United States District Court, D. Nevada
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
this Court comes Defendant GEICO General Insurance Company
(“GEICO”)'s Motion to Sever Improperly Joined
Claims (ECF No. 5); GEICO's Motion to Remand to State
Court Non-Diverse Claims (ECF No. 6); Plaintiff Roger Dorn
Baldwin (“Plaintiff”)'s Motion to Remand for
Lack of Diversity and Request for Attorney's Fees (ECF
No. 8); GEICO's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10); and
GEICO's Motion to Stay Claims for Bad Faith (ECF No. 11).
For the reasons stated below, the Court grants
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and denies GEICO's
alleges the following facts in his Complaint. Plaintiff is a
resident of Clark County, Nevada. Defendant Michael Y. Habte
(“Habte”) is a resident Clark County, Nevada.
Defendant Nellis Cab, LLC (“Nellis Cab”) is a
limited liability corporation and/or business entity
authorized to do business as a taxicab company in Clark
County, Nevada. Defendant GEICO is a corporation and/or
business entity authorized to do business as an insurance
company in Clark County, Nevada.
24, 2015, Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle collision
with Habte at 7:15 p.m. on South Valley View Boulevard, south
of Viking Road, in Las Vegas, Nevada. Plaintiff was traveling
northbound on Valley View when Habte failed to yield to the
right-of-way and pulled into Plaintiff's travel lane
causing the car crash. Plaintiff alleges that, at the time of
the subject car crash, Habte was working within the scope and
course of his employment with Nellis Cab. This accident
caused physical injuries to Plaintiff.
October 6, 2015, Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle
collision with nonparty Mary C. Trotter
(“Trotter”). The collision occurred at
approximately 11:30 a.m. on southbound Valley View, at the
red light with Flamingo Avenue, in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Plaintiff was driving southbound on Valley View on the Number
One travel lane, directly in front of Trotter. Plaintiff
stopped his vehicle for the red light ahead and Trotter
failed to use due care and struck the rear of Plaintiff's
vehicle. Plaintiff alleges that Trotter's negligence was
the clear cause of the October 6, 2015 collision. Plaintiff
was injured as a result of the collision caused by
vehicle was insured with The General Insurance Company, with
policy limits of $15, 000 per person and $30, 000 per
occurrence. On or about March 8, 2016, Trotter, by and
through her insurance company, claim number PA0002030335,
tendered the available policy limits, $15, 000, to Plaintiff.
time of the October 6, 2015 collision, Plaintiff and his
vehicle were insured with GEICO. This insurance policy
included uninsured/underinsured motorist
(“UM/UIM”) benefits with a policy limit of $50,
000 / $100, 000. Plaintiff notified GEICO of a potential
underinsured motorist claim on or about October 7, 2015.
Plaintiff alleges that GEICO is entitled to offsets in the
amount of $25, 000: $15, 000 for Trotter's third party
settlement, and $10, 000 in medical payments that were paid
past medical bills are reasonable in light of Plaintiff's
injuries and the treatment that was provided to Plaintiff by
his treating physicians, and were necessarily incurred by him
for treatment he received because of injuries that were
proximately caused in the October 6, 2015 collision. GEICO
owed Plaintiff a duty to act in good faith in evaluating,
investigating, and handling his claim, but was instead
indifferent, inexcusably ignorant, and worse.
asserts the following causes of action: (1) negligence /
negligence per se, against Habte; (2) negligence (respondeat
superior), against Nellis Cab; (3) negligent hiring /
training / supervision, against Nellis Cab; (4) negligent
entrustment, against Nellis Cab; (5) breach of uninsured
motorist / underinsured motorist insurance contract, against
GEICO; (6) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing / bad faith, against GEICO; and (7) violation of
Nevada's Unfair Claims Practices Act, against GEICO.
originally filed suit in the Eighth Judicial District on
January 5, 2017. (ECF 1-1). Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint in state court on March 15, 2017. On March 20,
2017, the case was removed to this Court. (ECF No. 1). In its
Petition for Removal, GEICO argued that it was diverse from