Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01481/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01481-0/pdf.json

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

Erik Obertubbesing, a single man; Adam 

Henry, a single man; and Michael Niebo, a 

single man, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

GEICO General Insurance Company; X, Y 

and Z Companies; and Black and White 

Corporations, 

Defendants.

No. CV-11-01481-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Remand” (Doc. 11). For the reasons 

stated below, the Court will grant the motion. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

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

jurisdiction exists. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The removing party bears the burden of 

establishing subject matter jurisdiction as a basis for removal. Emrich v. Touche Ross & 

Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). To satisfy this burden, the removing party 

must demonstrate that either diversity or federal question jurisdiction existed at the time 

of removal. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 

U.S.C. § 1441). In particular, “[w]here 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.” 

Case 2:11-cv-01481-NVW Document 15 Filed 10/06/11 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). “The 

strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that . . . the court resolves all 

ambiguity in favor of remand to state court.” Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1042 (internal 

quotation marks omitted). If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district 

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a case removed from state court, the case must 

be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

II. BACKGROUND 

In March 2010, Plaintiffs got into a car accident. At the time, Plaintiff 

Obertubbesing was driving and Plaintiffs Henry and Neibo were passengers. All three 

Plaintiffs suffered injuries and were partially compensated by the other driver’s 

insurance, but that driver was underinsured. Plaintiffs then made a claim on 

Obertubbesing’s GEICO insurance policy, invoking his underinsured motorist coverage 

for the balance of their losses. That coverage provided $15,000 per person or $30,000 

per occurrence. Defendants GEICO refused the claim, stating that Obertubbesing had 

rejected underinsured motorist coverage when he bought his policy. 

Plaintiff sued GEICO in Maricopa County Superior Court on various theories, 

including breach of contract and bad faith denial of insurance benefits. Plaintiffs asked 

for general, special, and punitive damages, and attorneys fees, but made no specific 

monetary demand. Plaintiffs then filed a certificate regarding compulsory arbitration 

stating that their damages exceed $50,000. 

GEICO has now removed to this Court, claiming diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs 

have moved to remand, arguing that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. 

III. ANALYSIS 

Excluding for the moment the possibility of punitive damages and attorneys fees, 

GEICO’s maximum exposure in this case is $30,000. GEICO nonetheless values this 

case in excess of $75,000 primarily by arguing that Neibo also has a GEICO policy, that 

Neibo’s underinsured motorist coverage is $100,000/$300,000, that Neibo has made a 

claim on that policy, and that GEICO has yet to pay out. However, Plaintiffs have made 

Case 2:11-cv-01481-NVW Document 15 Filed 10/06/11 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

no claim under Neibo’s policy. Because Neibo’s policy is not in controversy here, it 

cannot be considered part of the amount in controversy. 

Concerning punitive damages and attorneys fees, the face of the complaint 

discloses no reason to expect an award of punitive damages, and attorneys fees must be 

judged as of the removal date. Dukes v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., No. CV-09-2197-PHXNVW, 2010 WL 94109, at *2 (D. Ariz. Jan. 6, 2010). Certainly attorneys fees have not 

accumulated significantly at this early stage. 

The only evidence weighing in GEICO’s favor is Plaintiffs’ compulsory 

arbitration certificate claiming more than $50,000. But given Obertubbesing’s policy 

limits and the low probability of punitive damages, the arbitration certificate is not 

enough to satisfy GEICO’s burden to show the jurisdictional amount in controversy by a 

preponderance of the evidence. This case will therefore be remanded. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Remand” (Doc. 11) is 

GRANTED. The Clerk shall remand this action to the Maricopa County Superior Court. 

Dated this 6th day of October, 2011. 

Case 2:11-cv-01481-NVW Document 15 Filed 10/06/11 Page 3 of 3