Arriaga v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 21, 2021
• Docket: 3:21-cv-06356
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRANDO ARRIAGA, Case No. 21-cv-06356-MMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 9 v. MOTION TO REMAND; VACATING HEARING 10 OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Before the Court is plaintiff Brando Arriaga's ("Arriaga") "Motion for Order 14 Remanding Removed Action to State Court," filed September 17, 2021. Defendant Old 15 Republic National Title Insurance Company ("Old Republic") has filed opposition, to 16 which Arriaga has replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and 17 in opposition to the motion, the Court finds the matter suitable for determination for the 18 parties' respective written submissions, VACATES the hearing scheduled for October 22, 19 2021, and rules as follows. 20 For the reasons stated by Old Republic, the Court finds the requisite amount in 21 controversy has been established. In particular, even assuming the amount of 22 compensatory damages claimed to date is $59,746.17, the loss Arriaga states he actually 23 incurred prior to filing the Complaint in the instant action (see Pl.s' Mot. at 2:15), and not 24 $74,000, the amount of damages "approximate[d]" in said Complaint (see Compl. ¶ 21), 25 defendant has shown the amount in controversy meets the statutory monetary 26 requirement. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (providing for diversity jurisdiction where action is 27 between citizens of different states and "the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of 1 damages and attorney's fees in unspecified amounts. See Guglielmino v. McKee Foods 2 || Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding, where complaint is “unclear or 3 || ambiguous" as to total amount in controversy, removing party must show it is "more likely 4 || than not" amount in controversy exceeds $75,000). 5 . Although, at this stage of the proceedings, neither sum can be calculated with 6 || certainty, their combined value, more likely than not, well exceeds $15,253.84, the 7 || amount which, together with $59,746.17, totals $75,000.01. See, e.g., Tibbs v. Great 8 || American Ins. Co., 755 F.2d 1370, 1373, 1375 (9th Cir. 1985) (affirming judgment of 9 || punitive damages against insurer in amount constituting three times amount of 10 || compensatory damages awarded); Brandt v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 3d 813, 817-18 11 (1985) (holding, "[w]hen an insurer's tortious conduct reasonably compels the insured to g 12 || retain an attorney to obtain the benefits due under a policy," the attorney's fees thereby s 13 || incurred are recoverable as "an economic loss—damages—proximately caused by the 14 tort," irrespective of whether "the fees claimed . . . are incurred in the very lawsuit in 2 15 || which their recovery is sought"); a 16 Accordingly, the motion to remand is hereby DENIED. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 || Dated: October 21, 2021 fine, Chat MAXINE M. CHESNEY 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28