Hernandez v. GEICO Casualty Company ( 2019 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA GUADALUPE HERNANDEZ, C.H., D.H., Case No.: 2:19-cv-01266-APG-EJY and RUDY HERNANDEZ, 4 Order Remanding Case to State Court Plaintiffs 5 Vv. 6 GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, 7 Defendant 8 2 Defendant GEICO Casualty Company removed this action from state court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. 1. I ordered GEICO to show cause why this case should not 11}) be remanded because the amount at issue does not meet this court’s jurisdictional amount. GEICO responds that the plaintiffs seek in excess of $20,000 for each of the four causes of 13]| action, plus punitive damages. ECF No. 7 at 3. 14 If removal is sought based on diversity of citizenship, “the sum demanded in good faith 15}]in the initial pleading shall be deemed to be the amount in controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2). 16]| Here, the plaintiffs specifically state in the complaint that they seek “damages that do NOT exceed $75,000.” ECF No. 1 at 11. As the master of their complaint, the plaintiffs can seek an amount that keeps them out of federal court. They have done so here. 19 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. . . . It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the 20 contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. . . . This burden is particularly stringent for removing defendants because the removal statute is strictly construed, a1 and any doubt about the right of removal requires resolution in favor of remand. 22 Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d 770, 773-74 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal 23 quotations and citations omitted). 1 The complaint identifies approximately $53,700 in medical bills for all four plaintiffs 2||combined. ECF No. 1 at 7. The plaintiffs recovered $50,000 from the tortfeasor’s insurer. ECF 7-1 at 2. Even if one of the plaintiffs had an additional $25,801 in medical bills (id.), the 4} plaintiffs are not seeking more than $75,000 in this lawsuit. Thus, I cannot exercise subject 5|| matter jurisdiction over this action. 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the case is remanded to the state court from which it 7|| was removed for all further proceedings. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close this case. 8 DATED this 12th day of August, 2019. Le ‘0 anoRen ORSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23