Davis v. American Commerce Insurance Company

Filing 8

ORDER Denying 3 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (CV, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

5
6
7

No.

ANN DAVIS,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

4:CV-14-5034-EFS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
TO REMAND TO STATE COURT

v.
AMERICAN COMMERCE INSURANCE
COMPANY (ACIC),

11
Defendant.
12
13

Before the Court, without oral argument, is Plaintiff Ann Davis'

14

Motion to Remand to State Court, ECF No. 3.

15

this matter back to Benton County Superior Court claiming diversity

16

jurisdiction is not met due to a lack of a sufficient amount in

17

controversy.

18

matter the Court is fully informed and, for the following reasons,

19

finds the Court does have diversity jurisdiction.

Plaintiff seeks to remand

Having reviewed the pleadings and the file in this

20

In relevant part, the federal removal statute provides:

21

(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of
Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of
which the district courts of the United States have
original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or
the defendants, to the district court of the United States
for the district and division embracing the place where
such action is pending.

22
23
24
25

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

26

that removal is proper.”

ORDER - 1

“The defendant bears the burden of establishing
Provincial Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer

1

Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009).

2

is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction,” id., and removal

3

jurisdiction “must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right

4

of removal in the first instance,” Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v.

5

Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation and

6

quotation marks omitted).
A

7

federal

district

court

generally

has

“The removal statute

original

jurisdiction

8

over a civil action when: (1) a federal question is presented in an

9

action

“arising

under

the

Constitution,

laws,

or

treaties

of

the

10

United States” or (2) there is complete diversity of citizenship and

11

the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

12

1332(a).

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,

Here, Plaintiff maintains that diversity jurisdiction does not

13
14

exist as the amount in controversy is only $51,000.

15

However,

16

otherwise.

17

at 3.

18

amounts to $16,548.73 in damages.

19

Conduct

20

trebled to $49,646.19 in damages upon a finding the insurer acted

21

unreasonably

22

Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed “to properly and

23

timely administer and process Plaintiff’s casualty loss claim” in

24

violation of both WAC 284-30-370 and WAC 284-30-380.

ECF No. 1-1 at

25

3.

each

26

provides for up to $25,000 of trebled actual damages.

a

close

reading

of

Plaintiff’s

ECF No. 3.

Complaint

demonstrates

First, Plaintiff seeks contractual damages.

ECF No. 1-1

As detailed in Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 3 at 2-3, this

Act,

Under

ORDER - 2

these

in

the

actual

denying

Washington

Under Washington’s Insurance Fair

contractual

the

claim.

Consumer

damages,

See

Protection

if

RCW

Act,

proven,

can

be

48.30.015(2).

violation

RCW 19.86.020;

1

RCW 19.86.090.

2

is currently recoverable under Washington law as pled in Plaintiff’s

3

complaint.

4

Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

5
6
7
8
9

Accordingly, the Court finds that at least $99,646.19

Therefore, as the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000,

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand
to State Court, ECF No. 3, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this

Order and provide copies to all counsel.
DATED this

15th

day of May 2014.

10
s/ Edward F. Shea
EDWARD F. SHEA
Senior United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Q:\EFS\Civil\2014\5034.deny.remand.lc2.docx

ORDER - 3