Beasley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 25

ORDER denying pltf's 11 Motion to Remand by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

_______________________________________
)
JERYMAINE BEASLEY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
)
INSURANCE COMPANY,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________________)

No. C13-01106RSL
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
REMAND AND FOR COSTS AND
ATTORNEY FEES

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion for Remand, and for

14

Costs and Attorney Fees” (Dkt. # 11). Plaintiff requests a remand of the above-captioned case to

15

state court alleging insufficient amount in controversy and untimely removal. For the reasons set

16

forth below, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to remand.
Background

17
18

Plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident on December 10, 2001. Dkt. # 11

19

Ex. F. In July 2012, an arbitrator awarded plaintiff $72,500 against State Farm Mutual

20

Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) after an arbitration hearing concerning

21

plaintiff’s damages claim arising from the automobile accident. Dkt. # 11 Ex. B. Plaintiff began

22

a state court action by filing a motion in King County Superior Court, cause no.

23

12-2-27801-6KNT, to confirm the arbitration award one month later. Id. The state court

24

confirmed the arbitration award, State Farm paid the award, and a satisfaction of judgment was

25

filed. Dkt. # 11 Ex. G at 6; Beasley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 12-2-27801-6,

26

KNT2012 WL 5588687 (Wash. Super. Ct. 2012).
ORDER DENYING REMAND

1

In April 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment in King County

2

Superior Court under the same cause number as the completed civil action for the arbitration

3

award. Dkt. # 11 Ex. F. In its motion, plaintiff asked the court to find that State Farm violated

4

the Washington Insurance Fair Conduct Act (“IFCA”) because it offered him less than what he

5

was awarded at arbitration. Dkt. # 11 Ex. F. The state court found that the motion for summary

6

judgment was untimely and denied it without prejudice. Dkt. # 11, Ex. H. On June 6, 2013,

7

plaintiff filed and served a complaint against State Farm alleging violations of the IFCA for the

8

same claims made in his motion for summary judgment. Dkt. # 11 Ex. I. Twenty days later, on

9

June 26, 2013, State Farm removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western

10

District of Washington. Dkt. # 11 Ex. A.
Discussion

11
12

I. Timeliness of Removal

13

Plaintiff asserts that remand is necessary because State Farm did not file its notice

14

of removal within 30 days of being served with the motion for confirmation of arbitration award

15

or the motion for summary judgment. The starting point for analysis is the statute. Under 28

16

U.S.C. § 1441(a), subject to certain limitations, a defendant may remove “any civil action

17

brought in a state court” to the federal court for the district in which such civil “action is

18

pending,” provided the action could originally have been initiated in the federal forum. 28

19

U.S.C. § 1441(a). The text of Section 1441(a) establishes that a defendant's right to remove a

20

civil action from a state to a federal forum depends upon the existence of a pending state

21

proceeding. Until a state action is initiated, there is nothing to be removed. State law and rules

22

of procedure determine when a dispute may be deemed a cognizable legal action in state court.

23

Bush v. Cheaptickets, Inc., 425 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005)(citing Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U.S.

24

117, 120 (1945)(“Whether any case is pending in the Illinois courts is a question to be

25

determined by Illinois law”)). A civil action in a Washington court begins “by service of

26

summons, or by the filing of a complaint, or as otherwise provided, the court is deemed to have
ORDER DENYING REMAND

-2-

1
2

acquired jurisdiction and to have control of all subsequent proceedings.” RCW 4.28.020.
Plaintiff argues that his motion to confirm arbitration award in August 2012 began

3

the civil action under RCW 4.28.020 because it is “otherwise provided” for under RCW

4

7.04A.220. RCW 7.04A.220 provides that a party may make a motion to confirm an award after

5

receipt of notice of arbitration award. Accordingly, King County Superior Court acquired

6

jurisdiction over plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitration award under RCW 4.28.020 when

7

plaintiff filed his motion to confirm the arbitration award. When State Farm paid the award and

8

the satisfaction of judgment was filed, the civil action regarding the arbitration award concluded.

9

No civil action for plaintiff’s IFCA claim existed at the time plaintiff filed his

10

motion to confirm arbitration award. Plaintiff argues that once the state court acquired

11

jurisdiction over his motion to confirm the arbitration award, the court continued to have control

12

over plaintiff’s unfiled IFCA claim. This is not the case. Plaintiff did not bring an IFCA claim

13

against State Farm at the time he brought his motion to confirm arbitration award. See Dkt. # 11

14

Ex. C, I. Plaintiff’s case seeking confirmation of the arbitration award is a separate civil action

15

than his case alleging violations of IFCA. Id. The civil action for plaintiff’s IFCA claim began

16

when plaintiff filed his complaint on June 6, 2013. Id. State Farm properly filed its notice of

17

removal within 30 days of the filing of the complaint under IFCA. Dkt. # 11 Ex. A.

18

Plaintiff also argues that his April 2013 motion for summary judgment should start

19

the 30 day removal clock, as it provided notice to State Farm of his claim, from which State

20

Farm could determine removability. Because plaintiff had not filed a complaint or served a

21

summons on State Farm at the time he moved for summary judgment on his IFCA claims, see

22

Dkt. # 11 Ex. F, I, no civil action had begun in state court under RCW 4.28.020. Again, until a

23

civil action begins, there is nothing to be removed. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

24

was premature as no complaint had been filed. The Court finds that plaintiff’s motion for

25

summary judgment was not an “initial pleading” under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) as no civil action

26

existed. Accordingly, the 30 day period for removal began when plaintiff filed his complaint in
ORDER DENYING REMAND

-3-

1

June 6, 2013. Dkt. # 11 Ex. I. The Court finds that State Farm timely removed the case on June

2

26, 2013. Dkt. # 11 Ex. A.

3
4

II. Amount in Controversy
Plaintiff also argues that State Farm did not prove that the statutory amount in

5

controversy was met at the time of removal, and so the Court does not have subject matter

6

jurisdiction over the claim. Where it is ambiguous from the face of a state-court complaint

7

whether the requisite amount in controversy is pled, courts apply a preponderance of the

8

evidence standard. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007)

9

(citing Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir.1996)(“[T]he

10

removing defendant bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

11

the amount in controversy exceeds[the jurisdictional amount].")). State Farm stated in its notice

12

of removal that it has a good faith basis on which to believe that plaintiff seeks $72,500 in

13

damages, prejudgment interest on $72,500, a trebling of $72,500 and the interest amount. Dkt. #

14

15. Under the IFCA statute, a court has discretion to increase the prevailing party’s actual

15

damages up to three times the amount of actual damages. RCW 48.30.015(2). The Ninth

16

Circuit has held that where an underlying statute authorizes treble damages, that amount may be

17

included for the purpose of determining the amount in controversy. See Chabner v. United

18

Omaha Life Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir.2000) (treble damages authorized by state

19

statute could have been taken into account when determining the amount in controversy). The

20

Court finds that State Farm has met its burden of showing that the amount in controversy

21

exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of $75,000.

22
23

III. Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Plaintiff requests attorney’s fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for having to

24

file the motion to remand. The Court finds that State Farm timely filed its Notice of Removal,

25

and that each party should bear its own costs in this matter.

26

IV. Sanctions
ORDER DENYING REMAND

-4-

1

State Farm asks the Court to impose sanctions on plaintiff for filing papers that are

2

frivolous or lacking in factual or legal support. Dkt. # 15. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2) provides that

3

a “motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the

4

specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b).” State Farm did not make a separate motion

5

for the Court to impose sanctions, and the Court finds that sanctions are not warranted at this

6

time.1
Conclusion

7

For all the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the motion to remand (Dkt.# 11)

8
9

and DENIES plaintiff’s request for costs and attorney’s fees.

10

DATED this 22nd day of November, 2013.

11
12

A

13

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1

25
26

Although the Court is not imposing sanctions at this time, the Court is nonetheless concerned
about the questionable legal grounds of plaintiff’s counsel’s arguments. The Court reminds plaintiff’s
counsel that all legal contentions must be “warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for
extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2).
ORDER DENYING REMAND

-5-