United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
RIGGS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
MATTER comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion to
Remand to State Court (hereinafter, the
“Motion”), filed June 18, 2019 (Doc.
4). Having reviewed the parties' briefs and
applicable law, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion
is well taken and, therefore, is GRANTED.
was in an accident with a hit-and-run driver. Plaintiff
alleges that a pick-up truck failed to stop at a stop sign,
collided with Plaintiff's vehicle, and drove off.
Doc. 1-2, p. 2. At the time of the accident,
Plaintiff had $75, 000 available in uninsured motorist
alleges that he filed a claim with Defendant for uninsured
motorist coverage. He supplied his police report, medical
records, and bills. Defendant refused to pay on the following
grounds: (1) material misrepresentation; (2) bodily injury
was not caused by the accident; and (3) a hit and run motor
vehicle was not involved.
5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint in Second Judicial
District Court, Bernalillo County, State of New Mexico,
asserting the following claims:
Count I: Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair
Count II: Violation of the Unfair Insurance Practices Act;
Count III: Violation of the Unfair Practices Act; and
Count IV: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
sought compensatory damages for personal injury, medical
costs, punitive damages, attorney fees, and compensation for
emotional distress. Defendant removed this case on June 13,
2019. Defendant attached an affidavit from its attorney, Mr.
Guebert. Mr. Guebert concluded that, in his experience, this
type of action involves more than $75, 000.
filed a motion to remand shortly thereafter on June 18, 2019,
asserting that this Court lacks diversity jurisdiction
because the amount in controversy is less than $75, 000. In
response, the only additional evidence Defendants presented
were policy documents showing that the available uninsured
motorist coverage was $75, 000.
removed this case to federal court on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
See 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Diversity jurisdiction
requires diversity of citizenship and an amount in
controversy in excess of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and
costs. 28 ...