O'Farrell v. General Insurance Company Of America et al

Filing 15

ORDER that the court shall accept Defendants' removal of this action and exercise diversity jurisdiction over the complaint. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 3/14/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9

***
Case No. 3:18-cv-00077-LRH-VPC

STEVEN O’FARRELL,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff, ORDER
v.
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA, a Washington Corporation;
AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE
COMPANY, an Indiana Corporation; ABC
CORPORATIONS I-X; BLACK AND
WHITE COMPANIES I-X; and JOHN
DOES I-X, inclusive,
Defendants.

18
19

Before the court is defendants General Insurance Company of America and

20

American States Insurance Company’s (“Defendants”) Response to Court’s

21

February 22, 2018 Order. ECF No. 11.

22

Plaintiff Steven O’Farrell initiated the present action against Defendants on

23

December 21, 2017, in the Second Judicial District Court for Washoe County, Nevada.

24

On February 20, 2018, Defendants removed this action to federal court on the basis of

25

diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. 1.

26

On February 22, 2018, the court reviewed the removal petition and held that it

27

was not clear from the complaint that the amount in controversy had been met. ECF

28

No. 5. The court granted Defendants twenty days to establish the amount in controversy
1

1

by submitting summary judgment type evidence to the court. Id. Thereafter, Defendants

2

filed a supplement to their petition for removal. ECF No. 11.

3
4
5

The court has reviewed Defendants’ supplement for removal and finds that
Defendants have 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

6

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, “the removing defendant bears the burden of

7

establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy

8

exceeds $[75],000.” Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir.

9

1996). Here, Defendants contend that the amount in controversy requirement is met

10

because Plaintiff’s medical records total $356,492.45 as of February 26, 2018. In

11

addition, Plaintiff is still being treated for the injuries alleged in his Complaint, and he will

12

also be making a wage loss claim. See ECF No. 11-1. A plaintiff’s statement of

13

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

14

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

15

the court finds that Defendants have proffered sufficient evidence establishing an

16

amount in controversy greater than $75,000. Accordingly, the court shall accept

17

Defendants’ removal of this action and exercise diversity jurisdiction over the complaint.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

DATED this 14th day of March, 2018.

21
22

LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2