United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is plaintiff Thomas Redsull's motion to
remand to state court. (ECF No. 4). Defendant State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company filed a response (ECF No.
before the court is defendant's motion to dismiss. (ECF
No. 3). Plaintiff filed a response (ECF No. 6), to which
defendant replied (ECF No. 7).
instant action involves a contract dispute between plaintiff,
a Nevada resident, and defendant, an Illinois corporation.
(ECF No. 1). On August 18, 2015, plaintiff was involved in an
automobile accident in Las Vegas, Nevada. (ECF No. 4). The
tortfeasor was insured under two separate insurance policies
with a combined total of bodily injury liability coverage of
$65, 000.00. Id. Plaintiff has previously recovered
$65, 000.00 from the tortfeasor's insurers. Id.
injuries and damages sustained by plaintiff in the accident
are in excess of the available bodily injury liability limits
which were available to the tortfeasor. (ECF No. 1, Ex. A).
Plaintiff made demand upon defendant, plaintiff's
insurer, to tender the $15, 000.00 value of his underinsured
motorist policy with defendant. Id. Upon refusal,
plaintiff then filed the underlying complaint in state court
on January 2, 2018. Id.
complaint alleges claims for relief related to breach of
contract and seeks monetary damages only in excess of the
$65, 000.00 previously recovered from the tortfeasor's
insurance carriers. Id. Specifically, plaintiff
seeks general damages in an amount in excess of $10, 000.00,
special damages to be determined at trial, punitive damages
in an amount in excess of $10, 000.000, and for costs of the
suit and reasonable attorney's fees. Id.
removed the action to federal court on February 9, 2018,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). (ECF No. 1).
instant motion, plaintiff moves to remand the action to state
court. (ECF No. 4).
to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “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.” 28 U.S.C. §
United States district court to have diversity jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the parties must be completely
diverse and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,
000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. See 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a); Matheson v. Progressive Specialty
Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2003). A removing
defendant has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the jurisdictional amount is met. See
Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398,
403-04 (9th Cir. 1996).
a defendant has thirty (30) days upon notice of removability
to remove a case to federal court. Durham v. Lockheed
Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1250 (9th Cir. 2006)
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)). Defendants are not
charged with notice of removability “until they've
received a paper that gives them enough information to
remove.” Id. at 1251.
“the ‘thirty day time period [for removal] . . .
starts to run from defendant's receipt of the initial
pleading only when that pleading affirmatively reveals on its
face' the facts necessary for federal court
jurisdiction.” Id. at 1250 (quoting Harris
v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 425 F.3d 689, 690-91
(9th Cir. 2005) (alterations in original)). “Otherwise,
the thirty-day clock doesn't begin ticking until a
defendant receives ‘a copy of an amended pleading,
motion, order or other paper' from which it can determine
that the case is removable. Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C.
plaintiff may challenge removal by timely filing a motion to
remand. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Remand to state court is
proper if the district court lacks jurisdiction. Id.
On a motion to remand, the removing defendant faces a strong
presumption against removal, and bears the burden of
establishing that removal is proper. Sanchez v.
Monumental Life Ins. ...