Matthews v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 20, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01930
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 JUDITH MATTHEWS, Case No.: 2:24-cv-01930-APG-DJA

4 Plaintiff Order

5 v.

6 PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY and KRISTINE MANZANO, 7 Defendants 8

9 Defendants Progressive Direct Insurance Company and Kristine Manzano removed this 10 case from state court based on diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. 1. Their notice of removal 11 acknowledges that plaintiff Judith Matthews and Kristine Manzano are both Nevada citizens, 12 which would destroy diversity jurisdiction. Id. at 2. But they assert that Manzano is “an 13 improper and unnecessary party to this bad-faith action.” Id. 14 Matthews has thus far not responded to Progressive’s assertion that Manzano is not a 15 proper defendant. I cannot exercise diversity jurisdiction in this case unless there is complete 16 diversity between the parties, “meaning that the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the 17 citizenship of each defendant.” Demarest v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. as Tr. for registered holders 18 of Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-HE2, 920 F.3d 1223, 19 1226 (9th Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted). Consequently, I direct the parties to address this 20 jurisdictional issue. 21 I THEREFORE ORDER that by December 4, 2024, plaintiff Judith Matthews shall either 22 (1) file a brief explaining why defendant Kristine Manzano is a proper defendant in this matter or 23 (2) voluntarily dismiss Manzano. 1 I FURTHER ORDER that by December 18, 2024, the defendants may file a response. 2 DATED this 20th day of November, 2024. 3 G7 4 ANDREW P.GORDON sits 5 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23