Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01746/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01746-0/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 

* This matter was determined to be suitable for decision

without oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROMACIO FULCHER, ) 02:05-cv-1746-GEB-DAD

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE )

COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, )

and, DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, ) 

)

 Defendants. )

)

Defendants removed this action from California state court

under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) alleging the existence of diversity

jurisdiction. Plaintiff moves to remand the action to state court

because Defendant has not shown that the amount in controversy meets

the jurisdictional threshold. For the reasons set forth below,

Plaintiff’s motion is granted.

After a prior removal and remand, Plaintiff amended his

complaint in state court to specify he was seeking a judgment not to

exceed $74,999.99. Despite that specific request for relief,

Defendants removed this action based upon Plaintiff’s verified

Case 2:05-cv-01746-GEB-DAD Document 15 Filed 10/28/05 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

 

1 The interrogatory and response are as follows.

7.1 Do you attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other

property to the INCIDENT? If so, for each item of property:

***

(c) state the amount of damage you are claiming for each item of

property and how the amount was calculated . . . 

(c) The amount of the damage is estimated to exceed $75,000. 

Plaintiff is working on obtaining an estimate from the builder of the

residence, JTS Homes, and will produce same [sic] when the information

is produced to the Plaintiff from JTS Homes.

2

response to interrogatory 7.1(c).1 Assuming, as the parties have,

that a verified response to an interrogatory qualifies as “other

paper” making this action removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), the

question is whether that response establishes, by a preponderance of

the evidence, that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional

threshold. Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089,

1090 (9th Cir. 2003)(“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.”)

While the response to interrogatory 7.1(c) does include the

words “exceed $75,000.00" the response is insufficient to establish

that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold by a

preponderance of the evidence. Taken as a whole, the response

indicates that the amount of damage is an “estimated” figure and that

Plaintiff has yet to obtain “an estimate” as to the actual damage from

the original home builder. There is a chance that the amount in

controversy will be more than $75,000 but at this juncture Plaintiff’s

equivocal response is not sufficient to establish diversity

Case 2:05-cv-01746-GEB-DAD Document 15 Filed 10/28/05 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

jurisdiction. This is especially true given the rule that where there

is doubt as to the right to remove, the case should be remanded to

state court. Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090. Therefore, Plaintiff’s

motion to remand is granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 26, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:05-cv-01746-GEB-DAD Document 15 Filed 10/28/05 Page 3 of 3