Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00709/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00709-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment (Insurance)

---

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

American Family Mutual Insurance, a

Wisconsin corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles Roe, Sr., and Betsy Roe, each

individually and as natural parents and

next best friend of Charles Roe, Jr., a

minor child; Cole Poe, a minor child; and

John and Jane Poe, a married couple, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0709-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants John and Jane Poe's Motion to Dismiss for

Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. # 24). In the motion, Defendants state that

jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which requires complete diversity and an amount

in controversy greater than $75,000.00. Defendants then argue there is no amount in

controversy because Plaintiff is seeking declaratory relief. As a result, Defendants conclude

that the action must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Contrary to Defendants' argument, it is well settled that the Court considers the value

of the object of the litigation for purposes of determining the amount in controversy in a

declaratory judgment action. Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2002)

(citing Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333, 347 (1977)).

Case 2:07-cv-00709-JAT Document 26 Filed 08/03/07 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

In this case, the object of the litigation is an insurance policy issued by Plaintiff. As Plaintiff

states in its Complaint, the insurance policy provides personal liability coverage with a limit

of $100,000.00 for covered losses, which limit is greater than the amount in controversy

requirement. Therefore, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction.

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter

Jurisdiction (Doc. # 24) is DENIED.

DATED this 2nd day of August, 2007.

 

Case 2:07-cv-00709-JAT Document 26 Filed 08/03/07 Page 2 of 2