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-
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?