Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00274/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00274-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHIL S. RIVERA,

NO. CIV. S-05-274 LKK/DAD

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY,

Defendant.

 /

This matter is before the court on the petition of defendant

Allstate Indemnity Company (“defendant”) for removal predicated

upon the court’s diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

This court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction

and may remand sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Having invoked the removal statute,

defendant bears the burden of establishing this court’s

jurisdiction. See Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195

(9th Cir. 1988). As I explain below, defendant has failed to meet

this burden. 

Case 2:05-cv-00274-LKK -DAD Document 14 Filed 04/19/05 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

2

Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of

citizenship among the parties, as well as a minimum amount in

controversy of over $75,000. See id. While it appears that

diversity of citizenship is satisfied, defendant has not met its

burden of demonstrating that the amount in controversy exceeds

$75,000. Plaintiff alleges that defendant refused to pay benefits

under a $100,000 policy for an uninsured motorist claim, which

allegedly caused plaintiff to suffer serious injuries and miss 16

weeks of work. Compl. at ¶¶ 7-8. On December 29, 2005, plaintiff

filed an action in San Joaquin County Superior Court alleging

“Breach of Contract,” “Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and

Fair Dealing and Punitive Damages,” and “Violation of Business and

Professions Code Section 17200.” Nowhere in his complaint does

plaintiff assign a value to the relief he seeks. "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." Matheson v. Progressive Specialty

Insurance Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003); see Sanchez v.

Monumental Life Insurance Co. , 95 F.3d 856, 860 (9th Cir. 1996).

Defendant concedes that the complaint “does not state the

specific amount of damages plaintiff seeks,” but nevertheless

asserts that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Defendant

attempts to meet its burden by merely reciting plaintiff’s specific

claims, Not. of Removal at 2, and by noting that plaintiff seeks

attorney’s fees, and punitive and exemplary damages. Id. at 3. 

Case 2:05-cv-00274-LKK -DAD Document 14 Filed 04/19/05 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

3

This analysis is insufficient to prove that the amount in

controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. "Because the

‘removal statutes are strictly construed against removal,’ Libhardt

v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979),

generally speaking doubts about removal must be resolved in favor

of remand." Dodd v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., 688 F. Supp. 564,

566 (E.D. Cal. 1988); see Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090. Since

defendant has not adequately established the amount in controversy

in the case at bar, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and

must remand the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ORDERS the abovecaptioned case REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of

California in and for the County of San Joaquin. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 18, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:05-cv-00274-LKK -DAD Document 14 Filed 04/19/05 Page 3 of 3