Pagsisihan v. Allstate Indemnity Company

Filing 14

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's 9 Motion to Remand is Granted. This case is hereby remanded to the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada, Case number A-15-728656-C. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's 4 Motion to Dismiss is Denied as moot; the hearing set for 03/07/2016 is Vacated. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 03/04/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Ji Pagsisihan,

5

2:16-cv-00072-JAD-VCF

Plaintiff

6

v.

7

Order Granting Motion to Remand,
Denying Motion to Dismiss as Moot,
Remanding Case Back to Nevada State
Court, and Vacating Hearing

Allstate Indemnity Company,

8

Defendant

[ECF 4, 9]

9
10

Ji Pagsisihan sues her insurer Allstate Indemnity Company for a handful of state-law claims,

11

alleging that Allstate failed to adequately investigate her claim for medical and underinsured

12

motorist coverage after a January 2014 car accident.1 Allstate removed the case from state court

13

based on diversity of citizenship.2 Pagsisihan moves to remand, arguing that the Allstate has not

14

demonstrated that the amount-in-controversy requirement has been met.3 Because Allstate has not

15

shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, I grant

16

Pagsisihan’s motion and remand this case back to Nevada’s Eighth Judicial District Court, case no.

17

A-15-728656-C.4 I also deny Allstate’s motion to dismiss5 as moot and vacate the hearing.

18

Background

19

In January 2014, Pagsisihan sustained permanent bodily injuries in a car accident,6 and

20
21
22
1

ECF 1-1.

2

ECF 1.

3

ECF 9.

26

4

I find this motion appropriate for resolution without oral argument. L.R. 78-2.

27

5

ECF 4.

28

6

ECF 1-1 at ¶ 6.

23
24
25

Page 1 of 4

1

demanded that Allstate pay her underinsured-policy limits of $50,000.7 But despite her $40,500.03

2

in medical expenses, Pagsisihan alleges that Allstate responded with a settlement offer of just

3

$6,000.8 Pagsisihan asserts four claims: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of

4

good faith and fair dealing, (3) Nevada Trade Practicess Act violations, and (4) intentional infliction

5

of emotional distress.9 In her prayer for relief, Pagsisihan claims general damages in excess of

6

$10,000; special damages in excess of $10,000; and punitive damages in excess of $10,000.10

7

In its petition for removal, Allstate invokes this court’s diversity jurisdiction. Allstate argues

8

that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 because Pagsisihan claims $40,500 in medical

9

damages and has “demanded full policy limits of $50,000, general damages, special damages,

10

attorney costs and fees, damage for emotional distress, and punitive damages.”11 Pagsisihan moves

11

to remand, arguing that the only amount in controversy Allstate can show is $60,00.01: $50,000 in

12

contractual damages (Pagsisihan’s policy limits) and $10,000.01 for the bad faith/unfair-claims-

13

handling claims.12

14
15

Discussion
A.

Motion to Remand

16

When a case is filed in state court between parties who are citizens of different states, and the

17

case value exceeds $75,000, the defendant may remove the case to federal court.13 “Federal courts

18

are courts of limited jurisdiction,”14 and there is a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction.

19
20

7

Id. at ¶¶ 9–10.

8

Id. at ¶ 13.

9

Id. at 5–7.

21
22
23

10

Id. at 8.

11

ECF 1 at 2.

26

12

ECF 9 at 2.

27

13

28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, 1446.

28

14

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

24
25

Page 2 of 4

1

“[F]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first

2

instance.”15 The defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.16 This

3

burden is usually satisfied if the plaintiff claims a sum greater than the threshold requirement.17 If

4

the value of plaintiff’s claim is unclear, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence

5

that the jurisdictional amount has been met.18 Defendants may rely on facts presented in the removal

6

petition and any summary-judgment-type evidence that is related to the amount in controversy.19

7
8

B.

Remand is required because Allstate has not shown that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000.

9

The face of the complaint does not show that Pagsisihan claims damages in excess of

10

$75,000. Pagsisihan claims damages in excess of $30,000 for general, special, and punitive

11

damages. Because Pagsisihan does not explicitly claim damages in excess of $75,000, Allstate must

12

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional amount has been met.20

13

Pagsisihan alleges in her complaint—and Allstate offers no evidence to dispute—that she has

14

incurred $40,500.03 in medical expenses and that her policy limit is $50,000. Thus, Allstate has

15

shown, at most, only $70,000 in damages: $50,000 in special damages (assuming that Pagsisihan is

16

entitled to the full policy amount), and in excess of $20,000 for general and punitive damages.

17

Allstate offers no evidence to show that Pagsisihan’s general and punitive damages exceed

18

$20,000.01, so I am left with the amounts alleged in the complaint. Because Allstate has not offered

19

evidence showing that the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds $75,000, I grant

20

Pagsisihan’s motion to remand.

21
22

15

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

23

16

Id.

24

17

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

25

18

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

19

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

26
27

20

28

Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted); see
also Sanchez, 102 F.3d at 404.
Page 3 of 4

1

Conclusion

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [ECF 9] is

3

GRANTED. This case is hereby remanded to the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County,

4

Nevada, Case number A-15-728656-C.

5
6
7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 4] is DENIED as
moot; the hearing set for March 7, 2016, is VACATED.
Dated this 4th day of March, 2016.

8
9

_________________________________
____________________
__
__ _________ _ __
____
__
Jennifer A. Dorsey
Jennifer A. Dorsey
nn
o y
United States District Judge
United States District Judge
ted ta
ric u
i

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 4 of 4