Tikson v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 PARKER TIKSON, Cause No. C21-1584RSL 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 10 AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 11 Defendant. 12 13 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On November 23, 2021, defendant 14 removed this case from state court based on diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. # 1. Although the 15 complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought, defendant argues that the $75,000 16 17 jurisdictional minimum is satisfied because plaintiff seeks underinsured motorist benefits 18 including compensatory damages arising out of an automobile accident and attorney’s fees. 19 The general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, is construed restrictively: any doubts 20 regarding the removability of a case will be resolved in favor of remanding the matter to state 21 court. See, e.g., Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941); Durham v. 22 23 Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006). Defendant has the burden of 24 proving by a preponderance of the evidence that removal is appropriate under the statute. Where 25 the complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought, the Court will consider the 26 allegations of the complaint, facts in the removal petition, and supporting summary judgment- 27 1 type evidence relevant to the amount in controversy. Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 2 F.3d 994, 1004 (9th Cir. 2007). 3 In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that he was involved in an automobile accident and 4 “immediately suffered injuries from the collision.” Dkt. # 1-1 at ¶ 3.1. Plaintiff seeks to recover 5 “all special/economic damages, economic loss and general/non-economic damages including but 6 7 not limited to non-economic damage for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment, as well as 8 disability, with amounts to be proven at trial.” Dkt. # 1-1 at ¶ 5.1.1 There is no information 9 regarding the nature of plaintiff’s injuries, any expenses incurred, or the policy limits at issue. 10 Nor has plaintiff asserted a consumer protection or bad faith claim. Defendant offers no 11 additional facts regarding the accident or plaintiff’s situation that could provide an adequate 12 basis for the Court to find that the jurisdictional amount is satisfied, instead simply asserting in 13 14 its Notice of Removal that “[t]he amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest 15 and costs.” Dkt. # 1 at 3. The Court is not, however, willing to accept a bald assertion based on 16 no more than an allegation of accident-related injuries. 17 18 Defendant is hereby ordered to show cause why this matter should not be remanded to 19 20 state court for having failed to “provide evidence establishing that it is more likely than not that 21 the amount in controversy exceeds” $75,000. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 22 699 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Defendant’s response, if any, is due on or 23 before Wednesday, December 8, 2021. The Clerk of Court is directed to note this Order to Show 24 25 1 It is not plaintiff’s burden to show that he is not seeking damages in excess of the jurisdictional 26 amount: the fact that plaintiff was unwilling to affirmatively cap his damages is irrelevant. To the extent defendant removed this case in the hope of wringing a concession from plaintiff regarding the amount of 27 his damages, such tactics are improper. 1 Cause on the Court’s calendar for Friday, December 10, 2021. 2 3 Dated this 29th day of November, 2021. 4 Robert S. Lasnik 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27