The Green Enchilada, Inc. v. Amguard Insurance Company, et al.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:25-cv-03701
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In The Green Enchilada v. AMGUARD, Judge Gilliam denied remand, finding diversity jurisdiction adequately established.
The Green Enchilada, Inc. and the defendants are affected because the case remains in federal court after the court denied the motion to remand.
What happened
The Green Enchilada, Inc. sued AmGUARD Insurance Company and others after a fire damaged its restaurant and alleged that insurance payments were not made. It asserted breach of contract and breach of the implied promise of good faith and fair dealing.
The Green Enchilada argued that the case should return to state court because a related company, WestGUARD Insurance Company, had a California connection. It also argued that AmGUARD could not establish diversity jurisdiction because of its relationship with BH GUARD.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied the motion to remand. He found that BH GUARD was a trade name rather than a legal entity, that AmGUARD adequately alleged Pennsylvania citizenship, and that the amount in dispute exceeded $75,000. He also granted judicial notice of one exhibit and denied judicial notice of another.
The detailed version
- The Green Enchilada, Inc. v. Amguard Insurance Company, et al. · No. 4:25-cv-03701
- Haywood Gilliam
- Oct. 24, 2025
Background
The Green Enchilada, Inc. operates a restaurant in Pacifica, California. It alleged that a fire at a neighboring business damaged the restaurant in February 2023. The Green Enchilada alleged that it submitted an insurance claim to the defendants, but that they failed to pay for the losses. Its claims are for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
AmGUARD removed the case from state court based on diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires that the parties be citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 be at stake. AmGUARD alleged that it was domiciled in Pennsylvania and that the amount-in-controversy requirement was met. The removal notice stated that Berkshire Hathaway GUARD, or “BH GUARD,” was not a legal entity but a trade name used by various companies.
Request for Judicial Notice
The Green Enchilada asked the court to take judicial notice of two exhibits. The court granted the request as to Exhibit 2, a termination notice filed with the California Secretary of State, because it was a public record and the request was unopposed.
The court denied the request as to Exhibit 1, which purported to show part of the BH GUARD website. The court found that the exhibit lacked a URL, header, or logo showing that it accurately reflected that website. The court also found that part of the exhibit appeared to show Google search results for “West Guard Insurance Agency,” rather than BH GUARD’s website. The court concluded that the exhibit could not be accurately and readily verified from a source whose accuracy could not reasonably be questioned.
Motion to Remand
The Green Enchilada argued that complete diversity was lacking because WestGUARD Insurance Company, described as an affiliate of BH GUARD, had its principal place of business in California. It also argued that AmGUARD could not establish diversity because of its connection to WestGUARD through the BH GUARD trade name.
The court rejected these arguments. It distinguished West Guard Insurance Agency from WestGUARD Insurance Company and found that the agency’s California operations were not relevant. The court also noted that the claims arose from a contract with AmGUARD, not WestGUARD. Even assuming WestGUARD were involved, the court found that Exhibit 2 indicated that WestGUARD was incorporated in Pennsylvania and had surrendered its right to conduct interstate business in California in 2014.
The court further found that AmGUARD adequately alleged the citizenship of itself and its affiliates as Pennsylvania and adequately alleged that BH GUARD was a trade name, not a legal entity. The parties did not dispute that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
Disposition
The court denied The Green Enchilada’s motion to remand. It also set a case management conference for November 18, 2025, and directed the parties to file a joint case management statement by November 11, 2025.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.