Filed: Jul. 17, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 17, 2017
Summary: ORDER DAVID G. CAMPBELL , District Judge . Defendant American Family removed this case on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. At the case management conference on July 14, 2017, the Court discussed the basis for its jurisdiction with the parties. Plaintiffs explained that although the appraised loss amount in this case was about $30,000, all but about $7,000 had been paid by Defendant before removal, and Plaintiffs have made a settlement demand for a remaining $45,000. Thus, in Plaintiffs'
Summary: ORDER DAVID G. CAMPBELL , District Judge . Defendant American Family removed this case on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. At the case management conference on July 14, 2017, the Court discussed the basis for its jurisdiction with the parties. Plaintiffs explained that although the appraised loss amount in this case was about $30,000, all but about $7,000 had been paid by Defendant before removal, and Plaintiffs have made a settlement demand for a remaining $45,000. Thus, in Plaintiffs' ..
More
ORDER
DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge.
Defendant American Family removed this case on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. At the case management conference on July 14, 2017, the Court discussed the basis for its jurisdiction with the parties. Plaintiffs explained that although the appraised loss amount in this case was about $30,000, all but about $7,000 had been paid by Defendant before removal, and Plaintiffs have made a settlement demand for a remaining $45,000. Thus, in Plaintiffs' view, the amount in controversy is well below $75,000. Defendant believes the value of the case exceeds $75,000, apparently because Plaintiffs make claims for punitive damages and attorneys' fees.
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.
When a state court complaint does not clearly plead the requisite amount in controversy and the plaintiff contests the amount, the 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).
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). Plaintiffs' complaint does not specify an amount of punitive damages sought, and Plaintiffs' counsel asserts that he has made an overall settlement demand of $45,000. 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 Defendant can only speculate as to the ultimate amount of recoverable attorneys' fees in this case, and such speculation cannot establish the jurisdiction of this Court. See Ibarra, 775 F.3d at 1197.
IT IS ORDERED that this case is remanded to Maricopa County Superior Court.
United States District Court
District of Arizona
Office of the Clerk
Brian D. Karth Michael S. O'Brien
District Court Executive/Clerk Of Court Chief Deputy Clerk
Sandra Day O'Connor U. S. Courthouse, Suite 130 Evo A. DeConcini U.S. Courthouse
401 West Washington Street, SPC 1 405 W. Congress, Suite 1500
Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2118 Tucson, Arizona 85701-5010
Debra D. Lucas
Chief Deputy Clerk
Sandra Day O'Connor U. S. Courthouse, Suite 130
401 West Washington Street, SPC 1
Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2118
July 17, 2017
Clerk's Office
Maricopa County Superior Court
201 W Jefferson St
Phoenix, AZ 85003
ATTN: Civil File Counter
RE: REMAND TO MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
District Court Case Number: CV-17-01609-PHX-DGC
Superior Court Case Number: CV2017-004990
Dear Clerk of Court:
Enclosed is a certified copy of the Order entered in this Court on July 17, 2017, remanding the above case to Maricopa County Superior Court for the State of Arizona.
Sincerely,
BRIAN D. KARTH, DCE/CLERK OF COURT
s/D. Draper
Deputy Clerk
cc: All Counsel of Record
PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS DOCUMENT AND RETURN IN THE ENVELOPE PROVIDED
Received By:______________________________ Dated: __________________
