Source: http://va.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190826_0000778.EVA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-09-22 22:29:37
Document Index: 440192946

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1332', '§ 1332', '§ 1332', '§ 1441', '§ 1441', '§ 1446', '§ 1446', '§ 1332', '§ 1446']

This breach of contract action arises from a May 13, 2015 automobile accident. On that date, Rockwell was involved in a motor vehicle collision and sustained injuries resulting in medical expenses totaling $267, 539.66. (Compl. ¶ 2-4, ECF No. 1-1.) At the time of the accident, Rockwell "was the listed operator and owner of an automobile policy provided by State Farm, policy number 081-9245-B11-48J." (Id. ¶ 1.)
On March 5, 2019, Rockwell filed the Complaint in the Chesterfield Circuit Court. The Complaint identifies two causes of action: (1) breach of contract; and, (2) arbitrary refusal of motor vehicle insurance. (Id. 1-3.) On March 14, 2019, Rockwell served State Farm. State Farm filed various responsive pleadings at the state level.[3] On April 4, 2019, State Farm timely removed this action from the Chesterfield Circuit Court to this Court, asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (ECF No. 1.)
On April 5, 2019, Rockwell filed this Motion to Remand, claiming that the "direct action" provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)(A) deems State Farm a citizen of Virginia.[4] (Mot. Remand 2, ECF No. 5.) Rockwell asks the Court to remand the case to the Chesterfield Circuit Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Id.) State Farm responded in opposition to the Motion to Remand, countering that the direct action provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) does not apply when a plaintiff is suing her or his own insurance company. (Mem. Opp. Mot. Remand 1, ECF No.6.)
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), [6] a defendant may remove a civil action to a federal district court if the plaintiff could have originally brought the action in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Section 1446 delineates the procedure for removal, including the requirement that the defendant file a notice of removal in the federal district court and the state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), (d). The state court loses jurisdiction upon the removal of an action to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) ("[T]he State court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.*'). The removability of a case "depends upon the state of the pleadings and the record at the time of the application for [] removal" Ala, Great S. Ry. v. Thompson, 200 U.S. 206, 216 (1906) (emphasis added); see also Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U.S. 534, 537 (1939) ("the right to remove... [is] determined according to the plaintiffs' pleading at the time of the petition for removal.").
"The party seeking removal bears the initial burden of establishing federal jurisdiction." Abraham v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., No. 3:llcvl82, 2011 WL 1790168, at* 1 (E.D. Va. May 9, 2011) (citing Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chem. Co., 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994)). No. presumption favoring the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction exists because federal courts have limited, not general, jurisdiction. Id. (citing PinMey Inc. v. City of Frederick, 191 F.3d 394, 399 (4th Cir. 1999)). In deference to federalism concerns, courts must construe removal jurisdiction strictly. Id., (citing Mulcahey, 29 F.3d at 151). "If federal jurisdiction is doubtful, a remand is necessary." Id. (quoting Mulcahey, 29 F.3d at 151).
A federal district court has diversity jurisdiction over "all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds... $75, 000 ... and is between... [c]itizens of different States." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). When diversity of citizenship provides the grounds for removal, then "the sum demanded in good faith in the initial pleading shall be deemed to be the amount in controversy" 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2) (emphasis added).