Oak Creek Meadows, LLC v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, No. 3:2009cv00876 - Document 36 (D. Or. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER: Denying as Moot Motion for Summary Judgment 7 ; Motion for Leave 19 ; Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply 23 ; Granting Motion 25 . This Action is remanded to Washington County Circuit Court. Plaintiff's request for costs and attorney fees is denied. Signed on 10/5/10 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (dmd)

Download PDF
Oak Creek Meadows, LLC v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Doc. 36 FlLED'tO OCT 05 :[4:5211snc,oRP IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON OAK CREEK MEADOWS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 09·876·JO OPINION AND ORDER Dean E. Aldrich THE ALDRICH LAW OFFICE, PC 319 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 1200 Portland, OR 97204 Attorney for Plaintiff Thomas A. Gordon Lloyd Bernstein GORDON & POLSCER, LLP 9755 S.W. Barnes Road, Suite 650 POliland, OR 97225 Attorneys for Defendant Dockets.Justia.com JONES, Judge: Plaintiff filed this action against defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company in Washington County Circuit Court on May 29, 2009, alleging a claim for breach of an insurance contract. On July 29,2009, defendant removed the action to this court based on diversity jurisdiction. The case is now before the court on plaintiffs Motion to Remand (# 25). The motion is granted and this action is remanded to Washington County Circuit Court. DISCUSSION Plaintiffs complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought. Plaintiff states that the reason for this is that when it filed the complaint, it still was investigating the claim. In the complaint, plaintiff merely alleges that defendant's breach of the insurance policy "has caused damages to be determined at trial (including the covered portion of the total estimated costs to repair the Propet1y, loss of use and lost rents)." Complaint, '1[8 (emphasis added). In its Notice of Removal, defendant speculated that plaintiffs claim exceeded the jurisdictional limit of$75,000, based on a report entitled "Results of Building Envelope Investigation," which defendant attached to the Notice. The estimated cost to repair the defects, propetty damage, code violations, etc., identified in the report was $1,852, 270.00, which defendant asserts to be at the very least the value of plaintiffs claim in this court. See Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Remand, p. 5, and Exhibit A to the Declaration of Lloyd Bernstein. As plaintiff notes, however; the claim at issue here is an insurance coverage claim, limited by the terms of the policy itself. Plaintiff also is pursuing claims against the original 2 - OPINION AND ORDER contractors for other damages, but states unequivocally that the amount in controversy - the total claim under the insurance policy against defendant - is $44,410.01. Declaration of Todd Peck, 'iI'iI2,9. Consequently, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action and plaintiff's motion for remand must be granted. Plaintiff's request for costs and attorney fees related to the motion is denied. CONCLUSION Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (# 25) is GRANTED and this action is remanded to Washington County Circuit COUli. Plaintiff's request for costs and attorney fees is denied. All other pending motions are denied as moot. DATED this 5th day of October, 2010. ROBERT E. JONES \ . u.s. District Ju4ge 3 - OPINION AND ORDER

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.