Opinion
2:11-CV-0328-LRH-GWF.
May 4, 2011
ORDER
Before the court is defendant Horace Mann Insurance Company's ("Horace Mann") brief that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Doc. #9.
Refers to the court's docket
On March 2, 2011, the court entered an order finding that defendants had failed to establish that removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction was proper in their petition for removal (Doc. #1) and granted defendants the opportunity to establish that the amount in controversy between the parties exceeds $75,000 as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Doc. #4.
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) provides that the district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction over all civil actions between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $75,000.
Where, as here, it is not facially evident from the face of the complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, "the removing defendant bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $[75],000." Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, defendant Horace Mann contends that the amount in controversy requirement is met because plaintiff Joseph Pilette's ("Pilette") documented medical bills as of the date of the complaint, which are requested in full, are over $100,000. Further, Pilette's counsel has made a $250,000 settlement demand against Horace Mann. See Doc. #9, Exhibit A. A plaintiff's statement of damages after the filing of the complaint is relevant evidence establishing the amount in controversy. See Cohen v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2002). Therefore, the court finds that defendants have proffered sufficient evidence establishing an amount in controversy greater than $75,000. Accordingly, the court shall accept defendant's removal of this action and exercise diversity jurisdiction over the complaint.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's brief concerning removal (Doc. #9) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 3rd day of May, 2011.