Barnes v. USAA Insurance Agency, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
CHARLES BARNES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
USAA INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00251-JMK
ORDER GRANTING
MOTION TO REMAND
Pending before the Court at Docket 7 is Plaintiff Charles Barnes’ Motion to
Remand (the “Motion”). Defendant USAA Casualty Insurance Company, Inc.1 filed a non-
opposition at Docket 8. 	For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED and
this matter is REMANDED to the District Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial
District at Palmer.
Title 28 of the United States Code, at section 1332(a), provides that district
courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions between “citizens of different States”
where the amount in controversy “exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.” 	As the party
1 In its notice of removal, Defendant stated that Plaintiff incorrectly named USAA
Insurance Agency, Inc., when the correct party is USAA Casualty Insurance Company. Docket 1
at 1. 	This Court leaves it to the state court to litigate this issue and to correct the case caption
accordingly.
Case 3:22-cv-00251-JMK Document 9 Filed 12/09/22 Page 1 of 2

Barnes v. USAA Insurance Agency, Inc. 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00251-JMK
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand 	Page 2
seeking removal, defendant “has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.”2 	Defendant removed this case
from the District Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District at Palmer, on
November 16, 2022.3 	Defendant asserted that this case falls within the Court’s diversity
jurisdiction because the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy
“is alleged to be in excess of $100,000.”4 	Plaintiff moved to remand, alleging that the
amount in controversy is $13,007.00.5 Defendant did not oppose remand, acknowledging
that “this matter does not meet the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332 as total damages do not exceed the jurisdictional amount, and in fact damages in
controversy are $13,007.00.”6 Thus, Defendant has not shown this case meets the amount-
in-controversy requirement. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED
and this action is hereby REMANDED to the District Court for the State of Alaska, Third
Judicial District at Palmer.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of December, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
United States District Judge
2 Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 839 (9th Cir. 2002).
3 Docket 1.
4 Id. at 2.
5 Docket 7 at 2; see also Docket 1-1 at 2.
6 Docket 8 at 1.
Case 3:22-cv-00251-JMK Document 9 Filed 12/09/22 Page 2 of 2