Arriaga v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRANDO ARRIAGA, Case No. 21-cv-06356-MMC Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S v. MOTION TO REMAND; VACATING HEARING

OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

Before the Court is plaintiff Brando Arriaga's ("Arriaga") "Motion for Order Remanding Removed Action to State Court," filed September 17, 2021. Defendant Old Republic National Title Insurance Company ("Old Republic") has filed opposition, to which Arriaga has replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court finds the matter suitable for determination for the parties' respective written submissions, VACATES the hearing scheduled for October 22, 2021, and rules as follows.

For the reasons stated by Old Republic, the Court finds the requisite amount in controversy has been established. In particular, even assuming the amount of compensatory damages claimed to date is $59,746.17, the loss Arriaga states he actually incurred prior to filing the Complaint in the instant action (see Pl.s' Mot. at 2:15), and not $74,000, the amount of damages "approximate[d]" in said Complaint (see Compl. ¶ 21), defendant has shown the amount in controversy meets the statutory monetary requirement. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (providing for diversity jurisdiction where action is between citizens of different states and "the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of damages and attorney's fees in unspecified amounts. See Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding, where complaint is “unclear or ambiguous" as to total amount in controversy, removing party must show it is "more likely than not" amount in controversy exceeds $75,000). . Although, at this stage of the proceedings, neither sum can be calculated with certainty, their combined value, more likely than not, well exceeds $15,253.84, the amount which, together with $59,746.17, totals $75,000.01. See, e.g., Tibbs v. Great American Ins. Co., 755 F.2d 1370, 1373, 1375 (9th Cir. 1985) (affirming judgment of punitive damages against insurer in amount constituting three times amount of compensatory damages awarded); Brandt v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 3d 813, 817-18 (1985) (holding, "[w]hen an insurer's tortious conduct reasonably compels the insured to g 12 || retain an attorney to obtain the benefits due under a policy," the attorney's fees thereby s 13 || incurred are recoverable as "an economic loss—damages—proximately caused by the tort," irrespective of whether "the fees claimed . . . are incurred in the very lawsuit in || which their recovery is sought"); a 16 Accordingly, the motion to remand is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2021 fine, Chat MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge