Edwards v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 18, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01226
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 KATHERINE E. EDWARDS, 8 Cause No. C20-1226RSL Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 10 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 11 INSURANCE COMPANY, 12 Defendant. 13 14 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On August 13, 2020, defendant State 15 Farm removed this case from state court based on diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. # 1. The complaint 16 does not specify the amount of damages sought, however. In its Notice of Removal, defendant 17 states only that it “reasonably believes” plaintiff is seeking to recover damages in excess of 18 $75,000. Dkt. # 1 at 2. 19 The general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, is construed restrictively: any doubts 20 21 regarding the removability of a case will be resolved in favor of remanding the matter to state 22 court. See, e.g., Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941); Durham v. 23 Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006). Defendant has the burden of 24 proving by a preponderance of the evidence that removal is appropriate under the statute. Where 25 the complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought, the Court will consider the 26 27 allegations of the complaint, facts in the removal petition, and supporting summary judgment- 1 type evidence relevant to the amount in controversy. Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 2 F.3d 994, 1004 (9th Cir. 2007).1 3 In her complaint, plaintiff alleges that she was involved in an automobile accident that 4 caused “neck and inferior left scapular pain,” “C4-5 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion,” 5 “C-7 radiculopathy,” “[l]eft sided costovertebral pain on the left side at T6,” and “[b]reast 6 7 implant rupture.” Dkt. # 1-2 at 6-7. Plaintiff further alleges that she has received insurance 8 payments from State Farm and the other driver’s insurance company in excess of $260,000. 9 There is no information regarding the extent of plaintiff’s unreimbursed medical expenses, the 10 scope of her economic losses, and/or her prognosis. Defendant offers no additional facts 11 regarding the accident, plaintiff’s situation, or her demands for compensation that could provide 12 an adequate basis for the Court to find that the jurisdictional amount is satisfied. The Court is not 13 14 willing to presume that simply alleging accident-related injuries places the amount in 15 controversy above the jurisdictional minimum. 16 Defendant State Farm is hereby ordered to show cause why this matter should not be 17 remanded to state court for having failed to “provide evidence establishing that it is more likely 18 than not that the amount in controversy exceeds” $75,000. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 19 20 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). 21 22 // 23 24 25 26 1 It is not plaintiff’s burden to show that she is not seeking damages in excess of the jurisdictional amount. To the extent defendant removed this case in the hope of wringing a concession 27 from plaintiff regarding the amount of her damages, such tactics are improper. 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to note this Order to Show Cause on the Court’s calendar 2 for Friday, August 28, 2020. Defendant’s response, if any, is due on or before that date. 3 4 Dated this 18th day of August, 2020. 5 A Robert S. Lasnik 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27