Marazzo v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company
3:16-cv-00252
D. Nev.Jun 6, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Paul Marazzo, a Nevada citizen, sued American Family Insurance Company (Wisconsin) in Nevada state court; defendant removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- Removal was premised on 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (diversity) — which requires complete diversity and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
- The complaint did not expressly claim damages over $75,000.
- Defendant relied on the complaint allegations in its removal notice to assert the amount in controversy requirement was met.
- The district court found the amount in controversy was not facially apparent from the complaint and that defendant had not carried its burden to show the jurisdictional minimum.
- The court gave defendant 20 days to produce summary-judgment-type evidence proving the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence; plaintiff has 10 days to respond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal diversity jurisdiction exists because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 | Complaint does not allege damages over $75,000 (implies jurisdiction absent) | Removal notice alleges jurisdictional amount is met based on complaint allegations | Not established; amount not facially apparent from complaint |
| Burden and quantum of proof for amount in controversy on removal | Plaintiff did not assert a specific amount > $75,000 | Defendant bears burden to prove amount by a preponderance when not facially apparent | Defendant must produce summary-judgment-type evidence to meet burden |
| Standard for evaluating amount in controversy when not evident on face of complaint | N/A | Court may consider evidence beyond complaint and require affidavits or other evidence | Court ordered defendant to submit such evidence within 20 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (defendant bears burden to establish removal is proper; removal construed narrowly)
- Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062 (9th Cir. 1979) (removal doubts resolved against federal jurisdiction)
- Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (U.S. 1941) (removal statute construed restrictively)
- Rains v. Criterion Systems, Inc., 80 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 1996) (court must determine jurisdiction even without objection)
- McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1936) (jurisdiction cannot be sustained by mere averment)
- Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 116 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1997) (amount in controversy may be facially apparent from complaint in some cases)
- Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326 (5th Cir. 1995) (procedures for determining amount in controversy on removal)
- Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2006) (court may require summary-judgment-type evidence when amount is not facially apparent)