Baumgardner v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Willis E Baumgardner, No. CV-20-01907-PHX-MTL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff Willis Baumgardner’s Motion to Remand and Motion 16 for Attorney’s Fees. (Doc. 5.) For the reasons explained below, the Court grants Mr. 17 Baumgardner’s Motion to Remand and the Motion for Attorney’s Fees remains pending.* 18 Under Article III of the United States Constitution, this Court’s exercise of judicial 19 power is contingent upon the presence of subject-matter jurisdiction. One such form of 20 jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship. U.S. Const. art. III § 2. Congress has established 21 the standard for diversity of citizenship jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity of 22 citizenship requires that the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction establish two 23 elements: that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000 and that there be “complete 24 diversity” between each plaintiff and each defendant. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 25 61, 68 (1996). In litigation where a complaint is initially filed in state court, such as this 26 one, a defendant may remove the case to federal court provided that federal subject- 27 * Oral argument on the Motion to Remand is unnecessary because the issue is fully 28 briefed and oral argument would not have aided the Court’s decision. See Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998); see also LRCiv 7.2(f); Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). matter jurisdiction exists. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. 2 Defendant Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company’s (“Allstate”) Notice || of Removal states its belief that diversity jurisdiction was properly met. (Doc. | at 4- 11.) However, after learning that Mr. Baumgardner “seeks damages in the underlying 5|| complaint of less than $25,000, Allstate immediately agreed to remand this matter to 6 || State Court.” (Doc. 6 at 1.) The parties now agree that remand is appropriate given that || the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. This Court lacks subject matter 8 || jurisdiction and it is obligated to remand the case to the Arizona Superior Court in || Maricopa County. 10 Mr. Baumgardner also moved for an award of attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § || 1447(c). (Part of Doc. 5 at 1, 5.) Mr. Baumgardner may supplement his Motion for 12 || Attorney’s Fees in the manner outlined in Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil 13} Procedure and LRCiv 54.2. 14 Accordingly, 15 IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Baumgardner’s Motion to Remand (Part of Doc. 5) is || granted. This case is remanded to the Arizona Superior Court in Maricopa County. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court shall retain jurisdiction following 18 |} remand to resolve the issue of attorney’s fees and costs. Mr. Baumgardner’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Part of Doc. 5) remains pending. If he decides to proceed with his fee 20 || request, Mr. Baumgardner shall follow the procedural and substantive requirements set forth in Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and LRCiv 54.2. 22 Dated this 28th day of October, 2020. 23 Wichad T. gibuade Michael T. Liburdi 26 United States District Judge 27 28

_2-