Morgan Denae Sarber v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: June 25, 2024
• Docket: 8:24-cv-00687
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MORGAN DENAE SARBER, Case No. 8:24-cv-00687-JWH-JDE

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. REGARDING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 14 RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an 15 Illinois corporation, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Before the Court is the motion of Plaintiff Morgan Denae Sarber to 2 remand this case to Orange County Superior Court.1 In broad strokes, Sarber 3 argues that Defendant Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (“RSLIC”) 4 has not presented sufficient evidence to establish that the amount in controversy 5 in this action exceeds the $75,000 statutory threshold for this Court to exercise 6 subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.2 On its own motion, the 7 Court DIRECTS the parties to engage in jurisdictional discovery and to provide 8 supplemental briefing regarding the amount in controversy. 9 The Court is vested with “broad discretion” to permit or deny discovery. 10 Laub v. U.S. Dept. of Int., 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003). Further, 11 “discovery should ordinarily be granted where pertinent facts bearing on the 12 question of jurisdiction are controverted or where a more satisfactory showing of 13 the facts is necessary.” Id. (quoting Butcher’s Union Loc. No. 498, United Food 14 and Com. Workers v. SDC Inv., Inc., 788 F.2d 535, 540 (9th Cir. 1986)). 15 Discovery should be granted when, as here, “the jurisdictional facts are 16 contested or more facts are needed.” Id.; see also Brophy v. Almanzar, 359 17 F. Supp. 3d 917, 926 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (sua sponte order for the parties to conduct 18 jurisdictional discovery to clarify whether the amount in controversy 19 requirement was met). The Court concludes that jurisdictional discovery is 20 appropriate for the parties to establish the amount in controversy and for the 21 Court definitively to determine whether it possesses subject matter jurisdiction. 22 I. DISPOSITION 23 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 24 25

26 1 Pl.’s Mot. to Remand Case to Orange County Superior Ct. (the 27 “Motion”) [ECF No. 17]. 1 1. RSLIC is GRANTED leave to engage in jurisdictional discovery, 2 including, but not limited to, narrowly tailored interrogatories and requests for 3 admission. 4 2. Sarber is DIRECTED, on or before July 26, 2024, to perform the 5 following actions, as provided by Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Federal Rules of 6 Civil Procedure: 7 a. serve on RSLIC a computation of each category of damages 8 that Sarber claims in this action; and 9 b. make available to RSLIC for inspection and copying the 10 documents or other evidentiary material on which each computation is 11 based. 12 3. The parties and their respective counsel are DIRECTED to review 13 and to consider carefully their obligations under the Local Rules and Rule 11 of 14 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; in particular, Rule 11(b)(3) and 15 Rule 11(b)(4). Upon such consideration, if any party decides to withdraw any 16 filings, then they may do so in accordance with the Local Rules. See, e.g., 17 L.R. 7-16. 18 4. Each party is DIRECTED to file no later than August 30, 2024, 19 supplemental briefing on the issue of the amount in controversy. Each party’s 20 brief should be no more than five pages in length. A hearing on this Order to 21 Show Cause is SET for September 27, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 9D of 22 the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 411 W. 4th Street, 23 Santa Ana, California. 24 25 26 27 1 5. □ The hearing on Sarber’s Motion to Remand is CONTINUED to 2|| September 27, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5|| Dated: June 25, 2024 LY, ML poe 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28