United States District Court, D. Nevada
R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Andrea Perrine, initiated this action in the Second Judicial
District Court for Washoe County, Nevada on March 8, 2019. On
May 10, 2019, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction,
defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
('defendant") filed a notice of removal to this
court (ECF NO. 1).
review of the complaint and defendant's petition for
removal, the court finds that it requires more evidence to
determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over
this case. While it appears that the parties are of diverse
citizenship, defendant has not demonstrated that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.
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 . . . to the district court of
the United States for any district . . . where such action is
pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Among other
reasons, the district courts of the United States have
“original jurisdiction” where there is diversity
of citizenship between the parties and the amount in
controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $75,
000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
. . . it appears that the district court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c). “Federal 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) (citing Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy
Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)). Moreover, the
removal statute is construed restrictively and in favor of
remanding a case to state court. See Shamrock Oil &
Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941);
Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566.
defendant files a petition for removal, the court must
determine whether federal jurisdiction exists, even if no
objection is made to removal. See Rains v. Criterion
Systems, Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996). The
defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal
is proper. Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. Normally this
burden is satisfied if the plaintiff claims a sum greater
than the jurisdictional requirement. Id.
if the plaintiff does not claim a sum greater than the
jurisdictional requirement, the defendant cannot meet its
burden by merely alleging that the amount in controversy is
met: “The authority which the statute vests in the
court to enforce the limitations of its jurisdiction
precludes the idea that jurisdiction may be maintained by
mere averment . . . .” Id. (quoting McNutt
v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189
(1936)) (emphasis omitted).
cases, it may be “‘facially apparent' from
the complaint that the jurisdictional amount is in
controversy.” See Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
Ins., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997) (delineating the
“appropriate procedure for determining the amount in
controversy on removal” as described in Allen v. R
& H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326 (5th Cir.
1995)). However, “[w]hen the amount is not facially
apparent from the complaint, the court may consider facts in
the removal petition and may require parties to submit
summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in
controversy at the time of removal.” Kroske v. U.S.
Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
in arguing that the amount in controversy requirement has
been satisfied, defendant relies solely on the allegations in
the complaint. However, the court finds that it is not
facially apparent from the complaint that more than $75, 000
is in controversy. It may be that medical expenses alone, and
other special damages claimed by plaintiff exceed the
threshold amount for jurisdiction in this court, however,
there has been no showing of such an amount by removing
defendant. Accordingly, jurisdiction has not been
court will provide defendant additional time to present
“summary-judgment-type evidence” showing by a
preponderance of the evidence that this case meets §
1332(a)'s amount in controversy requirement.
THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant is granted twenty (20) days
from the entry of this order to establish the minimum amount
in controversy for federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff is granted
ten (10) days to file an opposition. No reply is required.