Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01492/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01492-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Glenn Combs and Brenda C. Combs, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

State Farm Insurance Companies, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 2:10-CV-1492-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Federal courts may exercise removal jurisdiction over a case only if jurisdiction

existed over the suit as originally brought by the plaintiff. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The

removing party bears the burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction. 

Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). District courts have

diversity jurisdiction over civil actions between citizens of different states where the

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. § 1332. If the amount in controversy is not

facially evident from the complaint, the removing party must prove by a preponderance of

the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold and may

not rely on conclusory allegations. Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d

1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2003); Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404

(9th Cir. 1996). In deciding whether the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional

threshold, the court may consider facts in the removal petition, and may require the

Case 2:10-cv-01492-SMM Document 6 Filed 07/21/10 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 -

parties to submit summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in controversy

at the time of removal. Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th

Cir. 1997).

In this case, it is not facially evident from the face of the complaint that more than

$75,000 is in controversy. In its notice of removal, State Farm Fire and Casualty

Company (“State Farm”) alleges that Plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $75,000. 

However, the complaint does not quantify Plaintiffs’ damages. State Farm cannot rely on

mere speculation, but must articulate facts in support of its contention that the amount in

controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Because it has failed to support its claim

with facts, State Farm has not met its burden to show that the amount in controversy

exceeds $75,000. 

Moreover, a notice of removal in a civil action must be filed within thirty days

after the defendant receives a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief

upon which the action is based. § 1446(b). If the case is not initially removable, “a

notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after receipt by the defendant, through

service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, or other paper from

which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.” 

Id. State Farm alleges that it filed its notice of removal within thirty days after receiving

Plaintiffs’ discovery responses from which it was first ascertainable that the case was

removable. However, State Farm does not aver any facts in support of that contention. 

State Farm has the burden of establishing that removal was proper. Duncan v. Stuetzle,

76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). Without articulating facts to show that removal was

proper, State Farm cannot meet its burden. 

Case 2:10-cv-01492-SMM Document 6 Filed 07/21/10 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that State Farm submit additional evidence by

August 4, 2010, to establish that removal is proper. Plaintiffs will then have until August

18, 2010, to respond. 

DATED this 21st day of July, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01492-SMM Document 6 Filed 07/21/10 Page 3 of 3