1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6 * * * 7 ERIC HADDOX, an individual, and HEATHER HADDOX, an individual, 8

9 Plaintiffs,

10 v. Case No. 3:22-cv-00468-LRH-CLB

11 AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTY AND ORDER CASUALTY COMPANY, a Corporation; 12 ACORN CLAIMS LLC, a Limited Liability Company; DOES I through X; and ROE 13 Business A-Z, inclusive,

14 Defendants.

15 16 On October 24, 2022, Defendant Acorn Claims LLC (“Acorn”) removed this case from the 17 Second Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada where Plaintiffs Eric Haddox and Heather 18 Haddox (collectively “Haddox”) filed their complaint. After reviewing the petition for removal for 19 proper jurisdiction, the Court remands this case to state court, sua sponte, for lack of subject matter 20 jurisdiction. Furter, the Court denies Acorn’s pending Motion to Dismiss as moot. 21 When a defendant files a petition for removal, the Court must determine whether federal 22 jurisdiction exists, even if no objection to removal is made. See Corral v. Select Portfolio 23 Servicing, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2017). When doing so, the Court construes the removal 24 and jurisdiction statutes strictly and in favor of remanding to state court. Lake v. Ohana Mil. 25 Cmtys., LLC,

(9th Cir. 2021). If “it appears that the district court lacks subject 26 matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”

(c). 27 In this case, Acorn seeks removal based on the Court’s original jurisdiction over diversity 1 of citizenship between the parties, no defendant is a citizen of the state where the action was filed, 2 and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs.

1441(b)(2);

(a). 4 Here, Acorn established diversity of citizenship between the parties: Haddox is a citizen of 5 Nevada; Acorn, a limited liability company, has members who are citizens of Missouri, Arkansas, 6 and Alabama; and American National Property and Casualty Company is a citizen of Missouri. 7 ECF No. 1 at 4; ECF No. 1-1 at 1–2. Further, the Court finds that no defendant is a citizen of 8 Nevada, the state where the action was filed. 9 In determining amount in controversy, courts first consider what is “facially apparent” from 10 the complaint. Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 1997). Here, 11 Haddox’s state court complaint demands damages “in excess of $15,000” (ECF No. 1-1 at 13) 12 which complies with Nevada state court pleading rules. See Nev. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(4) (stating “if the 13 pleader seeks more than $15,000 in monetary damages, the demand for relief may request damages 14 ‘in excess of $15,000’ without further specification of the amount.”). From the language of 15 Haddox’s Prayer for Relief, the total amount of damages “facially apparent” from the complaint 16 is unclear. When the amount of damages is unclear from plaintiff’s state court complaint, the 17 defendant has the burden of proving “by a preponderance of the evidence,” that the required 18 amount in controversy is met. Urbino v. Orkin Servs. of Cal., Inc.,

, 1121–22 (9th 19 Cir. 2013); see also Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 1996). To 20 satisfy this burden, the defendant “must set forth [ . . . ] underlying facts supporting its assertion 21 that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory minimum.” Muniz v. Pilot Travel Centers 22 LLC, Case No. CIV. S-07-0325 FCD EFB,

, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 1, 2007). 23 Here, Acorn sets forth no facts supporting its assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds 24 $75,000. Without alleging any supporting facts, the Court finds that Acorn has failed to 25 demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

(a)’s amount in controversy 26 requirement is satisfied. 27 /// ] Based on Acorn’s petition for removal, and Haddox’s underlying complaint, the Court is 2 || left with the firm conviction that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case. 3 || Accordingly, the Court remands the case to state court because the amount in controversy 4 || requirement has not been satisfied. 5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is remanded to state court due to the Court’s 6 || lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Acorn’s pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is 8 || DENIED as moot. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 DATED this 8" day of November, 2022. . Mike □□ 12 L Y R. HICKS 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28