Monte et al v. State Farm Insurance Company

1
VIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JOHN MONTE and DIANA MONTE,
Plaintiffs,
v. No. 25-cv-01228 JFR/GBW
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING REMAND AND DENYING ATTORNEY’S FEES1
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion to Remand and
Memorandum in Support (“Motion”), filed January 8, 2026. Doc. 12. Defendant responded on
January 22, 2026, Doc. 13, and Plaintiffs replied on February 5, 2026, Doc. 19. After examining
counsel’s arguments, the record, and the relevant law, the Court finds that the Motion (Doc. 12)
is partially well-taken and thus it is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
I. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 9, 2025, Plaintiffs originally filed suit against Defendant in the Second Judicial
District Court for the State of New Mexico for claims arising from property damage to Plaintiffs’
residence incurred during a catastrophic weather event on or about May 9, 2024. See generally
Doc. 1-1. In the Complaint (Doc. 1-1), Plaintiffs allege three claims: breach of contract, see id.
at 5 ¶¶ 23-27 (Count I); unfair insurance practices, see id. at 5-7 ¶¶ 28-35 (Count II); and bad
faith conduct, see id. at 7-9 ¶¶ 36-51 (Count III).
1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to the undersigned to conduct any or all proceedings, and to
enter an order of judgment, in this case. Doc. 9.
Case 1:25-cv-01228-JFR-GBW Document 20 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 6

2
On December 10, 2025, Defendant removed the case to this court on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction. Doc. 1; accord 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In its ‘Notice of Removal,’ Defendant
asserted that its citizenship is diverse from that of Plaintiffs because Plaintiffs are citizens of
New Mexico and Defendant is a corporation that has both its place of incorporation and principal
place of business in Illinois. Doc. 1 at 2 ¶¶ 5-6. Defendant also asserted that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Id. at ¶ 3.
On January 8, 2026, Plaintiffs filed the present Motion seeking to remand this case to
state court and arguing that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this case because Defendant has
failed to meet its burden of showing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Doc.
12. Defendant responded on January 22, 2026, Doc. 13, and Plaintiff replied on February 5,
2026, Doc. 19.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
An action is removable from state court if the federal district court has original
jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a federal
district court possesses original subject matter jurisdiction over a case when the parties are
diverse in citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 (exclusive of interests
and costs). The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has defined “amount in controversy” as an
“estimate of the amount that will be put at issue in the course of the litigation.” McPhail v.
Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947, 956 (10th Cir. 2008).
If a plaintiff’s complaint, filed in state court, demands monetary relief of a stated sum,
that sum, if asserted in good faith, is “deemed to be the amount in controversy.” 28 U.S.C. §
1446(c)(2). When the plaintiff’s initial pleading seeks nonmonetary relief or does not state the
amount in controversy, the defendant’s notice of removal may do so. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(A).
Case 1:25-cv-01228-JFR-GBW Document 20 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 6

3
“[A] defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in
controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owen,
574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014).
Only if “the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s allegation” that the
amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold must the defendant provide
supporting evidence. Id. “In such a case, both sides submit proof and the court decides, by a
preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been
satisfied.” Id. at 88; accord 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B). A defendant seeking removal can
establish jurisdictional facts by a preponderance in a number of ways, including but not limited
to:
contentions, interrogatories or admissions in state court; by calculation from the
complaint’s allegations[;] by reference to the plaintiff’s informal estimates or
settlement demands[;] or by introducing evidence, in the form of affidavits from
the defendant’s employees or experts, about how much it would cost to satisfy the
plaintiff’s demands.
McPhail, 529 F.3d at 954 (quoting Meridian Sec. Ins. v. Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536, 541-42 (7th Cir.
2006)) (alterations in original). If a defendant can prove these jurisdictional facts, the matter
should stay in federal court “unless it is ‘legally certain’ that less than $75,000 is at stake.” Id.;
see also Hammonds v. Stamps.com, Inc., 844 F.3d 909, 912 (10th Cir. 2016) (“[T]o justify
dismissal under this standard ‘it must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less
than the jurisdictional amount[ . . . ].’” (quoting St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red. Cab Co.,
303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938))).
Case 1:25-cv-01228-JFR-GBW Document 20 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 6

4
III. ANALYSIS
A. Diversity Jurisdiction
At issue is whether or not there is diversity jurisdiction, which requires: (1) diversity in
citizenship; and (2) the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000.00 (exclusive of interests and
costs). 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
The Court first concludes that the parties are diverse in citizenship. Plaintiffs are two
individuals both residing in New Mexico. Doc. 1-1 at 1 ¶¶ 1-2. Defendant is a corporate
resident of Illinois, where Defendant has both its place of incorporation and principal place of
business. Doc. 1 at 2 ¶ 5. The parties’ diversity in citizenship is seemingly uncontested, seeing
as the Motion focuses on the amount in controversy. See generally Doc. 12.
Because Plaintiffs, by virtue of filing the present Motion (Doc. 12), contested Defendant’s
allegation that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.00, Defendant assumed the burden
of submitting evidence to support its allegation by a preponderance of the evidence. See Dart
Cherokee, 574 U.S. at 88-89; accord 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B). However, the parties do not
dispute that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.00. See Doc. 13 at 1 (“Plaintiffs
and [Defendant] reached an agreement in principle to remand this matter to State Court on the
basis that Plaintiffs’ case value does not meet the jurisdictional threshold for diversity
jurisdiction.”). Consequently, Defendant failed to submit evidence supporting its original
allegation that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.00. Therefore, the Court finds that
remand is appropriate. See Dart Cherokee, 574 U.S. at 88-89.
Although Defendant agrees that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.00,
the reason for its opposition to the Motion (Doc. 12) is Defendant’s request that the Court include
Case 1:25-cv-01228-JFR-GBW Document 20 Filed 02/12/26 Page 4 of 6

5
stipulating language that “all categories of damages and recoveries do not add up to $75,000.”
Doc. 13 at 1. Because Defendant fails to include any authority indicating when and how such a
stipulation is appropriate, and entirely fails to make any such argument, see generally Doc. 13,
the Court declines to impede on the state court’s authority to fully adjudicate this matter,
including but not limited to any relief potentially granted.
B. Attorney’s Fees
Plaintiffs move for the Court to award them, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), see Doc. 12 at 1,
$975.00 in “costs, expenses, and attorney fees because defendant’s removal of this case was not
objectively reasonable,” id. at 4 ¶ 18. “Absent unusual circumstances, courts may award
attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable
basis for seeking removal. Conversely, when an objectively reasonable basis exists, fees should
be denied.” Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005).
Although Defendant did not carry its burden to establish the amount in controversy by a
preponderance of evidence once challenged, the Court concludes Defendant had an objectively
reasonable basis to believe that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.00, which is all that
was required to be sufficiently pled in the ‘Notice of Removal’ (Doc. 1). Dart Cherokee, 574
U.S. at 89 (“[A] defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the
amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.”); see also Meridian, 441 F.3d at 543
(“[A] proponent of federal jurisdiction must, if material factual allegations are contested, prove
those jurisdictional facts by a preponderance of the evidence” (emphasis added)).
Excluding costs and interests, accord 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), Plaintiffs seek $56,422.92 in
actual damages, see Doc. 1-1 at 3 ¶ 16, and unspecified amounts in “consequential damages,
punitive damage, . . . additional statutory damages . . . and all other such relief, general or
Case 1:25-cv-01228-JFR-GBW Document 20 Filed 02/12/26 Page 5 of 6

6
specific, in law or in equity, whether pled or unpled, or within this complaint that Plaintiffs are
entitled to recover,” id. at 10. In other words, the combination of claims alleged and damages
sought made it plausible that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.00, especially since
Plaintiffs are not statutorily or contractually limited in damages. See generally Doc. 1-1. In
other words, Plaintiff’s claims were not legally certain to be less than $75,000.00. The fact that
the parties have since agreed to remand, at least in principle, see Doc. 13 at 1, does not change
the reasonableness of Defendant’s earlier belief and assertion that the amount in controversy
exceeded $75,000.00. Therefore, the Court declines to award fees or costs under 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Defendant failed to demonstrate by a
preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Therefore,
Plaintiffs’ request for remand is GRANTED. However, the Court further finds that Defendant
reasonably believed and pled that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.00 in its ‘Notice
of Removal’ (Doc. 1). Therefore, Plaintiffs’ request for costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees
under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
JOHN F. ROBBENHAAR
United States Magistrate Judge
Presiding by Consent
Case 1:25-cv-01228-JFR-GBW Document 20 Filed 02/12/26 Page 6 of 6