Ricky Villalobos v. Allstate Insurance Company

1 J S -6 [7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 RICKY VILLALOBOS, Case No. 5:21-cv-00764-JWH-KKx 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO REMAND [ECF No. 16] 14 ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO.; CUSTOMER SERVICE REP EBONY 15 DOE; and DOES 2 through 10, inclusive, [16] Defendants. [27] 1 Before the Court is the motion of Plaintiff Ricky Villalobos to remand this 2 action to the San Bernardino Superior Court.1 The Court finds this matter 3 appropriate for resolution without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. 4 After considering the papers filed in support and in opposition,2 the Court 5 GRANTS the Motion, as set forth herein. 6 I. BACKGROUND 7 On February 16, 2021, Villalobos commenced this action in the San 8 Bernardino Superior Court.3 In his Complaint, Villalobos alleges that on 9 September 27, 2020, he contacted the customer service department of 10 Defendant Allstate Insurance Company and received extremely poor service 11 from the customer service agent, Defendant Ebony DOE.4 Villalobos proceeds 12 to allege that after terminating the customer service call, Ebony DOE sent 13 Villalobos text messages threating him and his family.5 Based upon these and 14 other related allegations, Villalobos asserts the following two claims for relief 15 against Allstate and Ebony DOE: (1) Intentional Infliction of Emotional 16 Distress; and (2) Negligence. Villalobos seeks to recover compensatory 17 damages against Allstate and Ebony DOE in the amount of $25,0006 and an 18 “award of punitive damages as to Ebony DOE only.”7 [21] 1 Pl.’s Mot. to Remand to State Ct. (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 16]. [22] 2 The Court considered the following papers in connection with the 23 Motion: (1) the Motion; (2) Def. Allstate’s Opp’n to the Motion (including its attachments) (the “Opposition”) [ECF No. 17]; and (3) Pl.’s Reply in Supp. of 24 the Motion (the “Reply”) [ECF No. 18]. 3 See Def. Allstate’s Notice of Removal (the “Notice”) [ECF No. 1] ¶ 1; 25 Pl.’s Compl. (the “Complaint”) [ECF No. 1-2]. 26 4 Compl. ¶ 5. 5 Id. at ¶ 6. [27] 6 See id. at ¶¶ 14 & 18; see also id. at Prayer for Damages. 1 Villalobos served Allstate with the Complaint and Summons on April 2, 2 2021.8 Allstate removed the action to this Court on April 29, 2021, asserting 3 diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.9 4 Villalobos filed the instant Motion on May 26, 2021, Allstate opposed on 5 June 11, and Villalobos replied on June 16. 6 II. LEGAL STANDARD 7 “Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil 8 action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States 9 have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, 10 to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing 11 the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a). A district court 12 has original jurisdiction over civil actions where the parties are completely 13 diverse and the “matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, 14 exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a). 15 “[A] defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible 16 allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” 17 Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 , 89 (2014). 18 Evidence establishing the amount in controversy is necessary only “when the 19 plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s allegation.” See id. 20 “Where the complaint does not demand a dollar amount, the removing 21 defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that the 22 amount in controversy exceeds” the jurisdictional amount. Singer v. State Farm 23 Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 376 (9th Cir. 1997). [27] 8 Notice ¶ 2. 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 Allstate removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 , 3 asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 . Under 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1332(a)(2), district courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where 5 the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of 6 interest and costs” if the action is between “citizens of a State and citizens or 7 subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original 8 jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and 9 citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent 10 residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State.” 11 There is no dispute that there is complete diversity among the parties.10 12 Villalobos states that he is a resident of San Bernardino County, California,11 and 13 that Allstate is incorporated in the State of Illinois where it maintains its 14 principal place of business.12 Accordingly, there is complete diversity between 15 Villalobos and Allstate. 16 The Motion concerns only the amount in controversy. Specifically, 17 Villalobos contends that the amount in controversy does not exceed the 18 jurisdictional threshold because Villalobos seeks only $25,000 in damages on the 19 face of his Complaint, which is why he filed this action as a limited civil case.13 20 Allstate responds that, before this action was removed, Villalobos notified 21 Allstate that he reserved the right to seek (or allege) $100,000 in punitive 22 damages against Ebony DOE.14 [24] 10 See Notice ¶¶ 8–13. [25] 11 Complaint ¶ 1. 26 12 Notice ¶ 10. 27 13 See Motion 4:9–5:11. 14 See Opposition 2:9–15 & 5:15–16:6; see also Complaint, Ex. 2 (the 1 Under California law, a limited civil case is one in which the amount in 2 controversy does not exceed $25,000. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 85 (a). “Amount 3 in controversy” under this statute means “the amount of the demand, or the 4 recovery sought, . . . that is in controversy in the action, exclusive of attorneys’ 5 fees, interest, and costs.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 85 (a). A civil case is 6 jurisdictionally classified as either limited or unlimited civil at its outset; once a 7 case is classified as limited or unlimited, that classification normally continues 8 throughout the litigation. Stratton v. Beck, 9 Cal. App. 5th 483, 493 (2017).15 In 9 a limited civil case, California courts are not authorized to award any relief that 10 exceeds the $25,000 jurisdictional maximum. Id. § 580(b)(1); see also Ytuarte v. 11 Superior Ct., 129 Cal. App. 4th 266 (2005). 12 Here, the “amount in demand” in Villalobos’ Complaint is $25,000.16 13 Although Villalobos indicates in his Complaint that he will seek punitive 14 damages against Ebony DOE, unless the case is reclassified, those damages are 15 necessarily limited to the jurisdictional maximum of $25,000. See Stratton, 9 16 Cal. App. 5th at 493. The Court is not persuaded by Allstate’s argument that 17 the Punitive Damages Notice establishes that the amount in controversy in this 18 case exceeds the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000. The Punitive Damages 19 Notice appears to be one filed pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.115 . Such 20 notices are designed to ensure that, before default is entered against a party, the 21 party receives notice that punitive damages in the specified amount might be 22 awarded. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.115 (b) (stating that the plaintiff [24] 15 “[A] case originally designated as a limited action may be reclassified as 25 an unlimited action if amendments to the initial pleading or causes of action asserted in a cross-complaint cause the amount in controversy to exceed 26 $25,000 or otherwise violate the necessary conditions for classification as a limited civil case. Parties may reclassify a case by filing a motion to do so, as 27 may the court on its own motion.” Stratton, 9 Cal. App. 5th at 493 (citations omitted). 1|| preserves the right to seek punitive damages “‘on a default judgment”); see also 6 2|| Witkin, Cal. Proc. 5th PWT § 159 (March 2020 Update). Indeed, although Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 580 (a) contemplates that the relief granted on default || may include the amount of punitive damages preserved by a notice under 5|| Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.115 , Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 580 (b) expressly states 6 || that the amount of relief available in a limited civil case is limited to the $25,000 || jurisdictional maximum. 8 Accordingly, the Court finds that Allstate has failed to show that the 9|| amount in controversy meets or exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold. 10 IV. CONCLUSION 11 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion and 12|| REMANDS this action to the San Bernardino County Superior Court. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. □□□ 15|| Dated: July 19, 2021 ° 16 NITED: SERTES DISTRICT JUDGE