Conway v. National General Insurance Co.

Filing 9

ORDER Denying 6 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/26/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

ROBERT CONWAY,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10
11

Case No. 2:17-CV-748 JCM (GWF)
ORDER

v.
NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is plaintiff Robert Conway’s motion to remand to state court.

14
15
16
17

(ECF No. 6). Defendant National General Insurance Company filed a response (ECF No. 7), to
which plaintiff replied (ECF No. 8).
I.

The instant action arises from an automobile accident that occurred on September 2, 2013,

18
19

from which plaintiff sustained serious injuries.
Plaintiff filed the original complaint in state court on January 31, 2017, wherein plaintiff

20
21
22
23

alleged three claims for relief: (1) breach of contract; (2) violation of the Unfair Claims Practices
Act; and (3) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (ECF No. 1). Defendant
removed the action to federal court on March 13, 2017. (ECF No. 1).
In the instant motion, plaintiff moves to remand the action back to state court. (ECF No.

24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Facts

6).
II.

Legal Standard
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “any civil action brought in a State court of which the

district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or

1

the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the

2

place where such action is pending.”

3

For a U.S. district court to have diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the parties

4

must be completely diverse and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.00, exclusive of

5

interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d

6

1098 (9th Cir. 2003).

7

A plaintiff may challenge removal by timely filing a motion to remand. 28 U.S.C. §

8

1447(c). Remand to state court is proper if the district court lacks jurisdiction. Id. On a motion

9

to remand, the removing defendant faces a strong presumption against removal, and bears the

10

burden of establishing that removal is proper. See Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d

11

398, 403–04 (9th Cir. 1996); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566–67 (9th Cir. 1992).

12

III.

Discussion

13

In its statement of removal, defendant asserts that the court has diversity jurisdiction over

14

the instant action because defendant is a North Carolina corporation, plaintiff is a citizen of

15

Nevada, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. (ECF No. 3).

16

In the instant motion, plaintiff argues that remand is proper because “[p]laintiff intends to

17

request less than $75,000 in total damages in this case.” (ECF No. 6 at 4) (boldface omitted).

18

Plaintiff further argues that defendant argued in its denial of plaintiff’s settlement demand that

19

plaintiff’s claim had a total value of $0. (ECF No. 6 at 6). Plaintiff maintains that defendant

20

cannot now argue that the value of the case exceeds $75,000.00. (ECF No. 6 at 6).

21

Plaintiff’s argument, however, is not supported by the record. Plaintiff states that prior to

22

the accident, he purchased an automobile insurance policy from defendant, which included

23

$100,000.00 per person/$300,000.00 per accident of UIM coverage. (ECF No. 6 at 3). Plaintiff

24

asserts that his counsel sent a letter to defendant on August 4, 2015, “outlining [p]laintiff’s medical

25

special damages in excess of $30,000.00 and demanding the [p]laintiff’s policy UIM limits.” (ECF

26

Nos. 6 at 3; 6-1). According to plaintiff’s own representations, the amount in controversy exceeds

27

$75,000.00 because he demands the policy limits of $100,000.00 from defendant. Further, by

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

merely stating the he “intends” to request less than $75,000.00, plaintiff is apparently unwilling to

2

concede or stipulate to that fact.

3

Furthermore, plaintiff erroneously makes his motion to remand pursuant to Federal Rule

4

of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) and Local Rule 26-1(a). (ECF No. 6). These rules govern disclosures

5

and discovery and are therefore inapplicable to the present issue of remand.

6

A defendant is entitled to removal if it can demonstrate, by a preponderance of the

7

evidence, that the amount in controversy requirement is met. See Sanchez, 102 F.3d at 403–04.

8

Defendant attached plaintiff’s complaint and a letter from plaintiff’s counsel demanding the policy

9

limits of $100,000.00. (ECF Nos. 1, 7-1). By reference to plaintiff’s filings, defendant has met

10

its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds

11

$75,000.00.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to remand will be denied.

12
13

IV.

Conclusion

14

Accordingly,

15

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiffs’ motion to

16
17
18
19

remand to state court (ECF No. 6) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED April 26, 2017.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-