Lewis et al v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company et al, No. 3:2015cv05275 - Document 26 (W.D. Wash. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER denying 21 Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lewis et al v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company et al 1 Doc. 26 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 8 JOHN and MARILYN LEWIS, individually and on behalf of the class of similarly situated persons, 9 10 CASE NO. 3:15-CV-05275- RBL ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR REMAND Plaintiffs, 11 [DKT. #21] v. 12 HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, TRUMBULL INSURANCE COMPANY, TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, and SE, 13 14 15 16 17 18 Defendants. 19 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand [Dkt. #21] this case 20 1 21 to Pierce County Superior Court. Lewis claims that his proposed class action against the 22 23 24 1 Plaintiffs are John and Marilyn Lewis. They are referenced in the singular, masculine “Lewis” for clarity. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR REMAND [DKT. #21] - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Hartford Casualty Insurance Company does not meet the Class Action Fairness Act’s $5 million 2 jurisdictional threshold. 3 In June 2014, Lewis’s automobile was involved in a hit and run accident. Lewis claims 4 his vehicle retained structural damage, resulting in an inability to restore it to its pre-loss 5 condition. Lewis claims his vehicle was worth less after the accident than it was prior, 6 irrespective of repair, causing him to suffer a “diminished value” loss. Lewis claims this loss is 7 covered under his Washington Hartford’s insurance policy’s Uninsured Motorist Property 8 Damage coverage. (See Complaint ¶1.5). 9 Lewis filed this putative class action in state court on behalf of himself and a proposed 10 class of similarly situated Hartford insureds, alleging that Hartford failed to include diminished 11 value in adjusting their losses. Lewis claims that Hartford’s’ conduct violates the Washington 12 Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86, and constitutes a breach of the insurance policy. 13 Hartford removed the case under CAFA [28 U.S.C. §1332(d), 1441 (a) and (b), and 1453], 14 claiming that Lewis’s class claims meet CAFA’s $5 million “amount in controversy” 15 requirement. 16 Lewis seeks remand, arguing that Hartford cannot establish that his claims meet the $5 17 million jurisdictional threshold. In his complaint, Lewis claims he seeks only the following 18 limited relief: 19 20 1. Payment of the difference between the insureds vehicles’ pre loss fair market values and their projected fair market values as a repaired vehicle immediately after the accident; 21 2. Costs of suit; 22 3. The statutory attorneys’ fees allowed by RCW 4.84.015 and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees under RCW 19.86.090; 23 24 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR REMAND [DKT. #21] - 2 1 4. For other such relief as is deemed just and equitable and is necessary to effectuate the Court’s Orders and Judgment. 2 Complaint ¶7.1. Lewis argues that because he specifically and expressly did not plead for treble 3 damages or include them in the prayer for relief, they should not be included in the calculation of 4 the amount in controversy. Instead, Lewis claims that he seeks only limited relief on behalf of 5 approximately 1,540 class members, and that the average damages will be around $1,460 per 6 claim. He estimates that the compensatory damages total only $2,248,400. He estimates fees 7 and costs will total at most $777,012. As such, Lewis claims that the amount plead is at most 8 $3,025,412, making remand proper. 9 Hartford argues that this case belongs in this Court because it meets the $5 million dollar 10 benchmark. Hartford argues that Lewis’s claim under the CPA has put treble damages “in play” 11 and argues that those damages exceed the $5 million threshold. 12 I. DISCUSSION 13 A. Removal Standard in CAFA Cases 14 CAFA requires that the aggregate amount in controversy exceed $5,000,000 for the entire 15 putative class, exclusive of interest and cost. 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(2). There is no presumption 16 against removal for cases removed under CAFA. See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC 17 v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 550 (2014). (“No antiremoval presumption attends cases invoking 18 CAFA, a statute Congress enacted to facilitate adjudication of certain class actions in federal 19 court.”) In CAFA cases, the removing defendant retains the obligation to demonstrate by a 20 preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional amount in controversy is met in order to 21 sustain its removal in the face of a motion to remand. See Johnston v. United Services 22 Automobile Association, No. 14-5660-RJB (W.D. Wa 11/10/14). (“The removing defendant 23 24 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR REMAND [DKT. #21] - 3 1 must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy meets the 2 jurisdictional requirement”). Id. at 683. 3 Though the burden remains with Hartford, it is not daunting. Under this standard, a 4 removing defendant is not obligated to completely “research, state, and prove the plaintiff’s 5 claims for damages.” Korn v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., F.Supp.2d 1199, 1204-05 (E.D. Cal. 6 2008) (citing McCraw v. Lyons, 863 F.Supp. 430, 434 (W.D.Ky.1994)). The appropriate 7 measure of the amount in controversy must be based on reasonable assumption. “A removing 8 defendant is not required to go so far as to prove Plaintiff's case for him by proving the actual 9 rates of violation.” Tajonar v. Echosphere, L.L.C., No. 14CV2732-LAB RBB, 2015 WL 10 4064642, at 3 (S.D. Cal. July 2, 2015). The Court reaches its conclusion and “[has] sufficient 11 confidence, based on Plaintiff’s own allegations, facts presented by [defendant], and assumptions 12 it believes are reasonable, that it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy in this 13 case exceeds $5 million.” Waller v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 11CV0454-LAB RBB, 2011 WL 14 8601207, at *3 (S.D. Cal. May 10, 2011). 15 B. Treble Damages 16 The issue in this case is whether treble damages ought to be included in determining the 17 amount in controversy in this case, given that Lewis has asserted a CPA claim. There are no 18 competing claims for compensatory damages or attorney’s fees in this case. 19 Lewis argues that he has no intention of seeking treble damages on behalf of the class and 20 purports to disclaim on its behalf any right to do so. Lewis relies on this Court’s reasoning in a 21 prior (and he claims, substantially similar) case that “a removing defendant can’t make the 22 plaintiff’s claim for him; as a master of the case, the plaintiff may limit his claims (either 23 substantial or financial) to keep the amount in controversy below the threshold.” Turk v. USAA, 24 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR REMAND [DKT. #21] - 4 1 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33715 at 10-11. In Turk, however, the plaintiff asserted only a breach of 2 contract claim—not a CPA claim. 3 Unlike Turk, Lewis has asserted a CPA claim. This is a critical and dispositive 4 difference between the two cases. The ultimate inquiry is what amount is put “‘in controversy’ 5 by the plaintiff's complaint, not what a defendant will actually owe.” Korn, F.Supp.2d at 1205. 6 Lewis has put treble damages at issue, and a reasonable estimate of those damages must be 7 included in the amount in controversy calculus. RCW 19.86.090. 8 Lewis seeks to avoid this result by disclaiming any right to treble damages that may have 9 otherwise been introduced into the case by his CPA claim. (See Complaint ¶6.10). Lewis is the 10 master of his complaint, and is free to otherwise stipulate to an amount at issue that falls below 11 the federal jurisdiction requirement, he cannot bind absent class members. Standard Fire 12 Insurance Company v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345, 349-50 (2013). No class has been certified 13 here. Knowles recognizes that a plaintiff’s attempted limitation of damages in the class action 14 context will be rejected before the class is certified. Id. “A lead plaintiff of a putative class 15 cannot reduce the amount in controversy on behalf of absent class members.” Rodriguez v. AT & 16 T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 975, 982 (9th Cir. 2013). 17 Three times $2,248,400 (the expressly pled compensatory damages) is $6,745,200, even 18 before attorney’s fees. The amount of damages put “in play” by Lewis’s complaint, which 19 clearly exceeds the $5 million jurisdictional minimum. 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR REMAND [DKT. #21] - 5 1 Lewis’s Motion to Remand [Dkt. #21] is DENIED. 2 Dated this 20th day of July, 2015. 4 A 5 Ronald B. Leighton United States District Judge 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR REMAND [DKT. #21] - 6
]]>
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.
