1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8 * * * 9 ROBERTO RIQUELME, Case No. 3:20-cv-00211-LRH-CLB

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v. 12 GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY; 13 DOES I-X, inclusive; and ROE CORPORATIONS I-X, inclusive: 14 Defendants. 15

16 17 Before the court is defendant Geico Casualty Company’s ("GEICO") notice of 18 removal. ECF No. 1. 19 Plaintiff Roberto Riquelme ("Riquelme" or plaintiff) initiated the present action 20 against defendants on March 25, 2020, in the Second Judicial District Court for Washoe 21 County, Nevada. On April 7, 2020, GEICO removed this action to federal court on the 22 basis of diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. 1. 23 On April 16, 2020, the court reviewed the removal petition and held that it was 24 not clear from the complaint that the amount in controversy had been met. ECF No. 9. 25 The court granted GEICO twenty days in which to establish the amount in controversy 26 by submitting summary judgment type evidence to the court. Id. On May 5, 2020, 27 GEICO filed a supplement to its petition for removal. ECF No. 10. 1 On May 19, 2020, plaintiff filed his opposition to defendant's subsequent 2 statement of removal (ECF No. 16). 3 GEICO argues that the amount in controversy has been met because although 4 Riquelme has requested a $25,000 underinsured motorist policy, he has requested 5 punitive damages. Under Nevada law, a plaintiff awarded less than $100,000 in 6 compensatory damages may receive punitive damages up to $300,000. NRS 7 § 42.005(1)(b). Therefore, GEICO argues that with punitive damages, the amount in 8 controversy could be over the $75,000 requirement. 9 The court has reviewed GEICO's supplement for removal, and Riquelme's 10 opposition thereto, and finds that GEICO has not established that the amount in 11 controversy has been met. Generally, the amount in controversy may be satisfied by all 12 of a plaintiff’s claims for damages, including attorney’s fees and punitive damages. See 13 Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2005). However, the mere 14 possibility of a punitive damages award is not sufficient to prove that the amount in 15 controversy has been met. In order to meet their burden for removal, defendants must 16 present evidence indicating the amount of punitive damages the plaintiff seeks will, 17 more likely than not, exceed the amount needed to increase the amount in controversy 18 to $75,000. See McCaa v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company,

Supp. 2d 1143, 1149 (D. Nev. 2004); see also, Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

, 567 20 (9th Cir. 1992). 21 Here, GEICO has failed to provide the court with sufficient evidence to establish 22 that the amount in controversy will be exceeded by punitive damages claimed by 23 plaintiff. It has not shown that an award of punitive damages is a supportable claim in 24 this action, nor has it established that any punitive damage award, if awarded, is more 25 likely than not to exceed $50,000. Thus, GEICO has failed to meet its burden to prove 26 that the amount in controversy has been met. Accordingly, the matter shall be 27 remanded for lack of jurisdiction. 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the present action, case no. 3:20-cv-211- 2 || LRH-CLB, is REMANDED to the Second Judicial District Court for Washoe County, 3 || Nevada. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. . 5 DATED this 26th day of May, 2020. ff □ 6 LARRKBY HIC ; UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28