Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01207/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01207-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Lee
Plaintiff
Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company
Defendant

Document Text:

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

ROBERT LEE,

NO. CIV. S-06-1207 LKK/KJM

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

 /

This matter is before the court on the petition of defendant

Reliance Standard Life Insurance 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 explained below, defendant has failed to meet

Case 2:06-cv-01207-LKK -KJM Document 8 Filed 06/21/06 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

2

this burden. 

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, Robert Lee, filed a complaint on April 19, 2006 in

Shasta County Superior Court alleging two causes of action relating

to his coverage under a disability policy issued by defendant. 

Nowhere in the 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 asserts that the amount in controversy exceeds

$75,000 because “plaintiff seeks contract damages under the subject

disability policy to age 65, damages for bodily injury, anxiety,

worry, mental and emotional distress, as well as attorneys fees,

litigation costs, prejudgment interest, and punitive damages.” 

Not. of Removal at 2:13-17. Defendant has failed to prove, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy meets

the jurisdictional threshold. 

Case 2:06-cv-01207-LKK -KJM Document 8 Filed 06/21/06 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

3

First, defendant fails to discuss the specific amount of

damages that plaintiff may claim. “[S]peculative argument

regarding the potential value of the award is insufficient" to

establish the amount in controversy. Conrad Associates v. Hartford

Accident & Indemnity Co., 994 F.Supp. 1196, 1198 (N.D. Cal. 1998)

(citing Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992)). Second,

defendant has failed to provide adequate analysis as to why this

court should consider these specific damages in calculating the

amount in controversy. In short, the court has no way of assessing

whether or not these damages will in fact, exceed $75,000.00.

"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 above-captioned case is

REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California in and

for the County of Shasta County.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 20, 2006

Case 2:06-cv-01207-LKK -KJM Document 8 Filed 06/21/06 Page 3 of 3