Deaton et al v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc.

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 6 Motion to Remand. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 11/9/2017. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC. d/b/a
)
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________)
JOHN DEATON and O & J, LLC,

C.A. No. 17-233 WES

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Plaintiffs John Deaton and O & J, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) moved to
remand this case to state court (Pls.’ Mot. To Remand, ECF No. 6)
and

Defendant

Liberty

Mutual

Group,

Inc.

(“Liberty

Mutual”)

opposed that motion (Def.’s Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. To Remand, ECF No.
7).

After the parties filed their respective motions, the Court

issued an order inviting Plaintiffs to file a stipulation to the
amount in controversy within 21 days (ECF No. 8) (“Stipulation
Order”).

Plaintiffs declined the Court’s invitation and now the

Court, addressing its merits, GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for the
reasons that follow.
I.

BACKGROUND
The parties’ dispute arises from a 2013 incident in which

rain and wind damaged Plaintiffs’ commercial property.

(Pls.’

Compl. 2, ECF No. 1-1.)
Liberty

Mutual,

Plaintiffs and their insurance company,

disagreed

as

to

the

reimbursement

Plaintiffs were entitled to under the insurance policy.
3.)

amount
(Id. at

On April 17, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against

Liberty Mutual in Rhode Island Superior Court, alleging five claims
for

relief:

(I)

misrepresentation;

breach
(III)

of

contract;

specific

enrichment; and (V) bad faith.

(II)

performance;

negligent

(IV)

unjust

(Id. at 4–8.)

Plaintiffs allege that Liberty Mutual owes them approximately
$68,345.76 for the original loss sustained to the insured property,
but note that “[t]he actual amount lost to date may be higher than
that documented in 2014.”

(Id. at 3.)

In their prayer for relief,

Plaintiffs demand “full insurance coverage” under the policy, as
well

as

“bad

damages.”

faith

damages”

and

“punitive

and/or

exemplary

(Id. at 7.)

Liberty Mutual filed a Notice of Removal in this Court on May
16, 2017, pursuant to this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), and removal statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and
1446.

(Def.’s Notice of Removal 1., ECF No. 1.)

Liberty Mutual

asserts that although Plaintiffs’ demand for “preliminary damages
of $68,345.76” is less than the statutory amount in controversy
minimum

of

$75,000,

“[t]he

claim

2

for

punitive

damages,

if

substantiated, would realistically meet or exceed the $6,654.24
required to meet the jurisdictional amount.”

(Id. at 1–3.)

Plaintiff timely filed a Motion To Remand alleging that “[t]he
amount in controversy in this action is $68,345.76, which is less
tha[n] the minimum requirement of $75,000.00,” and thus, this Court
lacks jurisdiction over the case.

(Pls.’ Mot. To Remand 1, ECF

No. 6.)
II.

DISCUSSION
“A case asserting state law claims and filed in state court

may be removed by a defendant to federal court, if there is both
diversity of citizenship and a sufficient amount in controversy
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)–(c).”

Hogan v. Wal-Mart Stores

E., L.P., No. CA 13-603 S, 2014 WL 66658, at *2 (D.R.I. Jan. 8,
2014).

The parties do not dispute that they are of diverse

citizenship.

As the party seeking removal, Liberty Mutual bears

the burden of establishing a reasonable probability that the amount
in controversy requirement is met.

See Amoche v. Guarantee Tr.

Life Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 41, 48-50 (1st Cir. 2009) (stating that
the “reasonable probability standard is . . . for all practical
purposes

identical

to

the

preponderance

standard,”

but

the

“‘reasonable probability’ language better captures the preliminary
nature of this [removal] inquiry”).
the

interest

of

protecting

The Court is mindful that in

Plaintiffs’
3

choice

of

court

and

principles of “federalism and comity, removal statutes are to be
construed strictly and, in ambiguous cases, constructed against
removal.”

Porter v. Am. Heritage Life Ins. Co., 956 F. Supp. 2d

344, 347 (D.R.I. 2013) (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets,
313

U.S.

100,

109

(1941)).

In

determining

the

amount

in

controversy, the Court assumes that Plaintiffs’ allegations are
true, and considers “[t]he types of damages . . . permitted by the
state-law cause of action.”

Hogan, 2014 WL 66658, at *4 (citing

Abdel–Aleem v. OPK Biotech LLC, 665 F.3d 38, 42 (1st Cir. 2012);
Gabrielle v. Allegro Resorts Hotels, 210 F. Supp. 2d 62, 65 (D.R.I.
2002)).

The Court also considers affirmative evidence outside of

the complaint in support of the amount in controversy. See Amoche,
556 F.3d at 51 (relying on the defendant’s affidavit regarding
damages calculations in the amount in controversy analysis).
The parties agree that at least $68,345.76 is in controversy.
(Pls.’ Mot. To Remand 4; Def.’s Notice of Removal 2-3.)

Beyond

that, Liberty Mutual has offered no affirmative evidence to support
its assertion that the remaining claims, “if substantiated, would
realistically meet or exceed the $6,654.24 required to meet the
jurisdictional amount.”

(Def.’s Notice of Removal 2-3.)

Liberty

Mutual cites to myriad cases from other jurisdictions that consider
claims

for

punitive

damages

to

substantiate

the

amount

in

controversy requirement, but Liberty Mutual gives no evidence to
4

support a conclusion that there is a reasonably probability that
the

punitive

damages

Plaintiffs

claim

would

be

greater

than

$6,654.24. This Court has previously declined to consider punitive
damages on a motion to remand because “those amounts are not
quantifiable at this point in the litigation,” Porter, 956 F. Supp.
2d at 348, and any consideration of them would be pure speculation.
Liberty

Mutual

has

failed

to

establish

a

reasonable

probability that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory
minimum of $75,000.

As such, this Court must carry out the federal

practice of strictly construing removal statutes against removal.
See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp., 313 U.S. at 109.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’
Motion To Remand (ECF No. 6).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: November 9, 2017

5