Opinion
2:16-cv-00072-JAD-VCF
03-04-2016
Ji Pagsisihan, Plaintiff v. Allstate Indemnity Company, Defendant
Order Granting Motion to Remand, Denying Motion to Dismiss as Moot, Remanding Case Back to Nevada State Court, and Vacating Hearing [ECF 4, 9]
Ji Pagsisihan sues her insurer Allstate Indemnity Company for a handful of state-law claims, alleging that Allstate failed to adequately investigate her claim for medical and underinsured motorist coverage after a January 2014 car accident. Allstate removed the case from state court based on diversity of citizenship. Pagsisihan moves to remand, arguing that the Allstate has not demonstrated that the amount-in-controversy requirement has been met. Because Allstate has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, I grant Pagsisihan's motion and remand this case back to Nevada's Eighth Judicial District Court, case no. A-15-728656-C. I also deny Allstate's motion to dismiss as moot and vacate the hearing.
ECF 1-1.
ECF 1.
ECF 9.
I find this motion appropriate for resolution without oral argument. L.R. 78-2.
ECF 4.
Background
In January 2014, Pagsisihan sustained permanent bodily injuries in a car accident, and demanded that Allstate pay her underinsured-policy limits of $50,000. But despite her $40,500.03 in medical expenses, Pagsisihan alleges that Allstate responded with a settlement offer of just $6,000. Pagsisihan asserts four claims: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) Nevada Trade Practicess Act violations, and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress. In her prayer for relief, Pagsisihan claims general damages in excess of $10,000; special damages in excess of $10,000; and punitive damages in excess of $10,000.
ECF 1-1 at ¶ 6.
Id. at ¶¶ 9-10.
Id. at ¶ 13.
Id. at 5-7.
Id. at 8.
In its petition for removal, Allstate invokes this court's diversity jurisdiction. Allstate argues that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 because Pagsisihan claims $40,500 in medical damages and has "demanded full policy limits of $50,000, general damages, special damages, attorney costs and fees, damage for emotional distress, and punitive damages." Pagsisihan moves to remand, arguing that the only amount in controversy Allstate can show is $60,00.01: $50,000 in contractual damages (Pagsisihan's policy limits) and $10,000.01 for the bad faith/unfair-claims-handling claims.
ECF 1 at 2.
ECF 9 at 2.
Discussion
A. Motion to Remand
When a case is filed in state court between parties who are citizens of different states, and the case value exceeds $75,000, the defendant may remove the case to federal court. "Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction," and there is a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction. "[F]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." The defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper. This burden is usually satisfied if the plaintiff claims a sum greater than the threshold requirement. If the value of plaintiff's claim is unclear, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional amount has been met. Defendants may rely on facts presented in the removal petition and any summary-judgment-type evidence that is related to the amount in controversy. B. Remand is required because Allstate has not shown that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
Id.
Id. (citing St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-99 (1938)).
Id.; see also Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 395, 404 (9th Cir. 1996).
Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003).
The face of the complaint does not show that Pagsisihan claims damages in excess of $75,000. Pagsisihan claims damages in excess of $30,000 for general, special, and punitive damages. Because Pagsisihan does not explicitly claim damages in excess of $75,000, Allstate must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional amount has been met.
Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted); see also Sanchez, 102 F.3d at 404.
Pagsisihan alleges in her complaint—and Allstate offers no evidence to dispute—that she has incurred $40,500.03 in medical expenses and that her policy limit is $50,000. Thus, Allstate has shown, at most, only $70,000 in damages: $50,000 in special damages (assuming that Pagsisihan is entitled to the full policy amount), and in excess of $20,000 for general and punitive damages. Allstate offers no evidence to show that Pagsisihan's general and punitive damages exceed $20,000.01, so I am left with the amounts alleged in the complaint. Because Allstate has not offered evidence showing that the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds $75,000, I grant Pagsisihan's motion to remand.
Conclusion
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Remand [ECF 9] is GRANTED. This case is hereby remanded to the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada, Case number A-15-728656-C.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF 4] is DENIED as moot; the hearing set for March 7, 2016, is VACATED.
Dated this 4th day of March, 2016.
/s/_________
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Judge