Benjamin Motal v. Allstate Prop. & Casualty Ins. ( 2023 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-1743
___________________________
Benjamin E. Motal
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________
Submitted: January 11, 2023
Filed: May 18, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Benjamin Motal was involved in a car accident on May 23, 2019. He sued the
driver and the driver’s insurer, Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Co. (Allstate)
in Arkansas state court, alleging, as relevant here, that Allstate violated the Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA). See Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-107. After the
claims against the driver were dismissed, Allstate removed the matter to federal
district court and filed a motion to dismiss. Motal opposed Allstate’s motion and
moved to remand the matter to state court. The district court1 denied the motion to
remand and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). Reviewing de novo, we affirm. Turntine v. Peterson, 959 F.3d 873, 880 (8th
Cir. 2020) (reviewing de novo the question whether diversity jurisdiction exists);
Universal Coops., Inc. v. AAC Flying Serv., Inc., 710 F.3d 790, 794 (8th Cir. 2013)
(reviewing de novo dismissal for failure to state a claim).
The district court properly exercised jurisdiction over the ADTPA claim.
Motal and Allstate are diverse citizens, and Allstate proved by a preponderance of the
evidence that a fact finder might legally conclude that Motal’s damages are greater
than $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (original jurisdiction over civil actions in
which the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000); Turntine, 959 F.3d at 881 (removing party bears the burden of
proving “whether a fact finder might legally conclude that the damages are greater
than the requisite amount” (cleaned up)). Motal’s complaint sought damages “in an
amount determined by the jury,” as well as punitive damages. Allstate thus cited
similar cases in which juries had awarded more than $75,000 in damages. Moreover,
Motal cited in his complaint three cases as evidence of Allstate’s allegedly unlawful
practice—two of which were heard in federal court on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction and a third that was resolved in state court, where a jury returned a verdict
of more than $400,000.2 In light of Motal’s allegations and the parties’ citations, we
conclude that Allstate established federal jurisdiction. We note that Motal’s
1
The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.
2
See Second Am. Compl. ¶ 30 (citing Haynes v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins., No.
19-cv-02397, 2020 WL 816043 (D. Colo. Feb. 18, 2020); Lopez v. Allstate Fire &
Cas. Ins. Co., No. 14-20654-Civ, 2015 WL 5269687 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 10, 2015);
Jacobsen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 310 P.3d 452 (Mont. 2013)).
-2-
settlement demand of $17,076 did not establish to a legal certainty that his claim was
for less than $75,000. See Turntine, 959 F.3d at 881 (burden shifts to party seeking
remand to “establish to a legal certainty that the claim is for less than” $75,000).
Motal argues that the district court erred in dismissing his ADTPA claim. He
concedes that he did not plead reliance on Allstate’s allegedly unlawful practice, but
argues that he was not required to do so because ADTPA did not explicitly require
reliance when Allstate implemented the practice.3 We apply “[t]he statute in effect
at the time of the alleged wrongful conduct,” however. Apex Oil Co. v. Jones
Stephens Corp., 881 F.3d 658, 662 (8th Cir. 2018). Motal pleaded that Allstate’s
unlawful practice forced him to resort to litigation, causing him to incur costs and
expend time. Allstate’s alleged wrongful conduct thus was not the mere
implementation of the practice, but rather the application of the practice in resolving
Motal’s claim. That conduct occurred sometime after the 2019 accident, and the
statute then in effect required proof of “reliance on the use of a practice declared
unlawful.” See Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-113(f)(1)(A) (2017). Motal does not argue
that he can state a claim under the amended version of ADTPA.
The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
3
Motal claims that Allstate implemented its unlawful practice before August
1, 2017, when amendments to ADTPA’s civil enforcement and remedies section took
effect. The earlier version of the statute provided a cause of action for “[a]ny person
who suffer[ed] actual damage or injury as a result of an offense or violation.” Ark.
Code. Ann. § 4-88-113(f) (2011).
-3-