Ty M. Maynarich v. GEICO Indemnity Company

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 18, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01840
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Ty M. Maynarich, Case No.: 2:25-cv-01840-JAD-BNW

4 Plaintiff

5 v. Order Remanding Case and Denying All 6 GEICO Indemnity Company, Pending Motions as Moot

7 Defendant ECF Nos. 16, 17

9 Ty M. Maynarich filed this insurance-coverage lawsuit in Nevada state court against his 10 vehicle insurer GEICO Indemnity Company and the GEICO employees handling his claim for 11 his stolen motorcycle, asserting claims for breach of contract, bad faith, negligence, and fraud in 12 the claim-handling process that resulted in GEICO tendering Maynarich a $5,000 check. GEICO 13 removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, but it does not appear from the 14 face of the complaint or the petition for removal that this case meets the $75,000 amount-in- 15 controversy threshold. So I ordered the parties to show cause why this case should not be 16 remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.1 The GEICO defendants responded,2 but 17 Maynarich did not, and his deadline for response has passed. Having reviewed GEICO’s 18 response, I find that this case does not meet the amount-in-controversy threshold so I remand it 19 back to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 20 21 22

23 1 ECF No. 12. 2 ECF No. 14. 1 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,”3 and there is a strong presumption 2 against removal jurisdiction.4 The defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal 3 is proper.5 If the value of plaintiff’s claim is unclear, the defendant must prove by a 4 preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional amount has been met.6 Defendants may

5 rely on facts presented in the removal petition and any summary-judgment-type evidence that is 6 related to the amount in controversy.7 Of course, the defendant does not have to predict the trier 7 of fact’s eventual award with certainty.8 But neither do conclusory allegations overcome the 8 presumption against removal jurisdiction or satisfy the defendant’s burden of proving the amount 9 in controversy.9 10 Here, the defendants have not satisfied their burden as they offer nothing but speculation 11 about the value of this case. They highlight the plaintiff’s bald prayers for damages in excess of 12 $25,000 for each claim, which is merely the magic language necessary to get a case into 13 Nevada’s district court; that language discloses nothing about the facts that might support such a 14 valuation. Although plaintiff also asserts a fraud claim against the GEICO-employee defendants

15 and prays for punitive damages, the facts he alleges don’t appear to support them. The GEICO 16 defendants also point out that emotional-distress damages in bad-faith claims can exceed 17 $75,000 in some cases, but there’s nothing about the facts of this case that would suggest that 18 19 3 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 20 4 Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 21 5 Id. 6 Id.; see also Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 395, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). 22 7 Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). 23 8 Id. 9 Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted). 1}}such an award should be expected. And the GEICO defendants themselves, in adjusting this 2||claim, valued it at just $5,000. !° 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties have failed to show cause why this case should not be remanded based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is 5|| directed to REMAND this case back to the Eighth Judicial District Court, Department 21, Case No. A-25-921295-C along with a copy of the public docket sheet, and CLOSE THIS 7|| CASE. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pending motion for partial summary judgment [ECF No. 16] and Joint Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order [ECF No. 17] are DENIED as moot and without prejudice to their refiling in state court. So this case returns to 11]| state court with no motions pending. 12 Dated: November 18, 2025

U.S. District Judgé Jennifer’ Dorsey 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 10 ECF No. 16-2.