United States District Court, D. Colorado
CARLI M. STAZICK, f/k/a Carli M. Moran, Plaintiff,
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, State Farm General Insurance, State Farm Insurance, State Farm Insurance Company, State Farm Insurance Co. Defendant.
A. Brimmer, United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on plaintiff's second Motion
to Remand to State Court [Docket No. 13].
matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requires
diversity of citizenship between the parties and an amount in
controversy exceeding $75, 000 (exclusive of interest and
costs). Marcus Food Co. v. DiPanfilo, 671 F.3d 1159, 1171
(10th Cir. 2011). The party seeking to assert federal court
jurisdiction must demonstrate that “it is not legally
certain that the claim is less than the jurisdictional
amount.” Woodmen of World Life Ins. Soc. v. Manganaro,
342 F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir. 2003). “The amount
claimed by the plaintiff in its complaint generally controls
and alone can be sufficient to support subject matter
jurisdiction.” Marcus Food Co., 671 F.3d at 1171
(citing Adams v. Reliant Standard Life Ins. Co., 225 F.3d
1179, 1183 (10th Cir. 2000)) (internal quotations omitted).
Assuming that the party seeking to assert jurisdiction meets
its burden, the other party may challenge that showing.
Id. However, dismissal on amount-in-controversy
grounds is generally “warranted only when a contract
limits the possible recovery, when the law limits the amount
recoverable, or when there is an obvious abuse of federal
court jurisdiction.” Woodmen of World Life Ins.
Soc., 342 F.3d at 1217. In a case removed from state
court, the jurisdictional amount is determined at time of
removal. 14AA Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 3702.4 (4th. ed.).
argues that remand is required because the amount in
controversy is less than the $75, 000 required for this Court
to exercise subject matter jurisdiction. See Docket
No. 13 at 2-3, ¶ 5. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In
response, defendant states that the amount in controversy
requirement is satisfied because plaintiff filed a civil
cover sheet in the District Court for the City and County of
Denver, Colorado indicating that she sought a monetary
judgment over $100, 000. See Docket No. 14 at 2,
¶¶ 3-4; Docket No. 1 at 2-3, ¶ 7. The Tenth
Circuit has held that a Colorado civil cover sheet is
adequate notice of the amount in controversy sought by
plaintiff. See Paros Props. LLC v. Colo. Casualty Ins.
Co., 835 F.3d 1264, 1272 (10th Cir. 2016). Plaintiff also
filed a settlement offer of $70, 000 in state court; however,
the offer was obviously not accepted and, by the time of
removal, plaintiff made no agreement to limit the total
amount of her damages claim. See Docket No. 13 at 2,
¶ 3. Finally, plaintiff's complaint seeks
two times the amount of the unpaid benefit in damages under
Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 10-3-1115 and 1116, as well as
reasonable attorney's fees and noneconomic damages.
See Docket No. 1-9 at 5. Under the circumstances,
plaintiff provides no explanation why the amount in
controversy would be less than $75, 000. See Woodmen of
World Life Ins. Soc., 342 F.3d at 1217. Although
plaintiff argues that “whether the actual value of
[the] claim exceeds $75, 000 is a matter of pure speculation,
” Docket No. 13 at 3, ¶ 8, plaintiff has
represented to the state court that the amount in controversy
is greater than $100, 000. See Docket No. 14-2 at 2
(civil cover sheet signed by counsel); Paros, 835
F.3d at 1272 (“There is no ambiguity in the cover
sheet. And we see no reason not to credit an assertion by an
officer of the court on a matter of significant consequence
in the state proceeding. . . .“). As plaintiff fails to
adequately challenge defendant's representation that the
amount in controversy is satisfied, the Court will deny
plaintiff's second Motion to Remand to State Court
[Docket No. 13]. Therefore, it is
that plaintiff's second Motion to Remand to State Court
[Docket No. 13] is DENIED.
 Plaintiff's motion does not
respond to Paros in any way, despite an order by
Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang directing plaintiff to do so.
See Docket No. 9 (striking plaintiff's first
Motion to Remand to State Court [Docket No. 8]). All of the
cases that plaintiff cites predate Paros.
See Docket No. 13 at 2, ¶ 5 (citing Baker
v. Sears Holdings Corp., 557 F.Supp.2d 1208 (D. Colo.
2007)); Docket No. 13-2 (Klein v. State Farm Mutual Auto.
Ins. Cos., No. 08-cv-02257-MSK, Docket No. 8 (Nov. 18,
2008)); Docket No. 13-3 (Warner v. Allstate Ins.
Co., No. 09-cv-01895-CMA-KLM, Docket No. 13 (Sept. 9,
 In fact, plaintiff later refused to
limit her claim to less than $75, 000. See Docket
No. 14 ...