1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 KRISTIAN FRIAS ACOSTA and ALANIAS Case No.: 2:23-cv-00530-APG-VCF FRIAS ACOSTA, 4 Order Remanding Case to State Court Plaintiffs 5 [ECF No. 11] v. 6 LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE 7 COMPANY,

8 Defendant

9 Defendant Liberty Mutual removed this action from state court on the basis of diversity 10 jurisdiction. ECF No. 1. I ordered Liberty to show cause why this case should not be remanded 11 to state court because the amount at issue does not meet this court’s jurisdictional threshold. ECF 12 No. 6. Subsequently, plaintiffs Kristian Frias Acosta and Alanias Frias Acosta moved to remand 13 the case. ECF No. 11. Because the amount at issue does not appear to exceed $75,000, I will 14 remand this case to state court. 15 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. . . . It is to be presumed that a cause lies 16 outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party 17 asserting jurisdiction.” Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.,

, 773–74 (9th Cir. 18 2017) (internal quotations and citation omitted). This burden on a removing defendant is 19 especially heavy because “[t]he removal statute is strictly construed, and any doubt about the 20 right of removal requires resolution in favor of remand.”

(citations omitted). See also Gaus v. 21 Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is 22 any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”). 23 1 “Where a complaint is unclear as to the total amount of damages sought, but alleges only 2 upper or lower limits or types of damages, a district court is free in its preponderance-of-the- 3 evidence analysis to make estimations of the amount of damages that could be obtained 4 consistent with the vague wording of the complaint.” Elliker v. Contractors Bonding & Ins. Co.,

5 3:12-CV-00438-RCJ-WGC,

at *1 (D. Nev. Feb. 27, 2013) (citing Guglielmino 6 v. McKee Foods Corp.,

, 700–01 (9th Cir. 2007)). In making such analyses, district 7 courts can make “reasonable deductions, reasonable inferences, or other reasonable 8 extrapolations from the pleadings to determine whether it is facially apparent that a case is 9 removable,” and “may use their judicial experience and common sense in determining whether 10 the case stated in a complaint meets federal jurisdictional requirements.” Roe v. Michelin N. Am., 11 Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also 12 Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) (“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible 13 claim for relief . . . requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common 14 sense.”).

15 Here, there is considerable doubt that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 16 jurisdictional threshold. The plaintiffs allege they were injured in an automobile collision. ECF 17 No. 11 at 2. Kristian apparently incurred $16,450 in medical expenses (ECF No. 10-2) while 18 Alanias incurred $7,745 in medical expenses (ECF No. 10-3). Kristian’s demand letter estimated 19 an additional $14,619 in future medical costs. ECF No. 10-2. But there is no evidence that 20 Kristian has incurred any such expenses in the year since that demand letter was sent. “A 21 settlement letter is relevant evidence of the amount in controversy if it appears to reflect a 22 reasonable estimate of the plaintiff’s claim.” Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 23 2002). Based on my judicial, legal, and practical experience and common sense—and even 1}| factoring in potential damages for the plaintiffs’ contract and bad-faith clatms—the amount in 2|| controversy does not exceed $75,000. Thus, Liberty has not met its burden of establishing by a 3] preponderance of the evidence that this court can exercise jurisdiction over this case. Roe,

; Iqbal,

. Consequently, I must remand this action. 5 I THEREFORE ORDER that this case is remanded to the state court from which it was removed for all further proceedings. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close this case. 7 DATED this 28th day of June, 2023. 8 G-—_ 7 ANDREW P.GORDON 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23