Heath v. USAA General Indemnity Company

D. Colorado

Heath v. USAA General Indemnity Company

DecidedDecember 7, 2020

Docket1:20-cv-01296

StatusUnknown

This text of Heath v. USAA General Indemnity Company (Heath v. USAA General Indemnity Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Heath v. USAA General Indemnity Company, (D. Colo. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 20-cv-01296-PAB CHRISTOPHER HEATH, Plaintiff, v. USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant.

ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Second Order to Show Cause [Docket No. 25]. Defendant filed its notice of removal on May 7, 2020. Docket No. 1. On July 13,

2020, the Court ordered defendant to show cause why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Docket No. 19. The Court noted that defendant’s allegations were insufficient to determine whether the Court has jurisdiction over the case because defendant alleged that plaintiff’s residency determined plaintiff’s citizenship. Id. at 2-3. Defendant filed a response to the Court’s first order to show cause, Docket No. 21, providing the Court with information regarding plaintiff’s auto insurance policy, driver’s license, vehicle registration, and medical treatment from the time of the underlying accident at issue in this insurance dispute. Id. at 1-2, ¶¶ 1-5. The Court issued a second order to show cause on November 16, 2020. Docket No. 25. In the second order to show cause, the Court noted that defendant only provided information on plaintiff’s residency from the time of the accident until removal, which is insufficient to establish plaintiff’s domicile. Id. at 2. As a result, the Court concluded that the allegations were insufficient to establish the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Id. The Court gave defendant until November 23, 2020 to respond. Id. at

3. Defendant did not respond to the second order to show cause. As a result, the Court finds that defendant has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that diversity of citizenship exists and that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. See Radil v. Sanborn W. Camps, Inc., 384 F.3d 1220, 1224 (10th Cir. 2004) (“The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing such jurisdiction as a threshold matter.”). Because defendant did not show cause why the case should proceed and has failed to establish a basis for removal, it is ORDERED that the case is remanded to the District Court for the County of Denver, Colorado, where it was filed as case number 2020CV31269. It is further

ORDERED that this case is closed. DATED December 7, 2020. BY THE COURT:

PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 20-cv-01296-PAB CHRISTOPHER HEATH, Plaintiff, v. USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant.

ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Second Order to Show Cause [Docket No. 25]. Defendant filed its notice of removal on May 7, 2020. Docket No. 1. On July 13,

2020, the Court ordered defendant to show cause why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Docket No. 19. The Court noted that defendant’s allegations were insufficient to determine whether the Court has jurisdiction over the case because defendant alleged that plaintiff’s residency determined plaintiff’s citizenship. Id. at 2-3. Defendant filed a response to the Court’s first order to show cause, Docket No. 21, providing the Court with information regarding plaintiff’s auto insurance policy, driver’s license, vehicle registration, and medical treatment from the time of the underlying accident at issue in this insurance dispute. Id. at 1-2, ¶¶ 1-5. The Court issued a second order to show cause on November 16, 2020. Docket No. 25. In the second order to show cause, the Court noted that defendant only provided information on plaintiff’s residency from the time of the accident until removal, which is insufficient to establish plaintiff’s domicile. Id. at 2. As a result, the Court concluded that the allegations were insufficient to establish the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Id. The Court gave defendant until November 23, 2020 to respond. Id. at

3. Defendant did not respond to the second order to show cause. As a result, the Court finds that defendant has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that diversity of citizenship exists and that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. See Radil v. Sanborn W. Camps, Inc., 384 F.3d 1220, 1224 (10th Cir. 2004) (“The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing such jurisdiction as a threshold matter.”). Because defendant did not show cause why the case should proceed and has failed to establish a basis for removal, it is ORDERED that the case is remanded to the District Court for the County of Denver, Colorado, where it was filed as case number 2020CV31269. It is further

ORDERED that this case is closed. DATED December 7, 2020. BY THE COURT:

PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Heath v. USAA General Indemnity Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heath-v-usaa-general-indemnity-company-cod-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack