United States District Court, D. Nevada
MIRANDA M. DU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Staci Mitchell sued her insurer, Defendant Allstate Fire and
Casualty Insurance Company, for allegedly failing to
adequately reimburse her for damages she incurred in a car
accident. (ECF No. 1-1.) Defendant removed the case to this
Court. (ECF No. 1.) Before the Court is Plaintiff's
motion to remand because the amount in controversy does not
exceed the $75, 000 jurisdictional threshold. (ECF No. 7.)
Because Defendant has failed to carry its burden to show the
amount in controversy requirement is satisfied, the Court
will grant Plaintiff's Motion and remand this case to the
Second Judicial District Court.
following allegations come from the Complaint. (ECF No. 1-1.)
alleges she is covered by a car insurance policy provided by
Defendant (the “Policy”). (Id. at 4.)
Plaintiff was injured in a car accident that occurred on
November 28, 2017. (Id.) While she filed a claim
with Defendant for her injuries, and complied with the
Policy, Defendant failed to timely investigate, evaluate, and
pay her claim. (Id. at 4-5.)
filed her Complaint in the Second Judicial District Court in
and for the County of Washoe (ECF No. 1-1 at 2), and
Defendant removed based on diversity jurisdiction (ECF No. 1
asserts the following claims in the Complaint: (1) breach of
contract; (2) bad faith and breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing; and (3) violation of the trade
practices act NRS § 686A.310, NAC § 686A, et
seq. (ECF No. 1-1 at 5-7.) Plaintiff seeks actual
damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.
(Id. at 8.)
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having
subject-matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by
the Constitution and Congress. See U.S. Const. art.
III, § 2, cl. 1; see also, e.g., Kokkonen
v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994). A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal
court if the federal court would have had original
jurisdiction over the suit at commencement of the action.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). However, courts
strictly construe the removal statute against removal
jurisdiction, and “[f]ederal jurisdiction must
be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal
in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,
980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (emphasis added). The party
seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction. See Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,
445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006).
establish subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to diversity
of citizenship under § 1332(a), the party asserting
jurisdiction must show: (1) complete diversity of citizenship
among opposing parties and (2) an amount in controversy
exceeding $75, 000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that $75,
000 was in controversy at the time of removal, a defendant
seeking removal must prove, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the amount in controversy requirement is met.
See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117
(9th Cir. 2004).
preponderance of the evidence standard, a removing defendant
must “provide evidence establishing that it is
‘more likely than not' that the amount in
controversy exceeds” the jurisdictional minimum.
Id. at 1117 (citations omitted). As to the kind of
evidence that may be considered, the Ninth Circuit has
adopted the “practice of considering facts presented in
the removal petition as well as any
‘summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount
in controversy at the time of removal.'”
Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d
1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Singer v. State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997)).
Conclusory allegations are insufficient. See
Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090 (citation omitted).
does not request a specific amount of damages in the
Complaint. (See generally ECF No. 1-1.) Thus,
Defendant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the amount in controversy requirement is
satisfied.See Valdez, 372 F.3d at 1117.
Defendant has not made this showing. The Court addresses