Blandino v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:25-cv-09143
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Blandino v. Liberty Mutual, Judge Cousins ordered Liberty Mutual to justify federal jurisdiction or face remand to state court.
The order directly affects Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, which must provide additional support for federal jurisdiction or file an amended removal notice. It also affects Tomas and Auxiliadora Blandino because the case may be sent back to state court if jurisdiction is not established.
What happened
Tomas Blandino and Auxiliadora Blandino sued Liberty Mutual Insurance Company in state court, and Liberty Mutual removed the case to federal court. The notice said the parties were citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 was at stake.
The court found those allegations insufficient. The notice did not adequately explain the plaintiffs’ citizenship or why the damages plausibly exceeded $75,000, particularly because the complaint listed $45,686.62 in repair and mitigation costs without specifying enough additional support.
Judge Nathanael M. Cousins ordered Liberty Mutual to provide a written explanation or file an amended removal notice by November 10, 2025. The plaintiffs could respond by November 17, 2025. The court stated that failure to establish jurisdiction would result in remand to state court.
The detailed version
- Blandino v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company · No. 5:25-cv-09143
- Nathanael Cousins
- Oct. 27, 2025
Background
Liberty Mutual removed to federal court an action that Tomas and Auxiliadora Blandino had brought in state court. Liberty Mutual relied on diversity jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear certain cases involving citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that federal courts must independently examine whether they have subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case. The party invoking federal jurisdiction has the burden of establishing it. A notice of removal must provide a short and plain statement supporting removal and federal jurisdiction.
The court found Liberty Mutual’s allegations insufficient in two respects. First, the notice stated only that the plaintiffs were citizens of California. The complaint stated that they owned residential real property in California, but it did not say that they lived there or provide other information showing their domicile. Because citizenship for diversity purposes depends on domicile, Liberty Mutual had not plausibly alleged complete diversity of citizenship.
Second, the notice did not plausibly allege that more than $75,000 was in controversy. The complaint sought $45,686.62 in repair and mitigation costs, along with damages for emotional distress and loss of full use and enjoyment of the property. Liberty Mutual asserted that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 but gave no factual or legal reasoning supporting the assumption that the other damages would add at least approximately $30,000.
Order
The court ordered Liberty Mutual to show cause, meaning to provide a written explanation, or to file an amended notice of removal by November 10, 2025. The amended notice or explanation had to plausibly establish diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiffs could respond by November 17, 2025. The court stated that failure to establish subject-matter jurisdiction would result in remand of the action to state court.
Judge Nathanael M. Cousins did not decide the underlying dispute between the plaintiffs and Liberty Mutual. This order addressed only whether the federal court’s jurisdiction had been adequately established.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.