Lyons v. Main Street America Protection Insurance Company

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Andraya Lyons,
Plaintiff,
v.
Main Street America Protection Insurance
Company,
Defendant.
No. CV-26-02935-PHX-JJT
ORDER
Plaintiff Andraya Lyons sued Defendant Main Street America Protection Insurance
Company for breach of contract and other state law claims in the Pinal County Superior
Court, asserting that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff’s home insurance benefits after she
filed a claim. (Doc. 1-3.) Defendant removed the matter to federal court under federal
diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff now moves to remand this matter because the
amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. (Doc. 11.) According to Plaintiff, her
complaint and attached papers show that her home was damaged in an amount of $19,225
but was paid only $13,418.75 of the total amount owed to her. (Doc. 1-3 ¶ 16, Doc. 11 at
2; Doc. 11-1.)
Defendant does not object to Plaintiff’s motion and clarifies that it removed this
matter because the initial pleading was unclear whether the amount in controversy met this
court’s jurisdictional bar and Plaintiff’s counsel refused to stipulate on the damages
amount. (Doc. 12 at 3.) Defendant requests that it be allowed to remove this matter again
Case 2:26-cv-02935-JJT Document 14 Filed 06/22/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
if it is discovered that Plaintiff’s damages do, in fact, exceed $75,000 through discovery.
(Doc. 12 at 3–4.)
As Defendant identified, 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) provides the very mechanism that
it requests: if this matter is not removable based on the initial pleading, a notice of removal
may nonetheless be filed within thirty days of receiving “an amended pleading, motion,
order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or
has become removable.” See also Dietrich v. Boeing Co., 14 F.4th 1089, 1095 (9th Cir.
2021) (“Applying the ‘unequivocally clear and certain’ standard, an amended pleading,
motion, order, or other paper must make a ground for removal unequivocally clear and
certain before the removal clock begins under the second pathway of § 1446(b)(3).”). This
mechanism is not without limitation, though, see 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c), and Defendant is
subject to those limitations as any other party in a civil action.
Defendant having failed to show that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000,
the Court remands this matter to the state court.
IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 11).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set for
July 7, 2026 at 10:30 AM.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall remand this action to
Pinal County Superior Court as soon as practicable and close this matter.
Dated this 18th day of June, 2026.
Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge
Case 2:26-cv-02935-JJT Document 14 Filed 06/22/26 Page 2 of 2