22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4e0,MEMORANDUM Mary Kwiatkowski appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her claim under Nevada Revised Statute section 613.200 and granting summary judgment for the Defendants on her remaining claims. The facts need not be repeated here because they are already known by the parties. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we remand. We conclude that it is not “facially apparent” from Ms. Kwiatkowski’s complaint that more than $75,000 is in controversy. See Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir.1997). And the record available to the court is devoid of any evidence that Hartford proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. See Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir.2003). The court cannot consider the merits of the appeal before assuring itself that the district court had jurisdiction. Id. at 1091 . For that reason, we remand this matter to the district court for a determination of whether the amount in controversy is sufficient to establish jurisdiction. REMANDED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T50d,

MEMORANDUM

Mary Kwiatkowski appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her claim under Nevada Revised Statute section 613.200 and granting summary judgment for the Defendants on her remaining claims. The facts need not be repeated here because they are already known by the parties. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we remand.

We conclude that it is not “facially apparent” from Ms. Kwiatkowski’s complaint that more than $75,000 is in controversy. See Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir.1997). And the record available to the court is devoid of any evidence that Hartford proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold. See Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir.2003). The court cannot consider the merits of the appeal before assuring itself that the district court had jurisdiction. Id. at 1091 . For that reason, we remand this matter to the district court for a determination of whether the amount in controversy is sufficient to establish jurisdiction.

REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.