Faulds et al v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company

Filing 8

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Within 14 days of the date of this Order, Allstate is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to do so will result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Signed by Judge Lauren King. (SB)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 CHRISTINE FAULDS et al., v. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiffs, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01705-LK This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On September 19, 2024, Plaintiffs Christine and Jason Faulds filed their complaint for declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief in King County Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 9–10. On October 17, 2024, Defendant Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company removed Plaintiffs’ complaint to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 1 at 2–6 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)). However, the record does not show that the amount in controversy requirement is met. For the reasons discussed below, the Court orders Allstate to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 24 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1 1 Federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter 2 jurisdiction exists[.]” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). This determination is an 3 “inflexible” threshold requirement that must be made “without exception, for jurisdiction is power 4 to declare the law and without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause.” Ruhrgas 5 AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577 (1999) (cleaned up). As the party asserting jurisdiction, 6 Allstate has the burden of establishing it. See United States v. Orr Water Ditch Co., 600 F.3d 1152, 7 1157 (9th Cir. 2010). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, 8 the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 9 District courts have original jurisdiction when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 10 and the action is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Whether the amount 11 in controversy exceeds $75,000 is generally “determined from the face of the pleadings,” and 12 courts will defer to the amount “claimed by the plaintiff . . . so long as the claim is made in good 13 faith.” Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000); accord Geographic 14 Expeditions, Inc. v. Est. of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2010). 15 The record fails to demonstrate that the $75,000 threshold is satisfied. In their complaint, 16 Plaintiffs only request unspecified sums relating to applicable coverage and benefits, which “will 17 be determined as investigation and discovery continue.” Dkt. No. 1-1 at 5; see also id. at 9. Allstate 18 reasons that the amount in controversy requirement has been met because “[t]he benefits 19 potentially available to Plaintiffs under the Policy that they seek to recover in this lawsuit exceed 20 $300,000,” which include the “dwelling coverage with limits of $250,000 (of which approximately 21 $96,000 of the benefits have been paid),” “personal property coverage with limits of $187,500” 22 (of which $19,689.71 has been paid), and “additional living expense coverage . . . with limits of 23 $25,000.” Dkt. No. 1 at 3–4. Allstate avers that the amount in controversy is further increased 24 because Plaintiffs also seek (1) extra-contractual tort damages for bad faith and violation of the ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2 1 Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) and Insurance Fair Conduct Act (“IFCA”) that 2 “are independent of and in addition to policy benefits Plaintiffs seek,” (2) punitive and treble 3 damages under the CPA and IFCA, (3) “attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this 4 action under the CPA, IFCA, or applicable law,” and (4) injunctive relief, “which would be 5 expensive and time-consuming for Allstate to implement.” Id. at 3–5. Allstate reasons that “[w]hen 6 the foregoing is combined, the amount in controversy substantially exceeds the jurisdictional 7 threshold of $75,000.” Id. at 6. 8 Allstate has not demonstrated that the amount in controversy has been met. When, as here, 9 the parties dispute the applicability of the policy to a particular occurrence—rather than the validity 10 of the policy itself—“the jurisdictional amount in controversy is measured by the value of the 11 underlying claim—not the face amount of the policy.” Schmale v. State Farm & Cas. Co., No. 12 2:23-cv-01114-GMN-NJK, 2023 WL 7130567, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 30, 2023) (quoting Charles 13 Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, vol. 14B, § 14 3710, 264 (3d ed., West 1998)). Thus, the value of the claim, not the policy limit, determines the 15 amount in controversy here. Id.; see also Tesfay v. United Fin. Cas. Co., No. 2:22-cv-01687-TL, 16 2023 WL 2554163, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 17, 2023) (noting that “the mere fact that the policy 17 limits exceed the $75,000 threshold for diversity jurisdiction does not show what the amount in 18 controversy in this action actually is”). Additionally, even if the Court considers extra-contractual 19 tort damages (including any punitive and treble damages), certain attorneys’ fees and costs, and 20 costs to implement injunctive relief to determine the amount in controversy, Allstate has not 21 demonstrated that these other forms of relief requested by Plaintiffs sufficiently satisfy the amount 22 in controversy requirement absent the value of the underlying claim. 23 24 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 3 1 Accordingly, within 14 days of the date of this Order, Allstate is ORDERED to SHOW 2 CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to 3 do so will result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 4 Dated this 22nd day of November, 2024. 5 A 6 Lauren King United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?