1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ROBERT IZENBERG and CINDY Case No.: 22-CV-879-CAB-AGS LOEB, 9 ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING Plaintiffs, 10 CASE TO STATE COURT v. 11 INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE 12 COMPANY, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 On May 9, 2022, Plaintiffs Robert Izenberg and Cindy Loeb filed the original 17 complaint in this matter in San Diego Superior Court. [Doc. No. 1-3.] Plaintiffs’ complaint 18 does not seek any damages and prays only for reformation of an insurance policy to include 19 personal umbrella liability coverage with a limit of $1,000,000. [Id.] On June 16, 2022, 20 Defendant Integon National Insurance Company (“Integon”) removed the action to this 21 Court, asserting original jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to

. [Doc. 22 No. 1.] After reviewing the notice of removal and complaint, the Court finds that it lacks 23 subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this action 24 to state court. 25 A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court by the defendant or 26 defendants if the federal court would have had original subject matter jurisdiction over that 27 suit.

(a); Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.,

, 1243 28 (9th Cir. 2009). “The defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal was proper.” 1 Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2009). 2 On the other hand, “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court 3 lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”

(c); see 4 also Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Homestead Ins. Co.,

, 1192 5 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and, indeed, we have held 6 that the district court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction.”). The Court may remand sua 7 sponte or on motion of a party. See Snell v. Cleveland, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 8 2002) (“[A] court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any 9 time during the pendency of the action. . . .”). “The removal statute is strictly construed, 10 and any doubt about the right of removal requires resolution in favor of remand.” Moore- 11 Thomas,

. 12 Integon asserts that subject matter jurisdiction exists based on complete diversity 13 between the parties pursuant to

. Under 28 U.S.C § 1332(a), federal 14 district courts have original jurisdiction over actions in which the matter in controversy 15 exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens 16 of different states.

(a)(1). Here, the Court is satisfied that the parties are 17 diverse but finds that Integon has not established that the matter in controversy exceeds 18 $75,000. 19 Integon contends that more than $75,000 is in controversy because Plaintiffs’ seek 20 a declaration that the insurance policy in question includes, or should be reformed to 21 include, personal umbrella liability coverage with a limit of $1,000,000. In other words, 22 Integon contends that because Plaintiffs seek a declaration that they have personal umbrella 23 liability coverage with a $1,000,000 limit, $1,000,000 is actually in controversy in this 24 case. The Court is not persuaded that this satisfies Integon’s burden. Whether the policy 25 provides such coverage does not actually put $1,000,000 in controversy in this case because 26 the complaint does not contend that Integon owes Plaintiffs (or a third-party claimant) the 27 full policy limits (or indeed any amount) in connection with a claim under the policy. Cf. 28 Dowd v. Amco Ins. Co., No. C13-599 RSM,

, at *2 (W.D. Wash. June 1 || 11, 2013) (“[T]the demonstration of policy limits does not in any way constitute evidence 2 || of the actual amount in controversy.”). 3 “In actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, it is well established that the 4 ||amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation.” Hunt v. 5 || Washington State Apple Advert. Comm'n,

(1977). Here, Plaintiffs seek 6 ||declaratory relief that their insurance policy with Integon includes personal umbrella 7 || liability coverage with a $1,000,000 limit. Thus, the object of this litigation is personal 8 || umbrella liability coverage with a $1,000,000 limit. The amount in controversy is therefore 9 || equal to the value of such insurance coverage, and not $1,000,000 itself. Neither the notice 10 || of removal nor the complaint includes any argument, allegation, or evidence as to the value 11 personal umbrella liability coverage with a $1,000,000 limit in the absence of any claim 12 ||on such coverage. This alone is fatal to Integon’s contention that the amount in controversy 13 ||1s satisfied. Moreover, a more accurate estimation of the value of personal umbrella 14 || liability coverage with a $1,000,000 limit is the premium charged for such coverage, or the 15 || difference between the premium Plaintiffs actually paid and the premium Integon contends 16 || they should have paid for a policy that included such coverage. In any event, either amount 17 ||is almost certainly far less than $75,000. Accordingly, Integon’s notice of removal does 18 || not satisfy Integon’s burden of establishing that the complaint, which does not seek any 19 || damages or payment from Integon, puts more than $75,000 in controversy. 20 In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that removal of this matter was improper 21 |}and REMANDS this action back to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The 22 || Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE the case. 23 It is SO ORDERED. 24 ||Dated: June 17, 2022 € Z 25 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 26 United States District Judge 27 28