IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

CHARLES BARNES,

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:22-cv-00251-JMK

vs. ORDER GRANTING USAA INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., MOTION TO REMAND

Defendant.

Pending before the Court at Docket 7 is Plaintiff Charles Barnes’ Motion to Remand (the “Motion”). Defendant USAA Casualty Insurance Company, Inc.1 filed a non- opposition at Docket 8. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the District Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District at Palmer. Title 28 of the United States Code, at section 1332(a), provides that district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions between “citizens of different States” where the amount in controversy “exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.” As the party

1 In its notice of removal, Defendant stated that Plaintiff incorrectly named USAA Insurance Agency, Inc., when the correct party is USAA Casualty Insurance Company. Docket 1 at 1. This Court leaves it to the state court to litigate this issue and to correct the case caption accordingly. seeking removal, defendant “has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.”2 Defendant removed this case

from the District Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District at Palmer, on November 16, 2022.3 Defendant asserted that this case falls within the Court’s diversity jurisdiction because the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy “is alleged to be in excess of $100,000.”4 Plaintiff moved to remand, alleging that the amount in controversy is $13,007.00.5 Defendant did not oppose remand, acknowledging

that “this matter does not meet the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court under

as total damages do not exceed the jurisdictional amount, and in fact damages in controversy are $13,007.00.”6 Thus, Defendant has not shown this case meets the amount- in-controversy requirement. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED and this action is hereby REMANDED to the District Court for the State of Alaska, Third

Judicial District at Palmer. IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of December, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Joshua M. Kindred JOSHUA M. KINDRED United States District Judge

2 Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2002). 3 Docket 1. 4 Id. at 2. 5 Docket 7 at 2; see also Docket 1-1 at 2. 6 Docket 8 at 1.