UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY dba AAA
NEVADA INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES
1–10; and ROE ENTITIES 11 through 20, inclusive,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Thomas Dube sues defendants for injuries his son Jordan allegedly sustained in a

17
18

motor vehicle accident.1 Defendant Western United Insurance Company dba AAA Nevada

19

Insurance Company removed this case from Nevada State Court based on diversity jurisdiction.2

20

Plaintiff now asks this Court to remand this case back to state court arguing that the case value does

21

not meet the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold for federal jurisdiction. As defendant has demonstrated

22

that plaintiff values his damages at $100,000, the motion to remand is denied.

23
24
25
1

26

Doc. 3 at 4.

2

27
28

Doc. 1 at 2. Plaintiff is a resident of Nevada. Defendant Jennifer Hogan is a resident of Arizona
and Defendant Jacob Hogan is a resident of Mississippi. Defendant Western United Insurance Company
dba AAA Nevada Insurance Company is incorporated in Indiana with its principal place of business in
Indiana.

Page 1 of 3

1
2

Discussion
A.

Motion to Remand
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.”3 There is a strong presumption against

3
4

removal jurisdiction and “federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of

5

removal in the first instance.”4 Therefore the defendant always has the burden of establishing that

6

removal is proper.5 This burden is usually satisfied if the plaintiff claims a sum more than the

7

threshold requirement.6 If the amount of plaintiff’s claim is unclear, the defendant must prove that it

8

is more likely than not that the jurisdictional amount has been met.7 Defendants may rely upon facts

9

presented in the removal petition and any summary-judgment-type evidence that is related to the

10

amount-in-controversy.8 Conclusory allegations do not overcome the presumption against removal

11

jurisdiction or satisfy the defendant’s burden of proving the case.9 The defendant does not need to

12

predict the trier of fact’s eventual award with certainty.10

13

The federal procedure for removal of civil actions requires a defendant to include in its

14

removal petition a “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal.11 Western United

15

represents in its statement of removal that Plaintiff “demanded” the tender of “the full value of the

16

UM policy, $100,000.00,”12 and it attaches to its opposition to the motion for remand plaintiff’s

17
18
3

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

4

Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).

5

Id.

22

6

Id. (citing St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288–99 (1938)).

23

7

Id.; Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 395, 404 (9th Cir. 1996).

24

8

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

25

9

Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).

26

10

Id.

27

11

28 U.S.C. § 1446.

28

12

Doc. 11 at 3.

19
20
21

Page 2 of 3

1

counsel’s letter demanding the full $100,000 policy limits.13 The Ninth Circuit has recognized that

2

settlement letters may provide a reasonable estimate of a plaintiff’s claim for removal jurisdiction

3

purposes.14 Plaintiff’s counsel’s concession that “counsel does not intend to seek an award more

4

than $75,000”15 is of no consequence. As the United States Supreme Court long ago acknowledged

5

in St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., “a plaintiff may not defeat removal by

6

subsequently changing his damage request, because post-removal events cannot deprive a court of

7

jurisdiction once it has attached.”16 At the time the case was removed, plaintiff was taking the

8

position that this case is worth $100,000, which satisfies the jurisdictional threshold and vests this

9

Court with jurisdiction.

10

B.

Request for Rule 11 Sanctions

11

Defendant’s request for an award of fees and costs for having to respond to a motion it

12

considers “frivolous” because the plaintiff values the case at $100,00017 is denied. Defendants have

13

not even attempted to demonstrate that they satisfied the procedures for obtaining Rule 11

14

sanctions.18

15

Conclusion

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [#6] and

17

Defendant’s request for Rule 11 Sanctions are both DENIED.

18

DATED: July 22, 2014

19

_________________________________
JENNIFER A. DORSEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23

13

Doc. 12-1. Plaintiff’s counsel does not dispute the authenticity of this document.

24

14

See Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2002).

25

15

Doc. 14 at 3.

26

16

St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 292 (1938).

27

17

See Doc. 12 at 6.

28

18

See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 11(c)(2).

Page 3 of 3