1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6 * * * 7 KRISTINE ARCOS, an individual, Case No. 3:22-cv-00372-LRH-CLB

8 Plaintiff, ORDER

9 v.

10 HUDSON INSURANCE COMPANY, ROE CORPORATIONS I-X, and DOES I-X 11 inclusive,

12 Defendants.

13 14 On August 8, 2022, Defendant Hudson Insurance Company removed this case from the 15 Second Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada to this court. After reviewing the petition 16 for removal for proper jurisdiction, the Court remands this case to state court, sua sponte, for lack 17 of subject matter jurisdiction. 18 When a defendant files a petition for removal, the Court must determine whether federal 19 jurisdiction exists, even if no objection to removal is made. See Corral v. Select Portfolio 20 Servicing, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2017). When doing so, the Court construes the removal 21 and jurisdiction statutes strictly and in favor of remanding to state court. Lake v. Ohana Mil. 22 Cmtys., LLC,

(9th Cir. 2021). If “it appears that the district court lacks subject 23 matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”

(c). 24 In this case, Defendant seeks removal based on the Court’s original jurisdiction over 25 diversity of citizenship cases. The Court’s jurisdiction over those cases is limited to when there is 26 diversity of citizenship between the parties, no defendant is a citizen of the state where the action 27 was filed, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. ] Here, Defendant has made no attempt to demonstrate that these requirements are met. 2 || Beginning with the diversity of citizenship requirement, Defendant noted that it is registered in 3 || Pennsylvania, but failed to explain where its principal place of business is. Plaintiff's complaint 4 || does not fill in the gap either. See ECF No. 1-2 at 2 (merely stating that Defendant is authorized to 5 || transact business within Nevada). Without such information, the Court cannot find that the 6 || diversity of citizenship requirement is satisfied. Defendant’s statements regarding the amount in 7 || controversy are similarly inadequate. Though Defendant bears the burden of establishing by a 8 || preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, see Urbino □□□ 9 || Orkin Servs. of Cal., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted), Defendant 10 || claims that the amount in controversy exceeds $15,000. Plaintiff’s complaint alleging damages in 11 || excess of $15,000 may satisfy Nevada state pleading requirements; however, it falls far short of 12 || meeting the federal requirement of an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. 13 Based on Defendant’s petition for removal and Plaintiffs underlying complaint, the Court 14 |] is left with the firm conviction that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case. 15 || Accordingly, the Court remands the case to state court. 16 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is remanded to state court due to the Court’s 17 || lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 DATED this 6" day of October, 2022. .

21 L Y R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28