2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 JOSHUA MICHAEL MONTGOMERY, Case No. 2:24-cv-000407-MMD-DJA

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE 9 CO., et al., Defendants. 10 11 Defendant Progressive Direct Insurance Co. removed this action from Nevada 12 state court on February 29, 2024, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1.) See 13

. Plaintiff Joshua Montgomery asserts claims arising from a vehicle 14 collision for breach of contract, violation of the Unfair Claims Practices Act, unjust 15 enrichment, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (ECF No. 1-1.) 16 District courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions where the matter is 17 between citizens of different states, and where the amount in controversy exceeds 18 $75,000. See

(a). Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating by a 19 preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 20 Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2007). Here, 21 questions remain as to whether Defendant has met the amount in controversy 22 requirement. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc.,

, 23 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[T]he district court had a duty to establish subject matter 24 jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or 25 not.”). 26 In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to the uninsured/underinsured 27 policy limit payment from Progressive, and that Defendant refused to make adequate 28 payment. (ECF No. 1-1 at 4.) He further alleges that Defendant’s willful refusal caused 1 || injury to Plaintiff in excess of $15,000. (/d.) In Progressive’s petition for removal (ECF 2 || No. 1) and statement on removal (ECF No. 6), Defendant asserts that the amount in 3 || controversy in this action exceeds $75,000 because the Progressive contractual 4 || underinsured motorist policy includes a limit of $50,000 per person and $100,000 per 5 || incident. (ECF Nos. 1 at 2, 6 at 1-2.) Progressive further asserts that the contractual 6 || limits of the policies, as well as tort damages, are sufficient to exceed the jurisdictional 7 || limit. (/d.) However, Progressive does not adequately demonstrate why the incident 8 || policy limit of $100,000 should apply here, or alternatively, why the amount in 9 || controversy requirement is met if the individual policy limit of $50,000 applies. 10 || Defendant asserts that the Court may consider both contractual and extracontractual 11 || damages, as well as punitive damages, in determining the amount in controversy. (ECF 12 || No. 1 at 2.) But in order to meet its burden, Defendant must more specifically state how 13 || the policy limit amount and tort damages amount interact to meet the requirement. 14 It is therefore ordered that, within 15 days of the entry of this order, Defendant 15 || must show cause as to why this action should not be remanded for lack of subject 16 || matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff may file a response as permitted by Local Rule 7-2. 17 DATED THIS 13" Day of March 2024.

19 MIRANDA M. DU 20 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28