Samra v. American National Property and Casualty Company

Background

This case concerns an automobile insurance policy. Samra alleged that he was injured in November 2022 when an uninsured driver struck him. He submitted an insurance claim to American National Property and Casualty Company. According to the complaint, the insurer failed to conduct a complete investigation, ignored facts supporting the claim, failed to pay benefits promptly, and unreasonably determined that Samra was not entitled to benefits.

Samra asserted claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied promise of good faith and fair dealing. He filed the case in state court in June 2025 and served the insurer in July 2025. The insurer removed the case to federal court in November 2025, relying on diversity jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear certain disputes between citizens of different states when more than $75,000 is at stake.

Motion to Remand

Samra asked the federal court to return the case to state court. He argued that the insurer’s removal was untimely because the complaint showed that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, yet the insurer waited more than 30 days after service to remove the case. The insurer later conceded that the case should be remanded, although it opposed an award of attorney’s fees.

The court agreed that remand was required. It explained that the insurer’s own notice of removal relied on facts appearing in the complaint, including Samra’s alleged serious and permanent injuries, the policy’s $100,000 per-accident coverage limit, and requests for punitive damages and attorney’s fees. The court also noted that Samra sent a $128,000 settlement demand in September 2025, which independently showed that the amount-in-controversy requirement was met before the November removal.

Attorney’s Fees

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), a court remanding a case may award costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the removal. The court applied the rule that fees generally are appropriate when the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal.

The court found that the insurer’s removal was not reasonable. It rejected the insurer’s argument that the complaint did not establish diversity because the insurer should have known its own citizenship. The court also concluded that the complaint showed that more than $75,000 was at stake, and that the later settlement demand provided an additional basis for timely removal that the insurer did not use.

Samra requested $8,250, based on 11 hours at $750 per hour. The court found 11 hours excessive because the hearing had been vacated and the issues were not complicated. It determined that five hours was reasonable. At the requested hourly rate, the court awarded $3,750.

Disposition

The court granted Samra’s motion to remand and awarded $3,750 in attorney’s fees. It instructed the clerk to remand the case to Alameda Superior Court, close the federal file, and confer with the parties about how the insurer should transmit the fee award. The order disposed of Docket No. 9.