Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00922/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00922-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERE O'CONNOR and JOHN O'CONNOR,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TRAVELERS INSURANCE, STANDARD FIRE

INSURANCE COMPANY and DOES 1

through 10,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-0922 CW

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION TO REMAND

AND DENYING

DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO

DISMISS

Defendants Travelers Insurance and Standard Fire Insurance

Company move to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint

(FAC) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

Instead of filing an opposition to the motion to dismiss,

Plaintiffs Tere O'Connor and John O'Connor move to remand this

action to State court. Defendants oppose the motion to remand. 

The matters were taken under submission on the papers. Having

considered the papers filed by the parties, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiffs' motion to remand and DENIES Defendants' motion to

dismiss. 

Case 4:05-cv-00922-CW Document 18 Filed 06/02/05 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

BACKGROUND

This dispute arises out of an automobile accident involving

Plaintiffs' daughter for which Defendants denied coverage. 

Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on July 22, 2004, in

the Superior Court for the County of Contra Costa alleging

breach of contract, bad faith, fraud and negligence. The

complaint, which does not state the amount of damages Plaintiffs

seek, was served on Defendants on September 24, 2004, and

Defendants filed a notice of removal on October 21. Defendants

filed a motion to dismiss on October 28, and Plaintiffs filed a

motion to remand on November 19. Plaintiffs also filed an

amended complaint, their first, on December 23. In a January 5,

2005 Order, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to remand on

the grounds that Defendants had provided no evidence to show

that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The Court

denied Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. 

On March 3, 2005, Defendants again removed the case to

federal court. Defendants based their removal on Plaintiffs'

response to their request for a statement of damages, which

Plaintiffs served on February 14, 2005. In that statement,

Plaintiffs alleged damages of $12,000 in attorneys' fees, $5,000

in expert services, $1,000 for the purchase of alternative

insurance, "emotional and mental distress in an amount which is

unknown, but which is not expect[ed] to exceed $250,000," and

unspecified punitive damages. On March 13, Plaintiffs made a

settlement demand of $40,000. 

Case 4:05-cv-00922-CW Document 18 Filed 06/02/05 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

LEGAL STANDARD

A defendant may remove a civil action filed in State court

to federal district court so long as the district court could

have exercised original jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1441(a). Title 28 U.S.C. section 1447 provides that if at any

time before judgment it appears that the district court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction over a case previously removed from

State court, the case must be remanded. On a motion to remand,

the scope of the removal statute must be strictly construed. 

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). "The

'strong presumption' against removal jurisdiction means that the

defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is

proper." Id. Courts should resolve doubts as to removability

in favor of remanding the case to State court. Id.

District courts have original jurisdiction over all civil

actions "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or

value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is

between . . . citizens of different States." 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332(a). Where it is not facially evident from the complaint,

the defendant has the burden to show, by a preponderance of the

evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the

jurisdictional threshold. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d

1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004).

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Remand

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have not shown, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy

Case 4:05-cv-00922-CW Document 18 Filed 06/02/05 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 4

exceeds $75,000. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' statement of

damages "identified approximately $250,000 in damages," Defs.'

Opp. at 3, coupled with Plaintiffs' failure to respond to

Defendants' request for a stipulation that they will not seek

more than $75,000 in damages, is sufficient to meet Defendants'

burden to establish the amount in controversy. 

Defendants mischaracterize Plaintiffs' statement, which

does not actually identify $250,000 in damages. Instead, that

statement specifies that Plaintiffs' damages for mental and

emotional distress are "unknown," but will not exceed $250,000. 

This is not sufficient evidence to prove by a preponderance of

the evidence that Plaintiffs actually value their claim to be

worth more than $75,000, much less $250,000. Nor does

Plaintiffs' failure to respond Defendant's request for a

stipulation, itself or in combination with the statement of

damages, constitute sufficient proof that the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000. In fact, Defendants' evidence is

less conclusive than that available in Surber v. Reliance Nat'l

Indemnity Co., 110 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1230-31 (N.D. Cal. 2000),

where a court held that the insured's statement of damages

seeking more than $1.2 million was not sufficient evidence to

support removal. See also Valdez, 372 F.3d at 1117 (finding

that conclusory statement that amount in controversy exceeded

$75,000 did not constitute proof by a preponderance of the

evidence). Because the Court finds that the evidence proffered

by Defendants is inadequate, it need not consider whether

Plaintiffs' settlement offer represents competent contradictory

Case 4:05-cv-00922-CW Document 18 Filed 06/02/05 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 5

evidence. 

II. Motion to Dismiss

Because the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion to remand, it

lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Defendants'

motion to dismiss is denied because the Court lacks jurisdiction

to consider it. See Harris v. Provident Life & Accident Ins.

Co., 26 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 1994)(vacating the district

court's judgment because it lacked jurisdiction over the case). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion to remand is

GRANTED (Docket No. 15) and Defendants' motion to dismiss is

DENIED (Docket No. 10). Defendants' request for judicial notice

is DENIED as moot (Docket No. 11). The case is remanded to the

Superior Court for the County of Contra Costa.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6/2/05 /s/ CLAUDIA WILKEN 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00922-CW Document 18 Filed 06/02/05 Page 5 of 5