Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00360/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00360-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

Plaintiff’s request for oral argument is denied. Because the parties have fully briefed

the issues (Dkt. ##11, 14, 17), oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision or result in

unfair prejudice to Plaintiff. See Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pac. Dev.

Malibu Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991); Fed. R. Civ. P. 78.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

American Family Insurance Group, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Milo Bergeson, as Father, Guardian, and

Best Friend, of Christopher Bo Bergeson

and Amy Lyn Bergeson, the minor

children of Lynn Renee Bergeson,

deceased; David K. Levengood and Joan

Levengood, husband and wife; David K.

Levengood and Joan Levengood,

Trustees of the Levengood Family

Living Trust., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-0360-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff American Family Insurance Group filed a complaint seeking declaratory

judgment that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Defendants Levengood and is not liable

to Defendants Bergeson. Dkt. #1. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and/or remand to

state court. Dkt. #11. The motion is fully briefed. Dkt. ## 14, 17. For the reasons that

follow, the Court will deny the motion.1

Case 2:09-cv-00360-DGC Document 18 Filed 04/14/09 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

 The exception listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) does not apply to this case because

Plaintiff has not asserted any claims against the non-diverse third-party defendants. 

- 2 -

Defendants ask the Court to dismiss and/or remand this case to the Superior Court of

Gila County because there is an action pending in that court involving the same issues and

parties, and because there is no diversity jurisdiction as a result of Defendants’ third-party

claims against Arizona residents. Dkt. #11 at 2, 6. In response, Plaintiff argues that the

Court has diversity jurisdiction because Plaintiff and Defendants are citizens of different

states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Dkt. #14 at 4. Plaintiff argues that

Defendants’ claims against non-diverse third-party defendants do not destroy diversity

because the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over these claims and, in the alternative, the

claims are not viable. Dkt. #14 at 5; 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b). In their reply, Defendants concede

that the Court may retain jurisdiction even after the joinder of non-diverse third-party

defendants, but request that the Court use its discretion and remand the case to Gila County.

Dkt. #17 at 3-6. 

A district court may not remand a case that was never removed from state court. See

First Nat. Bank of Pulaski v. Curry, 301 F.3d 456, 467 (6th Cir. 2002). In the alternative,

Defendants ask the Court to dismiss the case based on judicial economy and the fact that the

issues are local in nature. Defendants cite no legal authority for this proposition. 

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction. There is no dispute that Plaintiff is diverse

from all defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The

Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims brought by Defendants against

non-diverse third-party Defendants so long as these claims form part of the same case and

controversy as the claims between the Plaintiff and Defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.2

 There

is no dispute that these claims form part of the same case or controversy as the originally

filed claims. 

Case 2:09-cv-00360-DGC Document 18 Filed 04/14/09 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 -

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants motion to dismiss and/or remand to state court

(Dkt. #11) is denied.

DATED this 14th day of April, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00360-DGC Document 18 Filed 04/14/09 Page 3 of 3