Juarez v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 10

ORDER finding that Defendant has proffered sufficient evidence establishing an amount in controversy greater than $75,000 and accepting removal of this action. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 10/29/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

ELDA JUAREZ,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wisconsin
Corporation; DOES I - X and ROE
CORPORATIONS I - X, inclusive;

13
14

Defendants.
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:14-CV-00486!LRH-(VPC)
ORDER

Before the court is Defendant American Family Mutual Insurance Company ‘s

17

(“Defendant”) Statement Concerning Removal (Doc. #61) and Supplement to Petition for Removal

18

(Doc. #7).

19

Plaintiff Elda Juarez (“Plaintiff”) initiated the present action against Defendant on

20

August 15, 2014, in the Second Judicial District Court for Washoe County, Nevada. On

21

September 18, 2014, Defendant removed this action to federal court on the basis of diversity

22

jurisdiction. Doc. #1.

23

On September 26, 2014, the court reviewed the removal petition and held that it was not

24

clear from the complaint that the amount in controversy had been met. Doc. #5. The court granted

25

Defendant twenty days to establish the amount in controversy by submitting summary judgment

26
1

Refers to the court’s docket

1

type evidence to the court. Id. Thereafter, Defendant filed a supplement to its petition for removal.

2

Doc. #7.

3
4
5

The court has reviewed Defendant’s supplement for removal and finds that Defendant has
established that the amount in controversy has been met.
Where, as here, it is not facially evident from the face of the complaint that the amount in

6

controversy exceeds $75,000, “the removing defendant bears the burden of establishing, by a

7

preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $[75],000.” Sanchez v.

8

Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, Defendant contends that the

9

amount in controversy requirement is met because Plaintiff claims to have sustained injuries

10

requiring cervical spine surgery in the amount of $88,000. See Doc. #7, Exh. A. Further, Plaintiff’s

11

counsel has made a $100,000 settlement demand against Defendant. Id. A plaintiff’s statement of

12

damages after the filing of the complaint is relevant evidence establishing the amount in

13

controversy. See Cohen v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2002). Therefore, the court

14

finds that Defendant has proffered sufficient evidence establishing an amount in controversy greater

15

than $75,000. Accordingly, the court shall accept Defendant’s removal of this action and exercise

16

diversity jurisdiction over the complaint.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

DATED this 29th day of October, 2014.

20

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
2