1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California 10 Western Division 11 12 JOHN SOLOMON, et al., CV 20-00575 TJH (SHKx)

13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. Order 15 JEFFERSON INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 The Court has considered motion of Plaintiffs John Solomon and Jeanine 20 Solomon [collectively, “the Solomons”] to remand, together with the moving and 21 opposing papers. 22 In 2019, the Solomons spent approximately $34,000.00 on a trip to South Africa 23 and purchased a travel insurance policy [“the Policy”] from Defendants Jefferson 24 Insurance Company and AGA Service Company [collectively, “the Insurance 25 Companies”]. The Solomons cancelled their trip after their son became ill and was 26 hospitalized. Consequently, the Solomons tendered a claim to the Insurance 27 Companies. Thereafter, the Insurance Companies denied the claim. 28 On February 11, 2020, the Solomons filed this bad faith action against the 1 || Insurance Companies in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino. 2 || On March 19, 2020, the Insurance Companies removed based on diversity jurisdiction. 3 The Solomons, now, move to remand. 4 This Court has diversity jurisdiction over civil actions between parties who are 5 | citizens of different states where the action involves an amount in controversy that 6 || exceeds $75,000.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. As the removing parties, the Insurance 7 || Companies bear the burden of establishing that this Court has subject matter 8 || jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 9 | (1994). Any doubt about the right of removal must be resolved in favor of remand. 10 || Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 11 The Insurance Companies failed to establish that the amount in controversy, here, 12 || exceeds $75,000.00. The Insurance Companies argued that, in addition to the amount 13 || set forth under the Policy, the Solomons could recover punitive damages and attorneys 14 || fees. While the Court must take into account potential punitive damages and attorneys’ 15 || fees in determining the amount in controversy, the Insurance Companies’ bare assertion 16 || that the potential amount of punitive damages and attorneys’ fees, here, makes the 17 || amount in controversy in excess of $75,000.00 is, at best, speculative and conclusory. 18 || See generally, Sanchez v. Ford Motor Co., CV 18-08023-RGK-SKx, 2018 WL 19 || 6787354, *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2018). Indeed, the Insurance Companies’ listing of 20 || various verdicts in other, factually dissimilar, bad faith cases in their opposition brief 21 || does nothing to establish that the amount in controversy in the instant case exceeds 22 || $75,000.00. 23 Accordingly, 24 It is Ordered that the motion to remand be, and hereby is, ranted. 25 || Date: August 19, 2020 26 ay : □ Lafb 27 er □□□ Hatter, Senior United States District Judge

Order — Page 2 of 2