Santos v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company

S.D. California

Santos v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company

DecidedNovember 19, 2024

Docket3:24-cv-02069

StatusUnknown

This text of Santos v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (Santos v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Santos v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, (S.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 J. ELIZABETH SANTOS and GLORIA Case No.: 24cv2069-GPC(MSB) P. SANTOS, Trustees of the GHS Living 12 Trust, ORDER DISSOLVING ORDER TO 13 SHOW CAUSE WHY THE CASE Plaintiffs, SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 14 v. LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 15 JURISDICTION AND GRANTING FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO FILE AN 16 INSURANCE COMPANY, as successor AMENDED COMPLAINT to American Title Insurance Company, 17 Defendant. 18

19 On November 8, 2024, the Court issued an order to show cause why the case 20 should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiffs had not 21 alleged the specific amount in controversy to satisfy the $75,000 threshold for diversity 22 jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 4.) The complaint alleges Defendant has breached the terms of 23 the title insurance policy and seeking declaratory judgment of a duty to defend, breach of 24 contract, an d bad faith. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl.) As to damages, Plaintiffs will be seeking 25 the costs they have already incurred in defending the Quiet Title Lawsuit. (Dkt. No. 5 at 26 2.) On November 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a response stating that the defense costs in the 27 28 1 |}underlying Quiet Title Lawsuit have already exceeded $150,000 and are expected to 2 ||increase. (d.) 3 Because Plaintiffs have explained that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, 4 || the Court DISSOLVES the order to show cause and GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to file an 5 ||amended complaint alleging the specific amount in controversy to satisfy diversity 6 jurisdiction within three days of the filing of this order. See St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. 7 ||v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288, 291-92 (1938); Rilling v. Burlington N. R. Co., 909 8 |} F.2d 399, 400 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Citizen's Comm. to Save the Land Grant Railroads 9 || v. Burlington N., Inc., 708 F.2d 1430, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983) (granting dismissal for failing 10 || to allege the “dollar value of the amount in controversy.”). 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: November 19, 2024 =

14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 J. ELIZABETH SANTOS and GLORIA Case No.: 24cv2069-GPC(MSB) P. SANTOS, Trustees of the GHS Living 12 Trust, ORDER DISSOLVING ORDER TO 13 SHOW CAUSE WHY THE CASE Plaintiffs, SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 14 v. LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 15 JURISDICTION AND GRANTING FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO FILE AN 16 INSURANCE COMPANY, as successor AMENDED COMPLAINT to American Title Insurance Company, 17 Defendant. 18

19 On November 8, 2024, the Court issued an order to show cause why the case 20 should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiffs had not 21 alleged the specific amount in controversy to satisfy the $75,000 threshold for diversity 22 jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 4.) The complaint alleges Defendant has breached the terms of 23 the title insurance policy and seeking declaratory judgment of a duty to defend, breach of 24 contract, an d bad faith. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl.) As to damages, Plaintiffs will be seeking 25 the costs they have already incurred in defending the Quiet Title Lawsuit. (Dkt. No. 5 at 26 2.) On November 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a response stating that the defense costs in the 27 28 1 |}underlying Quiet Title Lawsuit have already exceeded $150,000 and are expected to 2 ||increase. (d.) 3 Because Plaintiffs have explained that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, 4 || the Court DISSOLVES the order to show cause and GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to file an 5 ||amended complaint alleging the specific amount in controversy to satisfy diversity 6 jurisdiction within three days of the filing of this order. See St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. 7 ||v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288, 291-92 (1938); Rilling v. Burlington N. R. Co., 909 8 |} F.2d 399, 400 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Citizen's Comm. to Save the Land Grant Railroads 9 || v. Burlington N., Inc., 708 F.2d 1430, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983) (granting dismissal for failing 10 || to allege the “dollar value of the amount in controversy.”). 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: November 19, 2024 =

14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Santos v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santos-v-fidelity-national-title-insurance-company-casd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack