Mensah v. Owners Insurance Co., No. 18-2240 (8th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

This case arose when plaintiff fell from the trunk of the car that her friend was driving and sustained serious injuries. In a related case, the district court held a bench trial to apportion the fault between the friends involved in the accident. In this case, plaintiff filed suit to recover the portion of the judgment allocated to one of the friends, seeking underinsured motorist benefits for the friend's portion of the judgment. The district court granted Owners' motion for summary judgment.

The Eighth Circuit held that removal was not proper under diversity jurisdiction where the parties conceded that the amount in controversy was statutorily insufficient. The court also held that there was no supplemental jurisdiction because this case was a separate action and not another claim in an underlying action over which the federal courts have jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded to the district court with instructions to remand the case to state court.

Court Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Wollman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Insurance. There is no diversity jurisdiction in this case as the amount in controversy is known to a legal certainty to be less than $75,000, exclusive of costs and interest; there is no supplemental jurisdiction because this case is a separate action and not another claim in an underlying action over which the federal courts have jurisdiction; the district court's judgment is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the district court with directions to remand to state court.

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2240 ___________________________ Amy Mensah, formerly known as Amy Hiltner lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Owners Insurance Company lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of North Dakota - Fargo ____________ Submitted: October 17, 2019 Filed: March 5, 2020 [Published] ____________ Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. On May 7, 2010, Amy Mensah (then Amy Hiltner) went to a party with friends in Mayville, North Dakota. One of the friends agreed to be the designated driver for the evening and she was driving the group home when an accident occurred. Mensah, who had been sitting on the trunk of the car, fell and hit the back of her head, sustaining serious injuries. Although she has made a good recovery and can live independently, the damage is permanent. In a related case,1 the district court held a bench trial to apportion the fault between the friends involved in the accident. In the instant case, Mensah sued to recover the portion of the judgment allocated to one of the friends, Josh Jeffries. Owners Insurance Company issued a policy to Mensah’s father and Mensah now seeks underinsured motorist benefits for Jeffries’s portion of the judgment. Mensah brought this case in state court and Owners removed it to federal court. The district court granted Owners’s motion for summary judgment and Mensah timely appealed. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011). However, before addressing the merits, we must determine whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction to decide this case. The parties did not raise a jurisdictional issue in the briefing but “subject-matter jurisdiction is not a mere procedural irregularity capable of being waived.” Hurt v. Dow Chem. Co., 963 F.2d 1142, 1146 (8th Cir. 1992). There is no federal question present. Whether diversity jurisdiction exists is an issue we review de novo, Branson Label, Inc. v. City of Branson, 793 F.3d 910, 915 (8th Cir. 2015), resolving all doubts in favor of remand to state court. Dahl v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 478 F.3d 965, 968 (8th Cir. 2007). The party asserting jurisdiction must support their allegation of the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. Bell v. Hershey Co., 557 F.3d 953, 956 (8th Cir. 2009). 1 Hiltner v. Owners Ins. Co, No. 3:12-cv-13, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191649 (D. N. D. July 14, 2016), rev’d, 869 F.3d 699 (8th Cir. 2017). On remand, the district court issued an amended judgment, which has also been appealed. No. 18-2624 (8th Cir.). For simplicity, we refer to plaintiff here as Mensah and refer to this related case as Hiltner. -2- Removal of civil actions from state court to federal court is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). An action may be removed to federal court only if the action could have been originally filed in federal district court. Id. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). The question is whether this is a “civil action . . . of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). When Owners removed this case to federal court, it cited both diversity jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction has two requirements: complete diversity of the parties, and an amount in controversy that “exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In this case, the only relief Mensah seeks is the portion of the judgment attributable to Jeffries, which totals $61,718.67. This is the amount in controversy. Where it is a “legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount,” jurisdiction is not proper. St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938). At oral argument, the parties conceded that the amount in controversy is statutorily insufficient. Accordingly, removal was not proper under diversity jurisdiction. As to supplemental jurisdiction, our analysis begins with the statute, which reads, in relevant part: [I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). At oral argument, both parties agreed that jurisdiction appeared to be lacking. But Owners added that jurisdiction is “fairly broad, fairly liberal,” -3- while Mensah admitted she did not want to remand this case because she “would like to see [both this case and Hiltner] end at some point.” Neither assertion is sufficient to establish supplemental jurisdiction. This case may be related factually to Hiltner, but it is a separately filed case, not a “claim” in Hiltner. There is no diversity jurisdiction in this case. The amount in controversy is known to a legal certainty to be less than $75,000, “exclusive of interests and costs.” There is no supplemental jurisdiction because this case is a separate action, not “[an]other claim[]” in an underlying action over which federal courts have jurisdiction. We vacate the judgment and remand this case to the district court, with instructions to remand to state court. ______________________________ -4-

Primary Holding

Removal was not proper under diversity jurisdiction where the parties conceded that the amount in controversy was statutorily insufficient; there was no supplemental jurisdiction because this case was a separate action and not another claim in an underlying action over which the federal courts have jurisdiction.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.