Szomor-Dharmasiri v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Background

Plaintiff Marta Szomor-Dharmasiri, proceeding without a lawyer (pro se), filed this lawsuit in Minnesota state court against State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, alleging that State Farm wrongfully denied insurance coverage for fire damage to her home in April 2025. Szomor-Dharmasiri mailed the complaint to State Farm's counsel on May 29, 2026; counsel received it on June 5, 2026. She mailed a copy of the summons on June 1, 2026. The court expressly reserved judgment on whether this method of service was proper.

On June 29, 2026, State Farm — identified in the opinion as an Illinois company — removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Diversity jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear a case between citizens of different states when the amount in dispute exceeds $75,000. Szomor-Dharmasiri then moved to remand (send back) the case to state court.

Szomor-Dharmasiri's Arguments and the Court's Rulings

Argument 1: Defective Removal Notice

Szomor-Dharmasiri argued that State Farm's notice of removal was "infirm" because it cited 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), which she characterized as a procedural provision with no substantive basis for removal. The court rejected this, noting that the notice also cited 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) — the substantive statute authorizing removal — and that a notice of removal need only contain a "short and plain statement of the grounds for removal" under § 1446(a), which State Farm's notice satisfied. Szomor-Dharmasiri cited no authority for her position.

Argument 2: Lack of Federal-Question Jurisdiction

Szomor-Dharmasiri argued that federal-question jurisdiction — jurisdiction based on a federal law or the U.S. Constitution — was absent. The court noted that State Farm never invoked federal-question jurisdiction; it relied solely on diversity jurisdiction. This argument therefore missed the mark.

Argument 3: Amount in Controversy

Szomor-Dharmasiri argued that the amount-in-controversy requirement was not met because her "original claim was $77,000" and only grew because of State Farm's alleged misconduct. The court found this argument self-defeating: even by Szomor-Dharmasiri's own account, the damages exceeded $75,000, which is all the statute requires. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Argument 4: Removal Was Untimely

Szomor-Dharmasiri argued that State Farm's notice of removal was filed too late because the underlying fire occurred in April 2025, more than a year before removal. The court explained that the 30-day removal clock under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) runs from when the defendant receives "a copy of the initial pleading" — here, June 5, 2026, when State Farm's counsel received the complaint. That gave State Farm until July 6, 2026. The June 29, 2026 notice of removal was therefore timely.

The court also addressed the one-year bar in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1), which generally prevents removal more than one year after a case is commenced when the case was not initially removable. The court held that § 1446(c) did not apply here because the case was removable as initially pleaded. In any event, State Farm removed the case less than a month after receiving the complaint — well within one year of commencement.

Argument 5: Bad Faith Removal

Szomor-Dharmasiri contended that State Farm removed the case in bad faith, either to circumvent Minnesota's arbitration requirements or to make litigation more expensive. The court declined to address this argument because Szomor-Dharmasiri failed to explain how alleged bad faith affects the removal analysis or the court's jurisdiction, and she cited no relevant legal authority. The court cited In re Vera T. Welte Testamentary Tr., 96 F.4th 1034, 1039 (8th Cir. 2024), for the proposition that courts are not obliged to address undeveloped arguments.

Request for Attorney's Fees and Costs

Szomor-Dharmasiri also requested attorney's fees and costs for bringing the remand motion. The court denied this request. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), fees may be awarded only in connection with an order actually remanding a case to state court. Because the court is not remanding the case, fees are unavailable.

Disposition

Judge Provinzino denied Szomor-Dharmasiri's Motion to Remand in its entirety. The case will proceed in federal court.