Breen v. Motorists Mutual Insurance Companies
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 6 THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND. The plaintiffs motion to remand is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that this civil action be DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment on this matter. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. on 12/16/2014. (copy to counsel of record via CM/ECF; copy to Clerk of Circuit Court of Brooke County, WV via U.S. Mail) (nmm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
JAMES BREEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 5:14CV148
(STAMP)
MOTORISTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES
d/b/a MOTORISTS INSURANCE GROUP,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
I. Background
On October 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed this civil action
against the defendant, the plaintiff’s insurer, in the Circuit
Court of Brooke County, West Virginia.
The defendant is an
insurance company that is incorporated in Ohio, with its principal
place of business there as well.
The plaintiff claims that on
October 11, 2013, a nearby gas explosion damaged his residence.
Pursuant to the insurance policy, the plaintiff then filed a claim
for damages and submitted it to the defendant. That claim amounted
to approximately $36,654.00.
The defendant then hired an engineer
to dispute the claim, and accordingly denied the plaintiff’s claim.
As a result, the plaintiff filed his complaint wherein he
alleges four counts.
Count I alleges that the defendant breached
the contract between the parties by denying the claim.
Count II
claims that the defendant breached the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing. Count III alleges that the defendant acted
in bad faith.
punitive
Finally, Count IV provides that the plaintiff seeks
damages.
The
plaintiff
also
includes
a
claim
for
emotional distress. Regarding damages, the plaintiff seeks general
damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, and whatever
else this Court decides is appropriate.
After the plaintiff filed his complaint, the defendant then
filed a notice of removal under diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. 1.
Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand.
No. 6.
In his motion to remand, the plaintiff takes issue with the
amount in controversy requirement.
first
ECF
argues
that
removal
Specifically, the plaintiff
statutes
are
strictly
including the amount in controversy requirement.
construed,
Second, the
plaintiff claims that the defendant failed to meet its burden of
proving that the amount in controversy requirement was satisfied.
The plaintiff points out that the damages sought in the claim
amount to $36,654.00, and that the defendant offered a settlement
amount of roughly $13,700.00.
In essence, the plaintiff argues
that the core amount of the claim and of the damages in this civil
action fall well below $75,000.00. Because the defendant failed to
satisfy the amount in controversy requirement, the plaintiff seeks
this Court to remand this civil action.
The defendant then filed a response in opposition. ECF No. 7.
In it, the defendant argues that the plaintiff seeks not only the
claim amount of $36,654.00, but also punitive damages, costs, and
2
fees that cumulatively may satisfy the amount in controversy
requirement.
Finally, the plaintiff filed a reply where he argues
that the defendant continues to ignore the fact that the property
damage at issue was estimated to be $36,654.00, well below the
$75,000.00 amount required of diversity jurisdiction.
For the
reasons described below, the plaintiff’s motion to remand is
granted.
III.
Applicable Law
A defendant may remove a case from state court to federal
court in instances where the federal court is able to exercise
original jurisdiction over the matter.
28 U.S.C. § 1441.
Federal
courts have original jurisdiction over primarily two types of
cases: (1) those involving federal questions under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331, and (2) those involving citizens of different states where
the
amount
in
controversy
exceeds
$75,000.00,
interests and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
exclusive
of
However, if
federal jurisdiction arises only by virtue of the parties’ diverse
citizenship, such an action “shall be removable only if none of the
. . . defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is
brought.”
Tomlin
v.
Office
of
Law
Enforcement
Tech.
Commercialization, Inc., 5:07CV42, 2007 WL 1376030, at *1 (N.D. W.
Va. May 7, 2007).
The party seeking removal bears the burden of
establishing federal jurisdiction.
See In re Blackwater Security
Consulting, LLC, 460 F.3d 576, 583 (4th Cir. 2006); Mulcahey v.
3
Columbia Organic Chems. Co., Inc., 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir.
1994).
Removal jurisdiction is strictly construed, and if federal
jurisdiction is doubtful, the federal court must remand.
Hartley
v. CSX Transp., Inc., 187 F.3d 422 (4th Cir. 1999); Mulcahey, 29
F.3d at 151.
Further, the court is limited to a consideration of facts on
the record at the time of removal.
See Lowrey v. Alabama Power
Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1213–15 (11th Cir. 2007) (“In assessing whether
removal was proper . . . the district court has before it only the
limited universe of evidence available when the motion to remand is
filed.”); O’Brien v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 5:10CV110, 2011 WL
2551163 (N.D. W. Va. June 27, 2011);
Marshall v. Kimble, No.
5:10CV127, 2011 WL 43034, at *3 (N.D. W. Va. Jan. 6, 2011) (“The
defendant’s removal cannot be based on speculation; rather, it must
be based on facts as they exist at the time of removal.”);
Fahnestock v. Cunningham, 5:10CV89, 2011 WL 1831596, at *2 (N.D. W.
Va. May 12, 2011) (“The amount in controversy is determined by
considering the judgment that would be entered if the plaintiff
prevailed on the merits of his case as it stands at the time of
removal”
(internal
citations
omitted)).
Regarding
punitive
damages, the mere likelihood of punitive damages, without more,
does not give rise to federal jurisdiction.
Cunningham, 2011 WL
1831596, at *2 (citing Landmark Corp. v. Apogee Coal Company, 945
F. Supp. 932 (S.D. W. Va. 1996)).
4
IV.
Discussion
The facts show that the plaintiff is a citizen of West
Virginia, and the defendant is a citizen of Ohio with its principal
place of business there as well.
However, the only issue in
dispute is the amount in controversy requirement under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441.
Based on the record before this Court, the plaintiff’s motion
to remand must be granted. The defendant fails to demonstrate that
the amount in controversy requirement has been satisfied.
In its
response in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion, the defendant
admits that the plaintiff provided a repair estimate for the damage
to his home amounting to $36,654.00.
defendant
then
argues
that
“[i]n
ECF No. 7.
the
event
However, the
that
Plaintiff
substantially prevails on his claim, he can recover under West
Virginia law his reasonable attorney fees [and] . . . . punitive
damages are also recoverable in actions for statutory bad faith.”
Thus, the defendant argues that when one aggregates the damages
that the plaintiff seeks as well as what the plaintiff may receive
if successful, then the amount in controversy requirement is
satisfied.
However,
that
calculation
fails
to
satisfy
the
defendant’s burden regarding the amount in controversy requirement.
First,
as
stated
earlier,
the
amount
in
controversy
requirement cannot be based on speculation or “what ifs” that may
occur. Rather, the court is limited to a consideration of facts on
5
the record at the time of removal.
1213–15.
See Lowrey, 483 F.3d at
At this time in the civil action, the amount of damages
that may or will be recovered is completely unknown and speculative
at
best.
Speculation
regarding
the
amount
in
controversy
requirement fails to satisfy the burden that the removing party
bears.
See In re Blackwater Security Consulting, LLC, 460 F.3d at
583.
Second, the mere likelihood of punitive damages, without more,
does not give rise to federal jurisdiction.
1831596, at *2.
Cunningham, 2011 WL
Further, although the plaintiff asserts a claim
for punitive damages, that does not “relieve the defendant, as the
removing party, of its burden to establish the propriety of removal
jurisdiction nor necessarily establish that it is more likely than
not
that
the
amount
in
controversy”
will
exceed
$75,000.00.
Wiemers v. Good Samaritan Society, 212 F. Supp. 2d 1042, 1046 (N.D.
Iowa 2002).
Here, the defendant still fails to demonstrate that
the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, at this
time
satisfies
the
requirement
under
diversity
jurisdiction.
Therefore, because the defendant only speculates the amount of
damages,
removal
is
improper.
As
stated
earlier,
removal
jurisdiction is strictly construed, and if federal jurisdiction is
doubtful, the federal court must remand. Hartley, 187 F.3d at 422;
Mulcahey, 29 F.3d at 151.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion is
6
granted, and the case is remanded to the Circuit Court of Brooke
County, West Virginia.
V.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the plaintiff’s motion to
remand is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that this civil action be
DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to counsel of record herein and to the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia.
Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter
judgment on this matter.
DATED:
December 16, 2014
/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
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?