Dobrenovic v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, 2:17-cv-02199

Plaintiff Jonathan Michael Dobrenovic sued Allstate in Nevada state court seeking the $15,000 policy limit plus consequential damages, emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.
Allstate removed the action to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction without providing evidentiary support that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
The court issued an order to show cause requiring Allstate to justify federal jurisdiction; Allstate responded with conclusory statements and counsel's impression that plaintiff sought more than $75,000.
The complaint did not specify a concrete total damages amount beyond the $15,000 policy limit and various categories of non‑specific damages.
The court applied the Ninth Circuit burden rule: defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 when the complaint is ambiguous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal diversity jurisdiction exists because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000	Plaintiff seeks $15,000 policy limit plus unspecified consequential, emotional distress, punitive damages, and fees (implying potential recovery)	Allstate contends plaintiff's claims put the amount in controversy over $75,000 and relies on counsel's impression and broad allegations	Court held defendant failed to meet its burden by a preponderance of the evidence; remand to state court granted

Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Res., 873 F.2d 1221 (presumption against federal jurisdiction)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (strong presumption against removal; burden on defendant)
Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062 (removal doubts resolved against jurisdiction)
Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398 (defendant must prove amount in controversy by preponderance when complaint silent)
Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (conclusory allegations insufficient to satisfy removal burden)
Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373 (removal cannot rest on conclusory assertions when ad damnum is silent)
Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696 (district courts may estimate damages consistent with complaint wording)
Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058 (courts may use reasonable inferences and common sense in amount-in-controversy analysis)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (courts may draw on judicial experience and common sense when evaluating pleadings)