Randall v. The Travelers Companies, Inc.

S.D. Ohio

Randall v. The Travelers Companies, Inc.

DecidedOctober 3, 2024

Docket1:24-cv-00096

StatusUnknown

This text of Randall v. The Travelers Companies, Inc. (Randall v. The Travelers Companies, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Randall v. The Travelers Companies, Inc., (S.D. Ohio 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

ROSEANN RANDALL, : : Plaintiff, : Case No. 1:24-cv-96 : vs. : Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins : TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY : INSURANCE COMPANY, : : Defendant.

ORDER

This matter came before the Court for a telephone status conference on August 23, 2024. In this insurance coverage dispute, Plaintiff Roseann Randall presents claims against Defendant Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company for breach of contract and bad faith handling of her claim related to windstorm loss to the siding and interior of her home. This action was originally filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Warren County, Ohio, Case No. 24CV96952 entitled Roseann Randall v. The Travelers Companies, Inc., et al. Doc. 1-1. The action was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(1) and 28 U.S.C. §1441(a). Doc. 1. This Court previously entered an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Doc. 17. Travelers has not responded within the time prescribed. Federal courts have “an independent duty to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to the existence of federal jurisdiction.” Ky. Press Ass’n v. Kentucky, 454 F.3d 505, 508–09 (6th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted); see also Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (Moreover, courts, including [the Supreme Court], have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.”). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). See also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”) The Court finds that Defendant has not met its burden of establishing that the amount- in-controversy requirement is met. It is hereby ORDERED that this matter bb REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas, Warren County, Ohio. IT IS SO ORDERED. October 3, 2024 aay pbs e kins 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 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

ROSEANN RANDALL, : : Plaintiff, : Case No. 1:24-cv-96 : vs. : Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins : TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY : INSURANCE COMPANY, : : Defendant.

ORDER

This matter came before the Court for a telephone status conference on August 23, 2024. In this insurance coverage dispute, Plaintiff Roseann Randall presents claims against Defendant Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company for breach of contract and bad faith handling of her claim related to windstorm loss to the siding and interior of her home. This action was originally filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Warren County, Ohio, Case No. 24CV96952 entitled Roseann Randall v. The Travelers Companies, Inc., et al. Doc. 1-1. The action was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(1) and 28 U.S.C. §1441(a). Doc. 1. This Court previously entered an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Doc. 17. Travelers has not responded within the time prescribed. Federal courts have “an independent duty to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to the existence of federal jurisdiction.” Ky. Press Ass’n v. Kentucky, 454 F.3d 505, 508–09 (6th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted); see also Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (Moreover, courts, including [the Supreme Court], have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.”). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). See also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”) The Court finds that Defendant has not met its burden of establishing that the amount- in-controversy requirement is met. It is hereby ORDERED that this matter bb REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas, Warren County, Ohio. IT IS SO ORDERED. October 3, 2024 aay pbs e kins United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Randall v. The Travelers Companies, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randall-v-the-travelers-companies-inc-ohsd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack