Rojas v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: August 7, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01196
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Ever A. Rojas, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01196-CDS-NJK

5 Plaintiffs Order Remanding Case

6 v.

7 J.B. Hunt Transport Inc., et al.,

8 Defendants

9 10 This negligence and negligent hiring action arises out of an underlying motor vehicle 11 accident that was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court by defendant J.B. Hunt 12 Transport, Inc. under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441.1 On July 22, 2025, United States Magistrate 13 Judge Nancy J. Koppe issued an order to show cause requiring defendants to explain why this 14 action should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Order, ECF No. 8. Judge 15 Koppe noted that the amount in controversy fell drastically short of the statutorily required 16 $75,000 because plaintiff Ever Rojas incurred only $11,976.45 in medical bills.2 J.B. Hunt filed an 17 untimely response. ECF No. 10. The only summary-judgment-type evidence that J.B. Hunt 18 proffers to support its assertion that the amount in controversy is satisfied is Rojas’s settlement 19 demand letter. Id.; see also ECF No. 1-2. 20

22 1 The court notes that J.B. Hunt’s removal did not address the second named defendant, Lawrence 23 Izenberg. “Ordinarily, under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), all defendants in a state action must join in the petition for removal, except for nominal, unknown or fraudulently joined parties.” Hewitt v. City of Stanton, 798 F.2d 24 1230, 1233 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[A]ll defendants must agree to removal.”). “This general rule applies, however, only to defendants 25 properly joined and served in the action.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1193 n.1 (9th Cir. 1988); Salveson v. W. States Bankcard Ass’n, 731 F.2d 1423, 1429 (9th Cir. 1984) (noting “a party not served need not 26 be joined” in a petition for removal). It appears that perhaps Izenberg falls into the “non-served defendant” exception to the general rule that all defendants must agree to removal. 2 Neither party presents evidence regarding potential damages related to plaintiff Clara Cano. 1 “A settlement letter is relevant evidence of the amount in controversy if it appears to 2 reflect a reasonable estimate of the plaintiff’s claim.” Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 840 (9th 3 Cir. 2002). J.B. Hunt relies on Rojas’s claims of “ongoing pain, diminished quality of life, and 4 future suffering” and Rojas’s seeking the policy limits of its insurance policy to establish that it 5 has met the jurisdictional threshold. ECF No. 10 at 2; ECF No. 1-2. Yet J.B. Hunt has not shown 6 that Rojas’s policy limits demand was a reasonable estimate of his claim, particularly 7 considering that his demand includes a “formal[ ] request that you advise this office of your 8 insured’s policy limits.” ECF No. 1-2. Rojas’s blanket demand for the policy limits—which were 9 apparently unknown to him at the time of the demand—reflects a lack of reasonableness in his 10 estimation of his damages. The court need not accept the figure set forth in the settlement 11 demand if it does not reflect a “reasonable estimate” of the plaintiff’s claims. Cohn, 281 F.3d at 12 839. Additionally, although J.B. Hunt speculates that “it would have been well-known to 13 Plaintiff . . . that J.B. Hunt had insurance proceeds well over the $75,000 amount in controversy,” 14 ECF No. 10 at 3, “a defendant cannot establish removal jurisdiction by mere speculation and 15 conjecture.” Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015). 16 Finally, J.B. Hunt contends that Rojas has not withdrawn, disclaimed, or qualified his 17 demand; nor has he submitted any evidence to limit or contradict the settlement valuation. ECF 18 No. 10 at 3. Though Rojas has not disavowed his demand, he was not even aware of the amount 19 of J.B. Hunt’s policy limits when he made the demand. Given the low amount of medical bills, 20 and that J.B. Hunt has presented no evidence of other damages, such as lost wages, I find it 21 unlikely that the amount in controversy exceeds the threshold. J.B. Hunt has not met its burden 22 of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount-in-controversy exceeds 23 $75,000, therefore this action is remanded. 24 25 26 1 Conclusion 2 It is hereby ordered that this action is remanded to state court. The Clerk of Court is 3}| kindly directed to remand Case No. A-25-920801-C to the Eighth Judicial District Court, 4]| Department 15, and to close this case. 5 It is further ordered that the magistrate judge’s order to show cause [ECF No. 8] is 6|| discharged. /, ) 7 Dated: August 7, 2025 LZ

8 web 9 VY States District Judge 10

ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26