Russell v. GEICO General Insurance Company
Filing
23
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan ; denying 22 Motion to Remand (Re: State Court Petition/Complaint, 21 Opinion and Order,, Ruling on Motion to Dismiss ) (RGG, Chambers)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
APRIL RUSSELL,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, )
)
Defendant.
)
Case No. 15-CV-0128-CVE-PJC
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to remand (Dkt. # 22) and brief in support. Plaintiff
initially filed this case in state court, and defendant timely removed. Dkt. # 2. In a previous motion,
plaintiff requested voluntary dismissal without prejudice of her bad faith claim. See Dkt. # 17. At
that time, the parties stipulated that plaintiff’s breach of contract claim has a maximum value of
$25,000. Dkt. # 17, at 1; Dkt. # 19, at 3. The Court granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss without
prejudice her bad faith claim but noted that it retains subject matter jurisdiction over the breach of
contract claim. Dkt. # 21. Plaintiff now moves to remand this case to state court, arguing that the
Court has discretion to remand based on its supplemental jurisdiction over the breach of contract
claim.
Remand is proper where the case was removed from state court and where “at any time
before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c). Removal to this Court was predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which grants “district courts
. . . original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value
of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States . . . .”
Plaintiff is a citizen of Oklahoma, Dkt. # 2-2, at 2, while defendant is both incorporated in and has
its principal place of business outside of Oklahoma. Dkt. # 1. Plaintiff admits that her state court
petition “alleged damages in excess of $75,000.” Dkt. # 22, at 1. Thus, under § 1332 the Court had
original jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims.
Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of her bad faith claim and stipulation of damages as to her
breach of contract claim do not affect the Court’s original jurisdiction under § 1332. “[E]vents
occurring subsequent to removal which reduce the amount recoverable, whether beyond the
plaintiff’s control or the result of his volition, do not oust the district court’s jurisdiction once it has
attached.” St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 293 (1938); Wisc. Dep’t of
Corr. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 391 (1998) (noting that federal courts should keep a removed case,
even where a post-removal event defeats jurisdiction); see also Miera v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 143 F.3d
1337, 1340 (10th Cir. 1998) (“Once jurisdiction has attached, events subsequently defeating it by
reducing the amount in controversy are unavailing.”). The Court had original jurisdiction over
plaintiff’s claims from the outset, as the parties are diverse and plaintiff alleged damages in excess
of $75,000. Thus, as the Court stated in its previous opinion and order, “the parties’ stipulation that
plaintiff cannot recover more than $75,000 does not divest this Court of its pre-existing subject
matter jurisdiction under § 1332(a).” Dkt. # 21, at 3.
Plaintiff argues that remand should be granted because the Court has discretion to remand
those claims over which it exercises supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Dkt. # 22,
at 3. Section 1367 grants “supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims
in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy
under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, the Court does
not have subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s breach of contract claim pursuant to § 1367;
2
rather, the Court has original jurisdiction over plaintiff’s breach of contract claim pursuant to §
1332. Thus, there is no need to consider whether remand is proper under § 1367(a).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to remand (Dkt. # 22) is hereby
denied.
DATED this 22nd day of July, 2015.
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?