Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00244/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00244-0/pdf.json

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

James Duepner, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Government Employees Insurance 

Company and GEICO Casualty Company, 

Defendants. 

No. CV14-00244 PHX DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand. Doc. 39. The motion is fully briefed, and 

no party has requested oral argument. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant 

the motion. 

 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, any civil action brought in state court over which the 

federal district courts have original jurisdiction may be removed to the federal district 

court for the district where the action is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). There is a “strong 

presumption” against removal and “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any 

doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” 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. “If at 

any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

 Removal in this case was based on diversity jurisdiction and an amount in dispute 

of more than $75,000. Where, as here, “the complaint does not demand a dollar amount, 

Case 2:14-cv-00244-DGC Document 45 Filed 07/10/14 Page 1 of 3
‐ 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 

the removing defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence 

that the amount in controversy exceeds [$75,000].” Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. 

Co., 116 F.3d 373, 376 (9th Cir. 1997). To meet its burden, the defendant “must provide 

evidence establishing that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the amount in controversy 

exceeds [$75,000].” Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 

1996). 

 Defendants argue that Plaintiff filed an offer of judgment with the complaint for 

$199,960 and called defense counsel’s attention to a much higher bad faith judgment in 

another state. Defendants also note that the complaint alleges egregious wrongs on the 

part of Defendants. 

 Plaintiff notes that he has communicated an offer to settle this case for $70,000, 

and asserts that he will serve an offer of judgment in this amount if the case is remanded 

to state court. (Offers of judgment in federal court may be filed only by defendants. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a).) In addition, Plaintiff notes that the actual loss from the vehicle 

break-in in this case is less than $5,000. 

 It appears to the Court that this case is likely worth less than $75,000. The fact 

that a high bad faith verdict has been entered in another state, that the complaint alleges 

egregious wrongs, or even that Plaintiff initially demanded more than $75,000 do not 

establish by a preponderance of the evidence that this case, which concerns personal 

property lost from the break-in of a vehicle, in fact is worth more than $75,000. As noted 

above, this Court should remand a matter to state court if there is any doubt about the 

Court’s jurisdiction. The Court finds substantial doubt that the amount in controversy in 

this case will exceed $75,000, and therefore will remand the case to state court. See 

Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1118 (9th Cir. 2004) (“If the district court 

determines that it is sufficiently doubtful that the amount-in-controversy requirement has 

been met and thus that federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the district court 

should . . . remand to state court”). 

/ / / 

Case 2:14-cv-00244-DGC Document 45 Filed 07/10/14 Page 2 of 3
‐ 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 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. 39) is granted. The 

Clerk shall remand this case to Maricopa County Superior Court. 

 Dated this 10th day of July, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-00244-DGC Document 45 Filed 07/10/14 Page 3 of 3