C&S Roofing and Fencing LLC v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Filing 19

ORDER denying 11 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 8/12/2015. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
C&S ROOFING AND FENCING, LLC
d/b/a C&S CONSTRUCTION,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE FARM AND CASUALTY
COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-15-527-M

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and Brief in Support, filed May 27,
2015. On June 17, 2015, defendant responded, and on June 24, 2015, plaintiff replied. Based on
the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its determination.
I.

Introduction
On April 22, 2015, plaintiff filed this action in the District Court of Oklahoma County,

State of Oklahoma. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action against defendant: (1)
promissory estoppel; (2) false representation; (3) bad faith; and (4) violations of the Oklahoma
Unfair Claims Settlement Practice Act. These causes of action arise from defendant’s allege
failure to remit $45,208.43 for work plaintiff did on a property covered by a homeowners
insurance policy issued by defendant. On May 15, 2015, defendant removed this action to this
Court. Subsequently, plaintiff filed this motion to remand alleging the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction as the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.
II.

Discussion
“The district courts shall have 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). “[A] defendant seeking to remove a case to
a federal court must file in the federal forum a notice of removal ‘containing a short and plain
statement of the grounds for removal.’” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135
S. Ct. 547, 553 (2014) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a)). Further,
If removal of a civil action is sought on the basis of the jurisdiction
conferred by section 1332(a), the sum demanded in good faith in
the initial pleading shall be deemed to be the amount in
controversy, except that . . . removal of the action is proper on the
basis of an amount in controversy . . . if the district court finds, by
the preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy
exceeds the amount specified in section 1332(a).
28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B). “Evidence establishing the amount is required by § 1446(c)(2)(B)
only when the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s allegation.” Dart, 135 S.
Ct. at 554. “[T]he defendant must affirmatively establish jurisdiction by proving jurisdictional
facts that ma[ke] it possible that $75,000 [is] in play.” McPhail v. Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947,
955 (10th Cir. 2008).
Plaintiff contends that defendant has failed to provide any evidence that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 in this dispute. Specifically, plaintiff asserts that the amount
disputed is $45,208.43 and, further, that while plaintiff alleges punitive damages in addition to its
actual damages, defendant has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the
jurisdictional requirement has been met. Defendant contends that plaintiff’s Complaint seeks
more than $75,000, specifically because it seeks punitive damages in addition to actual damages
in an amount in excess of $10,000 on each cause of action and, further, that plaintiff’s Complaint
fails to adequately plead its damages, pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(A)(2).1

1

Oklahoma Statue title 12, § 2008(A)(2) requires pleadings demanding relief less than
the jurisdictional amount required by 28 U.S.C. 1332(a) to specify the amount of damages
sought. See Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(A)(2). In its Complaint, while plaintiff alleges that on
2

Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds by a preponderance
of the evidence that defendant has pled sufficient jurisdictional facts to show it is possible for
plaintiff’s claims to exceed the jurisdictional amount of $75,000. Specifically, the Court finds
that in plaintiff’s Complaint, plaintiff alleges that it filed this action after defendant refused to
pay the remaining balance of $45,208.43 on an insurance policy claim. However, under
plaintiff’s demand for relief, in its Complaint, plaintiff alleges that as to the causes of action
pled, plaintiff is entitled to damages in an amount in excess of $10,000 together with punitive or
exemplary damages. Since it is permissible to consider punitive damages when determining the
jurisdictional amount,2 and, further, since plaintiff has pled claims for both false representation
and bad faith, which, the punitive award recovery amount for these claims could be significantly
over the jurisdictional amount3, the Court finds that on the face of plaintiff’s Complaint alone,

March 20, 2015, it made a demand on defendant for payment of $45,208.43 prior to bringing this
lawsuit, plaintiff pleads under its causes of action and demand for relief that it is has been
damaged in an amount in excess of $10,000, on each claim. See Mot. to Remand Ex. 1, Petition
at ¶¶ 24, 23, 42, 49, & 59(a)(b)(c)(d). Defendant contends that plaintiff’s pleading of its damages
is deficient because it fails to adhere to the statutory requirement that any damage amount pled
under $75,000 must be specifically pled.
2

See Burrell v. Burrell, 229 F.3d 1162, 2000 WL 11113702, at *2 (10th Cir. 2000)
(unpublished opinion) (“[w]here both actual and punitive damages are recoverable under a
complaint each must be considered to the extent claimed in determining jurisdictional amount”)
(citing Bell v. Preferred Life Assurance Society, 320 U.S. 238, 240 (1943)).
3

Where the jury finds by clear and convincing evidence that . . .
An insurer has intentionally and with malice breached its duty to
deal fairly and act in good faith with its insured;
the jury, in a separate proceeding conducted after the jury has
made such finding and awarded actual damages, may award
punitive damages in an amount not to exceed the greatest of:
a. Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00),
b. twice the amount of actual damages awarded, or
3

the demand for relief is sufficient evidence to show that plaintiff’s damages could exceed the
jurisdictional amount of $75,000. Therefore, removal of this action was not improper, and the
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
III.

Conclusion
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to

Remand and Brief in Support [docket no. 11].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of August, 2015.

c. the increased financial benefit derived by the defendant or
insurer as a direct result of the conduct causing the injury to the
plaintiff and other persons or entities.
Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(C)(2).
4