United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
G.
Murray Snow, Chief United States District Judge.
Pending
before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, (Doc.
10). For the following reasons the motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs
Chris and Christina Love filed an action against their
insurance carrier, Defendant Safeco Insurance on April 10,
2019 in the Maricopa County Superior Court. (Doc. 1-4, Ex. A
at 2.) On January 10, 2018, the Loves' vehicle received
extensive damage when it was involved in an auto accident.
(Id. at 3.) After the accident the Loves filed a
claim with Safeco seeking to cover the costs of repairs made
to the vehicle. (Id. at 4.) The estimated cost of
the repair and storage of the vehicle was $51, 249.16 as of
April 30, 2018. (Doc. 10 at 2-3.) Of this balance Safeco has
paid a total of $29, 413.54 and has refused to make any
further payments. (Id. at 3.) As of June 20, 2019,
the vehicle remains with the repair company and continues to
accumulate storage fees, and interest. (Doc. 13 at 3.)
The
Loves allege that Safeco's failure to pay the full value
of the repair without a reasonable basis constitutes a breach
of contract. (Doc. 1-4, Ex. A at 5.) The complaint also
alleges a claim of bad faith and seeks punitive damages in
addition to special damages because Safeco is alleged to have
breached its implied covenant of fair dealing “with an
evil mind . . . and with a consistent pattern to undermine
the security of its own insurance policies.”
(Id. at 4-5.) The Loves have also asserted a right
to recover attorney's fees pursuant to A.R.S. §
12-341.01. (Id. at 6.) The complaint does not allege
a specific amount in damages other than to say that the total
“cost of repairs, including labor, parts,
administration, and storage was in excess of $50,
0000.” (Id. at 4.)
On May
15, 2019, Safeco filed a petition for removal asserting that
this Court has jurisdiction “because it is a civil
action between citizens of different states and the matter in
controversy . . . exceeds the sum of $75,
000.”[1] (Doc 1 at 1, 5.) In support of its
assertion that the amount of controversy exceeds $75, 000
Safeco has provided the Loves' initial complaint,
certification of arbitration, and estimated repair bill.
(Doc. 13 at 5-6.) On June 10, 2019, the Loves filed a motion
to remand alleging that Safeco had failed to demonstrate that
the amount in controversy exceeded $75, 000. (Doc. 10 at 1,
3.) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c)).
DISCUSSION
I.
Legal Standard
Any
civil action brought in state court over which the federal
district courts have original jurisdiction may be removed to
the federal district court where the action is pending. 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a). Typically, courts strictly construe
the statute against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles,
Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). There is a
“strong presumption” against removal and
“[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is
any doubt as to the right of removal in the first
instance.” Id. “The ‘strong
presumption' against removal jurisdiction means that the
defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal
is proper.” Id. “If at any time before
final judgment it appears that the district court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be
remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see Matheson
v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090
(9th Cir. 2003) (“Where doubt regarding the right to
removal exists, a case should be remanded to state
court.”).
Where a
complaint does not demand a specific dollar amount, the
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); see
Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090 (“Where it is not
facially evident from the complaint that more than $75, 000
is in controversy, the removing party must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy
meets the jurisdictional threshold.”). To meet its
burden, Defendant “must provide evidence establishing
that it is ‘more likely than not' that the amount
in controversy exceeds [$75, 000].” Sanchez,
102 F.3d at 404; see Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566-67
(“If it is unclear what amount of damages the plaintiff
has sought . . .then the defendant bears the burden of
actually proving the facts to support jurisdiction, including
the jurisdictional amount.”) (emphasis in original).
First,
“[t]he district court may consider whether it is
‘facially apparent' from the complaint that the
jurisdictional amount is in controversy.” Singer v.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th
Cir. 1997). “If not, 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.'”
Id. (quoting Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas
Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335-36 (5th Cir.1995)).
II.
Analysis
A.
Amount in Controversy
Safeco's
Notice of Removal contains sufficient evidence to show that
the amount in controversy is $75, 000. Safeco alleges that
the amount is met by adding together the unpaid repair bill
($21, 835.62), the additional storage fees ($41, 600.00), the
bad faith damages, punitive damages, and the attorney's
fees. As such the Court finds that Safeco has provided
...