Khehra v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENIED 6 Opposed MOTION to Remand (Signed by Judge Nancy F. Atlas) Parties notified.(sashabranner, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

DAWINDER S. KHEHRA,
Individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of
Balraj K. Khehra,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-0104

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on the Motion to Remand [Doc. # 6] filed by
Plaintiff Dawinder S. Khehra, to which Defendant Unum Life Insurance Company of
America (“Unum”) filed a Response [Doc. # 7]. Plaintiff neither filed a reply nor
requested additional time to do so. Having considered the full record and applied
governing legal authorities, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that his wife, Balraj K. Khehra, was covered by a life insurance

policy issued by Unum. Plaintiff alleges that he filed a claim for the insurance
benefits following his wife’s death, and Unum failed to pay the claim.

P:\ORDERS\11-2013\0104MRemandDeny.wpd 130319.0850

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in Texas state court on December 17, 2012, asserting
claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Article 21.21 of the Texas
Insurance Code and, alternatively, for breach of contract. Defendant was served with
the summons and Plaintiff’s petition on December 20, 2012. See Notice of Removal
[Doc. # 1-1], p. 5.
Defendant filed a timely Notice of Removal [Doc. # 1] on January 14, 2013,
removing this lawsuit to federal court. Defendant asserts federal subject matter
jurisdiction based on a federal question, specifically the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Defendant asserts subject matter jurisdiction also
on the basis of diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff filed his Motion to Remand, which
is now ripe for decision.
II.

GENERAL REMOVAL PRINCIPLES
“‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.’” Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S.

466, 489 (2004) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375,
377 (1994)); McKee v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 358 F.3d 329, 337 (5th Cir. 2004);
Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001). “‘They possess only
that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by
judicial decree.’” Rasul, 542 U.S. at 489 (quoting Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377
(citations omitted)). The court “must presume that a suit lies outside this limited

P:\ORDERS\11-2013\0104MRemandDeny.wpd 130319.0850

2

jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests on the party
seeking the federal forum.” Bourne v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 582 F. Supp. 2d 828,
832 (E.D. Tex. 2008) (quoting Howery, 243 F.3d at 916 (citing Kokkonen, 511 U.S.
at 377)); Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005); see also
Boone v. Citigroup, Inc., 416 F.3d 382, 388 (5th Cir. 2005).
III.

DIVERSITY JURISDICTION ANALYSIS
Federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship requires complete diversity

between plaintiff and defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Exxon Mobil Corp. v.
Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553-54 (2005); Stiftung v. Plains Marketing,
L.P., 603 F.3d 295, 297 (5th Cir. 2010). In this case, Plaintiff is a citizen of Texas and
Defendant is a citizen of Maine. Consequently, there is complete diversity between
Plaintiff and Defendant.
Diversity jurisdiction requires also that the amount in controversy exceed
$75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff argues
that the amount in controversy does not exceed the jurisdictional amount because the
amount of life insurance under the Unum policy was only $50,000.00. Plaintiff is
seeking, however, treble damages and attorney’s fees. See Original Petition [Doc. # 11], ¶ IX. As a result, the amount in controversy is at least $50,000.00 trebled, or
$150,000.00. This exceeds the Court’s jurisdictional amount. The Court has subject

P:\ORDERS\11-2013\0104MRemandDeny.wpd 130319.0850

3

matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship pursuant to § 1332, and remand
is not appropriate.
III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
There exists complete diversity between Plaintiff and Defendant. The amount

in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. The Court,
therefore, has subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1332, and it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [Doc. # 6] is DENIED. The
case remains scheduled for an initial pretrial conference on April 1, 2013, at
1:30 p.m.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 19th day of March, 2013.

P:\ORDERS\11-2013\0104MRemandDeny.wpd 130319.0850

4