Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02464/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02464-0/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 

Brian Robichaux, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Fidelity National Insurance Company, a 

California corporation; John Stauffer and 

Jane Doe Stauffer, husband and wife; Derek 

Nordquist and Jane Doe Nordquist, husband 

and wife, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-02464-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. (Doc. 6.) For the 

reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion is granted.1

BACKGROUND 

 On October 5, 2012, Plaintiff Brian Robichaux filed his Complaint against 

Defendants in the Maricopa County Superior Court based on an insurance claim for 

property damage. (Doc. 1, Ex. A.) Plaintiff alleges that after he submitted an insurance 

claim to Defendant Fidelity National Insurance Company (“Fidelity”), Fidelity assigned 

Defendants John Stauffer and Derek Nordquist to inspect the property and adjust the 

 

1

 Defendants did not file a response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. They have failed to adhere to the local rules, and “such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” LRCiv 7.2(i). It is therefore proper to remand this action on the basis of Defendants’ 

failure to respond alone. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995).

Case 2:12-cv-02464-GMS Document 7 Filed 01/29/13 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

claim. (Id., ¶¶ 14, 15.) Stauffer and Nordquist allegedly undervalued the claim resulting 

in Fidelity not paying all benefits due under the policy to Plaintiff. (Id., ¶¶ 16, 17.) The 

Complaint asserts claims of (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the duty of good faith 

and fair dealing, (3) aiding and abetting, (4) vicarious liability, and (5) waiver and 

anticipatory breach. (Id. at 4-6.) Plaintiff requests compensatory, consequential, and 

punitive damages as well as attorneys’ fees. (Id. at 6-7.) Plaintiff simultaneously filed a 

Certificate of Compulsory Arbitration certifying that the amount in controversy exceeds 

the jurisdictional limit of $50,000 and is not subject to mandatory arbitration. (Doc. 1, 

Ex. C.) 

 Plaintiff served the Complaint on Fidelity on October 11, 2012. (Doc. 6, Ex. A.) 

On November 15, 2012, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal invoking diversity 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) as the basis for removal. (Doc. 1.) On 

December 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Remand arguing that (1) Defendants’ 

Notice of Removal was not timely filed and (2) Defendants have not met their burden to 

establish that the Court has diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 6 at 1.) Defendants did not file a 

response to the Plaintiff’s Motion. 

DISCUSSION 

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

 “[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the 

United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the 

defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division 

embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A party may 

remove an action from state court only if the action could have been brought in the 

district court originally. Ramirez v. Fox Television Station, Inc., 998 F.2d 743, 747 (9th 

Cir. 1993). The party asserting federal jurisdiction has the burden of proof on a motion to 

remand to state court. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The 

removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Id. (citing Emrich v. 

Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988)). There is a “strong 

Case 2:12-cv-02464-GMS Document 7 Filed 01/29/13 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

presumption” against removal jurisdiction, and “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if 

there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Id. 

II. UNTIMELINESS OF REMOVAL 

 Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ removal was untimely and thus the case should 

be remanded to state court. (Doc. 6 at 3.) A notice of removal must be filed “within thirty 

days after the receipt by the defendant through service or otherwise, of a copy of the 

initial pleading . . . or within thirty days after the service of summons.” 28 U.S .C. § 

1446(b). “If a notice of removal is filed after this thirty-day window, it is untimely and 

remand to state court is therefore appropriate.” Babasa v. LensCrafters, Inc., 498 F.3d 

972, 974 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Eyak Native Village v. Exxon, F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 

1994)). Fidelity was served with Plaintiff’s Complaint on October 11, 2012. (Doc. 6, Ex. 

A.) Timely notice of removal would have been filed no later than November 10, 2012. 

Fidelity filed its Notice on November 15, 2012 and was untimely. (Doc. 1.) Thus 

Plaintiff’s Complaint is remanded. 

III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 

 Plaintiff further argues that the case must be remanded for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. Defendants attempted to remove this action based on diversity jurisdiction. 

(Doc. 1, ¶ 8.) The Court has diversity jurisdiction over an action in which the parties are 

not citizens of the same state and “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of 

$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

 Plaintiff contends that Defendants have not met their burden of establishing that 

there is complete diversity between the parties. (Doc. 6 at 5-6.) “Diversity jurisdiction 

requires . . . [that] each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each 

plaintiff.” In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig., 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008). 

“[A] party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively 

the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.” Kanter v. Warner–Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 

853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). 

 Defendants claim that Defendants John Stauffer and Derek Nordquist are residents 

Case 2:12-cv-02464-GMS Document 7 Filed 01/29/13 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

of Missouri and Nebraska, respectively. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 5, 6.) They base their assertion on 

“information and belief” rather than affirmatively alleging the citizenship of either 

Stauffer or Nordquist. (Id.) This Court has held that federal jurisdiction “may not be 

[pled] on information and belief.” Lieberman & Assocs. v. GVSW Surprise Plaza LLC, 

CV 09–705–PHX–JAT, 2009 WL 1476996, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 26, 2009) (internal 

citation omitted). Defendants have not sufficiently alleged that Stauffer and Nordquist are 

residents of states other than Plaintiff’s state of Arizona. See Kanter v. Warner–Lambert 

Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[A] party seeking to invoke diversity 

jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant 

parties.”). Therefore, Defendants fail to establish complete diversity. 

CONCLUSION 

 Defendants untimely filed their Notice of Removal and have failed to carry their 

burden to prove that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a). Further, Defendants did not respond to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand 

and will be deemed to consent to granting the Motion. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 6) is 

granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to remand this action back to the Maricopa 

County Superior Court.

Dated this 29th day of January, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-02464-GMS Document 7 Filed 01/29/13 Page 4 of 4