United States District Court, D. Minnesota
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge
matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss. For the following reasons, the Motion is denied
without prejudice and this case is remanded to the state
court because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
9, 2011, an uninsured motorist rear-ended and injured
Plaintiff Tina Carlson-Oesterich. (Compl. (Docket No. 1-1)
¶¶ I-III, VII.) Carlson-Oesterich had a car-insurance
policy with Defendant American Family Mutual Insurance
Company, which provided uninsured motorist coverage.
(Id. ¶ IV.) Carlson-Oesterich alleges that
American Family is obligated to pay for her medical expenses
sustained as a result of the car crash and seeks damages
“in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,
000.00).” (Id. ¶ VII.)
8, 2017, one day before the six-year statute of limitations
ran, Carlson-Oesterich mailed a copy of her Summons and
Complaint to American Family and the Minnesota Department of
Commerce, and also executed an affidavit of compliance.
(Hellie Decl. (Docket No. 12) Ex. 1.) On May 30, American
Family filed an Answer in state court. (Id. Ex. 2.)
American Family subsequently removed the case to this Court.
(Notice of Removal (Docket No. 1).) American Family now moves
to dismiss Carlson-Oesterich's Complaint for insufficient
service of process.
the parties do not raise the issue, the Court must determine
whether it has subject matter jurisdiction before addressing
American Family's Motion. “It is well established
that a court has a special obligation to consider whether it
has subject matter jurisdiction in every case.”
Hart v. United States, 630 F.3d 1085, 1089 (8th Cir.
2011) (citation omitted). All federal courts are obligated to
consider sua sponte their jurisdiction to entertain
a case when they believe that jurisdiction may be lacking.
Clark v. Baka, 593 F.3d 712, 714 (8th Cir. 2010)
burden of proving federal jurisdiction is on the party
seeking to establish it. Great Rivers Habitat All. v.
Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 615 F.3d 985, 988 (8th Cir.
2010) (citation omitted). American Family has the burden to
prove subject matter jurisdiction because it removed the case
to federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
Family contends that the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction because the matter in controversy exceeds $75,
000 and is between citizens of different states. See
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Although recognizing that
Carlson-Oesterich's Complaint only demands damages in
excess of $50, 000, American Family maintains that the Court
has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1446(c)(2) reads in full:
If removal of a civil action is sought on the basis of the
jurisdiction conferred by § 1332(a), the sum demanded in
good faith in the initial pleading shall be deemed to be the
amount in controversy, except that-
(A) the notice of removal may assert the amount in
controversy if the initial pleading seeks-
(i) nonmonetary relief; or
(ii) a money judgment, but the State practice either does not
permit demand for a specific sum or permits recovery of
damages in ...