Background

• Plaintiff Jack L. Vanderburg owned a 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee insured by Alpha Property for $25,000; the vehicle was allegedly stolen and lost in April 2012 and later deemed a total loss exceeding $25,000.
• Vanderburg sued in Washington state court alleging violations of the Insurance Fair Conduct Act (IFCA), seeking recovery of the vehicle loss, special and general damages, treble damages under IFCA, and attorney’s fees.
• Alpha Property removed the action to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
• Vanderburg moved to remand, arguing Alpha Property failed to prove the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold and noting his intent to seek arbitration with a $50,000 cap.
• Alpha Property argued the Complaint facially establishes the amount in controversy because IFCA treble damages on $25,000 plus statutory attorney fees push the total above $75,000.
• The district court denied remand, concluding it is facially apparent from the Complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and Vanderburg had not limited his claim below the jurisdictional threshold.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976 (9th Cir.) (punitive damages and fees included in amount in controversy)
• Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927 (9th Cir.) (attorney fees counted in amount in controversy)
• Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir.) (burden of removal on proponent; strict construction of removal statute)
• Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373 (9th Cir.) (determine if amount in controversy is facially apparent from complaint)
• Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326 (9th Cir.) (framework for assessing amount in controversy)
• Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir.) (when not facially apparent, removing party must prove amount by preponderance with evidence)