Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-01695/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-01695-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Cynthia M Ferrara, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

21st Century North America Insurance 

Company, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-01695-TUC-RCC

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE FERRARO’S REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND 

REMANDING CASE TO STATE 

COURT 

Pending before the Court is Ms. Ferrara’s Motion to Remand to State Court. (Doc. 

15). Magistrate Judge Ferraro issued a Report and Recommendation on June 11, 2014 

(Doc. 29, hereby incorporated by reference). 21st Century North American Insurance 

Company filed an Objection to Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s Report and Recommendation. 

(Doc. 30). Ms. Ferrara filed a Response to the Objection. (Doc. 31). The Court has 

reviewed all pertinent pleadings and is prepared to rule in favor of Ms. Ferrara. 

Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommends 

the case be remanded to state court for lack of federal jurisdiction under the Class Action 

Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) (“CAFA”). Specifically, the R&R found that 21st

Century showed an amount in controversy of $4,976.87.50, some $23,013 shy of the 

amount required for federal jurisdiction under CAFA. 

 21st Century argues that the Court should decline to adopt the R&R because the 

Magistrate’s calculation of the amount in controversy did not account for potential 

Case 4:13-cv-01695-RCC-DTF Document 32 Filed 08/07/14 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

punitive damages available to class members under Arizona law, but which Ms. Ferrara 

did not demand in her complaints. To further this argument, 21st Century cites Rodriguez 

v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 975, 982(9th Cir. 2013) (“A lead plaintiff of a

putative class cannot reduce the amount in controversy on behalf of absent class 

members...”); See also Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, ––– U.S.–––, 133 S.Ct. 

1345 (2013) (holding that a lead plaintiff to a putative class could not foreclose a 

defendant’s ability to establish the five million dollar amount in controversy by 

stipulating prior to class certification that the amount in controversy was less than five 

million dollars). 

The Court finds 21st Century’s argument inapposite to the case at bar. In both 

Rodriguez and Standard Fire the plaintiffs took action, via stipulation or waivers made in 

pleadings, to show that the amount in controversy for the class was less than five million 

dollars. Here, Ms. Ferrara has never made such stipulations or waivers which would bind 

putative class members. 

As such, the Court finds that 21st Century has not met its burden of showing 

jurisdiction under CAFA. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 15) and adopting 

the Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 29); the Clerk of the 

Court is directed to remand this case to Pima County Superior Court and close this file. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16) 

as moot. 

Dated this 6th day of August, 2014. 

Case 4:13-cv-01695-RCC-DTF Document 32 Filed 08/07/14 Page 2 of 2