Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03144/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03144-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

Peggy Haller, individually, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Hartford Fire Insurance Company, a

foreign corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV05-3144-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On October 6, 2005, Defendant Hart ford Fire Insurance Company removed this

action from Maricopa County Superior Court. Defendant asserted that original jurisdiction

existed in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the part ies’ citizenship was diverse

and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. See Doc. #1. On November 8, 2005,

Plaint iff filed a M otion to Remand. See Doc. #6. Defendant has filed a response (Doc. #8)

and Plaintiff has filed a reply (Doc. #9). 

“Where the Complaint does not demand a dollar amount, the removing defendant

bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in

cont roversy exceeds [$75,000].” Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 376

(9th Cir. 1997). See also Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 115, 116-17 (9th Cir. 2004).

Defendant attempts to meet this burden by asserting that Plaintiff has made a claim for bad

faith and seeks to recover punitive damages. Defendant’s argument is incorrect.

Case 2:05-cv-03144-DGC Document 10 Filed 01/05/06 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

- 2 -

Plaintiff’s claim in Superior Court consisted of an Application for Correction and

Confirmation of Arbitration Award/Comp laint for Declaratory Relief. See Doc. #1, Ex. A.

The Application does not assert a claim for bad faith and does not seek to recover punitive

damages. Rat her, the Application seeks confirmation of an arbitration award entered

against Defendant and asks the Sup erior Court to rule that Plaintiff may also recover

sanctions under Rule 68 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure based on an offer of

judgment Defendant did not accept. Defendant has provided no evidence concerning t he

amount of the requested Rule 68 sanctions. Plaintiff asserts without contradiction that

they will total less than $18,000.

In making its assertions concerning the amount in controversy, Defendant cites t o

“Plaintiff’s Complaint” and identifies numbered paragraphs that do not exist in Plaintiff’s

Application. See Doc. #8 at 2 (citing to “Plaintiff’s Complaint, paragraphs 12, 13, and 17).

Defendant appears to be cit ing a complaint from another case. In fact, Defendant seeks to

support its argument by submitting to the Court a Certificate on Compulsory Arbitration

from a different lawsuit between the parties. See Doc. #8, Ex. 1.

In sum, Defendant has not provided the Court with evidence to suggest that the

amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000 and appears to have been reckless in

its representations to the Court. Defendant cites to punitive damage claims that do not

exist in this action, cites to a Complaint that does not exist in this action, and relies on a

Certificate on Compulsory Arbitration from another lawsuit. The Court will grant the

Motion to Remand, but first will entertain an applicat ion from Plaintiff for recovery of

attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in obtaining the remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Plaintiff’s application for attorneys’ fees shall be filed on or before January 13, 2006, and

shall not exceed five pages in length. Defendant’s response shall be filed on or before

January 25, 2006, and shall not exceed five pages in length. A rep ly memorandum may be

filed on or before February 1, 2006, and shall not exceed t hree pages in length. The Court

Case 2:05-cv-03144-DGC Document 10 Filed 01/05/06 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 -

will t hen rule on the application for attorneys’ fees and enter an order remanding this case

to Maricopa County Superior Court.

DATED this 5th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03144-DGC Document 10 Filed 01/05/06 Page 3 of 3