1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 O'BRIEN WATTERS & DAVIS, LLP, Case No. 21-cv-06006-PJH 8 Plaintiff,

9 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

REMAND

10 HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, Re: Dkt. No. 8 11 Defendant. 12

13 14 Plaintiff’s motion to remand came on for hearing before this court on October 14, 15 2021. Plaintiff appeared through its counsel, George Keller. Defendant appeared 16 through its counsel, Stephen Ellingson. Having read the papers filed by the parties and 17 carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause 18 appearing, the court hereby GRANTS the motion for the following reasons. 19 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), federal courts have original jurisdiction over civil 20 actions “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $ 75,000 . . . and is 21 between . . . citizens of different States.” If a plaintiff’s complaint “demands monetary 22 relief of a stated sum, that sum, if asserted in good faith, is deemed to be the amount in 23 controversy.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 84 24 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where it is “not facially evident from the 25 complaint that more than $75,000 is in controversy, the removing party must prove, by a 26 preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional 27 threshold.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 1 Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). The parties agree that the only 2 issue is whether defendant has met its burden to show that the amount in controversy 3 meets the jurisdictional threshold. 4 The record does not support that the amount in controversy is more than $75,000. 5 Plaintiff filed this suit seeking coverage from its insurance policy with defendant for 6 business losses. In the operative complaint, plaintiff sought damages “in an amount in 7 excess of the court’s minimum jurisdiction & at least $30,000.” Dkt. No. 1 at 19. At the 8 time plaintiff filed its complaint, defendant had paid $74,906 of the $105,000 that plaintiff 9 claimed in losses, leaving $30,094 in unpaid coverage. Nothing in the record suggests 10 that plaintiff is seeking an amount significantly greater than $30,000. Indeed, plaintiff 11 stipulates that it will not seek more than $75,000, inclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs, in 12 state court. Dkt. No. 10-1 at 2, ¶ 7. While plaintiff’s complaint does not expressly limit 13 the damages period, contrary to defendant’s assertions, the court cannot read into the 14 complaint affirmative statements that are not there. See Zolfaghari v. Wall&Associates, 15 Inc., No. 19-CV-08101-SVK, 2020 WL 733810, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2020) (finding 16 defendant failed to meet its burden because, in part, the complaint could be “read to 17 either include the $21,000,000.00 tax lien or to exclude it”). Accordingly, the court grants 18 plaintiff’s motion to remand. 19 Plaintiff requests that the court order sanctions against defendant in the amount of 20 its attorneys’ fees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 11 and 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1447(c). Both Civil Local Rule 7-8(a) and FRCP 11(c)(2) require that any motion for 22 sanctions be filed separately from any other motion. As plaintiff did not file its request for 23 sanctions as a separate motion, the court denies the request. Had plaintiff properly filed 24 its request for sanctions, however, the court is not persuaded that the record supports a 25 finding that defendant acted unreasonably or in bad faith with respect to its decision to 26 seek removal. 27 CONCLUSION 1 DENIES its request for sanctions. The Clerk shall forthwith remand this action to the 2 Sonoma County Superior Court. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: October 26, 2021 5 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

6 United States District Judge

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27