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

Filing 5

ORDER granting Defendants 20 days to establish the minimum amount in controversy for federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff is granted 10 days to file an opposition. No reply is required. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 2/22/2018. (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

Plaintiff, ORDER

11
12
13
14
15
16

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.

17
18
19

Plaintiff Steven O’Farrell initiated this action in the Second Judicial District Court for

20

Washoe County, Nevada on December 21, 2017. On January 22, 2018, both defendants were

21

served. On February 20, 2018, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, Defendants General

22

Insurance Company of America (“General Insurance”) and American States Insurance Company

23

(“American States”) filed a notice of removal to this court (ECF NO. 11).
After review of the complaint and Defendant’s petition for removal, the court finds that it

24
25

requires more evidence to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

26

1

27
28

Refers to the court’s docketing number.
1

1

While it appears that the parties are of diverse citizenship2, Defendants have not demonstrated

2

that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United

3
4

States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant . . . to the district court of the

5

United States for any district . . . where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Among

6

other reasons, the district courts of the United States have “original jurisdiction” where there is

7

diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest

8

and costs, exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

9

“If . . . it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be

10

remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as

11

to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.

12

1992) (citing Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)).

13

Moreover, the removal statute is construed restrictively and in favor of remanding a case to state

14

court. See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941); Gaus, 980 F.2d at

15

566.

16

After a defendant files a petition for removal, the court must determine whether federal

17

jurisdiction exists, even if no objection is made to removal. See Rains v. Criterion Systems, Inc.,

18

80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996). The defendant always has the burden of establishing that

19

removal is proper. Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. Normally this burden is satisfied if the plaintiff

20

claims a sum greater than the jurisdictional requirement. Id.

21

However, if the plaintiff does not claim a sum greater than the jurisdictional requirement,

22

the defendant cannot meet its burden by merely alleging that the amount in controversy is met:

23

“The authority which the statute vests in the court to enforce the limitations of its jurisdiction

24
25
26
27
28

2

Plaintiff is a resident of Nevada. Defendant General Insurance is incorporated under the laws of New
Hampshire and has its principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. Defendant American States
is incorporated under the laws of Indiana and has its principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts.
2

1

precludes the idea that jurisdiction may be maintained by mere averment . . . .” Id. (quoting

2

McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)) (emphasis omitted).

3

In some cases, it may be “‘facially apparent’ from the complaint that the jurisdictional

4

amount is in controversy.” See Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir.

5

1997) (delineating the “appropriate procedure for determining the amount in controversy on

6

removal” as described in Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326 (5th Cir. 1995)).

7

However, “[w]hen the amount is not facially apparent from the complaint, the court may

8

consider facts in the removal petition and may require parties to submit summary-judgment-type

9

evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of removal.” Kroske v. U.S. Bank

10

Corp., 432 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

11

Here, in arguing that the amount in controversy requirement has been satisfied,

12

Defendants rely solely on the allegations in the complaint. However, the court finds that it is not

13

facially apparent from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in controversy. It may be that

14

medical expenses alone, and other special damages claimed by plaintiff exceed the threshold

15

amount for jurisdiction in this court, however there has been no showing of such an amount by

16

removing defendants. Accordingly, jurisdiction has not been established.

17

The court will provide Defendants additional time to present “summary-judgment-type

18

evidence” showing by a preponderance of the evidence that this case meets § 1332(a)’s amount

19

in controversy requirement.

20

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants are granted twenty (20) days to

21

establish the minimum amount in controversy for federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff is granted ten

22

(10) days to file an opposition. No reply is required.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

DATED this 22nd day of February, 2018.

25

LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28

3