Filed: Jul. 25, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 25, 2017
Summary: ORDER DAVID G. CAMPBELL , District Judge . Defendant First American removed this case on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed a motion for remand, which is fully briefed. No party requests oral argument. The appraised loss amount in this case was over $90,000, but Defendant tendered payment of approximately $76,000 shortly before the case was removed. Defense counsel assert that they were not informed that their client had tendered payment before they filed the removal pape
Summary: ORDER DAVID G. CAMPBELL , District Judge . Defendant First American removed this case on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed a motion for remand, which is fully briefed. No party requests oral argument. The appraised loss amount in this case was over $90,000, but Defendant tendered payment of approximately $76,000 shortly before the case was removed. Defense counsel assert that they were not informed that their client had tendered payment before they filed the removal paper..
More
ORDER
DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge.
Defendant First American removed this case on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed a motion for remand, which is fully briefed. No party requests oral argument.
The appraised loss amount in this case was over $90,000, but Defendant tendered payment of approximately $76,000 shortly before the case was removed. Defense counsel assert that they were not informed that their client had tendered payment before they filed the removal papers.
For a federal court to exercise removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1446, the amount in controversy must "exceed[] the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Courts "strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction." Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). "The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper." Id.
A removing defendant "must provide evidence establishing that it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeds [$75,000]." Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996) (quotation marks omitted). A defendant cannot establish removal jurisdiction by speculation and conjecture. Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015). Defendant agrees that some $76,000 of the appraisal amount has been paid.
The mere possibility of a punitive damages award is insufficient to prove that the amount in controversy requirement has been met. Burk v. Med. Sav. Ins. Co., 348 F.Supp.2d 1063, 1069 (D. Ariz. 2004). Plaintiff's complaint does not specify an amount of punitive damages sought, and Plaintiff's counsel asserts that he has made an overall settlement demand of $65,000. The Court concludes that the claim for punitive damages does not satisfy the amount in controversy requirement.
Attorneys' fees are part of the amount in controversy "if authorized by statute or contract," Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2005), but the ultimate amount of recoverable fees in this case is speculative, and such speculation cannot establish the jurisdiction of this Court. See Ibarra, 775 F.3d at 1197.
The Court will not award attorneys' fees for the removal and remand. The Court concludes that remand could have been accomplished through a reasonable conference between the attorneys after the checks had been received and the removal papers had been filed. The motion to remand and related briefing were entirely unnecessary.
IT IS ORDERED that this case is remanded to Maricopa County Superior Court.
