Luna v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 35

ORDER that ECF No. 33 Motion to Remand is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 01/04/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

______________________________________
)
)
JOSE R. LUNA,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE )
INSURANCE CO.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

2:15-cv-01104-RCJ-NJK
ORDER

This case arises out of an insurer’s alleged breach of an underinsured motorist policy.

13
14

Pending before the Court is a motion to remand.

15

I.

16

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On or about October 13, 2011, Plaintiff Jose R. Luna was involved in an automobile

17

collision with a non-party in Las Vegas, Nevada, causing Plaintiff injury, pain, suffering, and

18

loss of earning capacity. (See Compl. ¶¶ 1, 7–12, ECF No. 1-1). Plaintiff had incurred medical

19

expenses of $60,378.15 at the time he filed the Complaint and expected to incur more medical

20

expenses in the future. (See id. ¶ 16). At the time of the collision, Plaintiff was insured by

21

Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. under Policy No. 047 2348-B07-28B

22

(the “Policy”). (Id. ¶ 14). The Policy included an uninsured/underinsured motorist provision (the

23

“UIM Provision”) for $25,000 per person and $50,000 per occurrence, but Defendant rejected

24

1 of 3

1

Plaintiff’s demand to pay the $25,000 policy limits under the UIM Provision, offering only

2

$7,800. (Id. ¶¶ 15, 17–20).
Plaintiff sued Defendant in state court for: (1) breach of contract; (2) contractual breach

3
4

of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) tortious breach of the implied

5

covenant of good faith and fair dealing (“insurance bad faith”); (4) unfair claims practices under

6

Nevada Revised Statutes section (“NRS”) 686A.310; (5) declaratory relief; and (6) punitive

7

damages. Defendant removed and moved for summary judgment against all claims but the first.

8

The Court granted the motion as against the claims for contractual breach of the implied

9

covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair claims practices under NRS 686A.310(b), and

10

declaratory judgment. The Court denied the motion as against the claims for insurance bad faith,

11

unfair claims practices under NRS 686A.310(e), and punitive damages. The Court indicated that

12

it would be inclined to reconsider as against those claims if Defendant could provide unrebutted

13

evidence of its claim that Plaintiff’s medical providers had forgiven the $41,097.86 of Plaintiff’s

14

medical bills that worker’s compensation did not cover, but Defendant had attached no such

15

evidence to the motion. Defendant later adduced such evidence via a motion to reconsider, and

16

the Court granted the motion, leaving only the breach of contract claim for trial. Plaintiff has

17

asked the Court to remand.

18

II.

DISCUSSION

19

Plaintiff argues that the Court has lost diversity jurisdiction, because the remaining

20

breach of contract claim does not satisfy the amount in controversy requirement under 28 U.S.C.

21

§ 1332(a). The argument is contrary to binding authority. “Jurisdiction on diversity grounds

22

existing at the commencement of an action is not divested by a subsequent reduction of the

23

amount in controversy below the jurisdictional minimum.” Ne. Clackamas Cnty. Elec. Coop. v.

24

Cont’l Cas. Co., 221 F.2d 329, 332 (9th Cir. 1955) (citing St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red

2 of 3

1

Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938)). “Events occurring subsequent to the institution of suit which

2

reduce the amount recoverable below the statutory limit do not oust jurisdiction.” St. Paul

3

Mercury Indem. Co., 303 U.S. at 289–90.

4

CONCLUSION

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Remand (ECF No. 33) is DENIED.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated this 27th4, 2017.
January day of December, 2016.

8
9

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

3 of 3