# Opinion

> District Court, C.D. California · February 25, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11367661

## Case

- **Full name:** Yul Gevargis v. AmGUARD Insurance Company, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** February 25, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11367661

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 25-10870-DMG (Ex) Date February 25, 2026

Title Yul Gevargis v. AmGUARD Insurance Company, et al. Page 1 of 5

Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DEREK DAVIS NOT REPORTED
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND [16]

I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Yul Gevargis, a resident of Los Angeles County, is the named insured under a
business owner policy issued by Defendant AmGUARD Insurance Company (“AmGUARD”).
[Doc. # 1-2 at ¶ 1 (“Compl.”).] Gevargis alleges that on August 20, 2023, severe wind conditions
caused by Tropical Storm Hilary shifted debris that obstructed the roof drainage system on his
business property. Id. at ¶¶ 10–11. The obstruction caused water to pool on the flat roof and
created “hydrostatic pressure that led to roof failure.” Id. Water entered the building causing
substantial damage. Id. at ¶ 12. Repair estimates total $65,410.92, exclusive of the deductible.
Id. at ¶ 16. Gevargis notified AmGUARD of the damage. Id. at ¶ 13. AmGUARD inspected the
property and ultimately issued a letter on December 21, 2023, denying all coverage for the flat
roof and interior water damage. Id. at ¶ 19.

On August 20, 2025, Gevargis filed a Complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court
against AmGUARD alleging the following state law claims: (1) breach of written contract; (2)
breach of implied covenant of good faith; (3) declaratory relief under California Code of Civil
Procedure section 1060; (4) elder financial abuse; and (5) unfair competition. See generally
Compl. On November 13, 2025, AmGUARD removed the action to this Court, asserting diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1332. [Doc. # 1 (“NOR”).] AmGUARD claims its principal
place of business is in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania and that it is incorporated under the laws of
Nebraska. Id. at ¶ 5. AmGUARD further claims that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000,
exclusive of interest and costs. Id. at ¶ 8.

On January 23, 2026, Gevargis filed a Motion to Remand, arguing that AmGUARD failed
to establish complete diversity and the requisite amount in controversy. [Doc. # 16 (“MTR”).]
The motion is fully briefed. [Doc. ## 19 (“Opp.”), 20 (“Reply”).] For the reasons set forth below,
the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s MTR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 25-10870-DMG (Ex) Date February 25, 2026

Title Yul Gevargis v. AmGUARD Insurance Company, et al. Page 2 of 5

II.
LEGAL STANDARD

Under 28 U.S.C. section 1332, a district court has original jurisdiction over a civil action
where “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and there is complete
diversity of citizenship between the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Complete diversity between
the parties means that “each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff.”
Diaz v. Davis (In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig.), 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008). There
is a “strong presumption against removal jurisdiction,” and courts must reject it “if there is any
doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of
Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d
564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam)) (internal quotation marks omitted); Luther v. Countrywide
Home Loans Servicing LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008) (any “doubt is resolved against
removability”). The party seeking removal has the burden to establish that removal is proper and
the “burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction.” Marin Gen. Hosp. v. Modesto &
Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 944 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 F.3d
648, 652 (9th Cir. 1998)).

III.
DISCUSSION

A. Complete Diversity

Gevargis does not dispute that he is a citizen of California. See Compl. at ¶ 1; see generally
MTR and Reply. Corporations have dual citizenship based on the entity’s state(s) of incorporation
and principal place of business. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). AmGUARD is organized under the
laws of Nebraska and has its principal place of business located in Pennsylvania. Declaration of
Andrew Dempster (“Dempster Decl.”) at ¶¶ 4–5 [Doc. # 19-1]. Instead of challenging these facts,
Gevargis argues complete diversity is defeated because AmGUARD is “licensed and does
substantial business operations in California.” MTR at 4.1

Gevargis offers no authority to support the notion that licensure and “substantial business”
are probative of corporate citizenship. Indeed, a corporation has only one principal place of
business. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 93 (2010). A corporation’s principal place of
business is the “nerve center” where its “officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s

1 All page references herein are to page numbers inserted by the CM/ECF system.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 25-10870-DMG (Ex) Date February 25, 2026

Title Yul Gevargis v. AmGUARD Insurance Company, et al. Page 3 of 5

activities.” Id. at 92–93. The nerve center test is an objective inquiry that focuses on the
corporation’s “place of actual direction, control, and coordination.” Id. at 97. Here, AmGUARD
has presented sufficient evidence that its principal place of business is in Pennsylvania. See
Dempster Decl. at ¶¶ 5–7 (corporate headquarters located in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania where
all business functions, executive-level decision making, and board meetings are performed).

Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that AmGUARD has met its burden to show complete
diversity exists between the parties.

B. Amount in Controversy

If it is “unclear or ambiguous from the face of a state-court complaint whether the requisite
amount in controversy is pled,” then the removing defendant must prove, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount. Guglielmino v.
McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (citing Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d
398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996)). Courts may consider the complaint, facts in the removal petition, and
“summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of removal.”
Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation
marks omitted).

In the Complaint, Gevargis alleges he suffered repair damages “in excess of $65,410.92,
plus interest, lost rents or business income, and other consequential damages.” Compl. at ¶ 34.
Gevargis also seeks damages for emotional distress, punitive damages under California Civil Code
section 3294, and treble damages under California Civil Code section 3345. Id. at ¶¶ 39, 50, 53.
Lastly, Gevargis asserts he is entitled to attorneys’ fees under Brandt v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d
813 (1985) and California Welfare & Institutions Code section 15657.5. Id. In its Opposition,
AmGUARD points to two demand letters sent by Gevargis that includes: (1) a demand for $6,000
for the forensic engineering report; and (2) a demand for $7,500 in attorneys’ fees for work
performed as of August 13, 2025. Opp. at 4–5; Compl., Exs. 7 (demand letter dated July 7, 2025),
8 (demand letter dated August 13, 2025). AmGUARD contends that between the allegations in
the Complaint and Gevargis’ demands, the amount in controversy is a minimum of $78,910.92.
Opp. at 5.

Gevargis does not dispute that the repair costs at issue total $65,410.92. Reply at 2.
Instead, Gevargis argues that AmGUARD has not met its burden to show that the $6,000 for the
engineering report and $7,500 in attorneys’ fees are recoverable. Id. at 2–3. Gevargis’ arguments
are unavailing. The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] settlement letter is relevant evidence of the
amount in controversy if it appears to reflect a reasonable estimate of the plaintiff’s claim.” Cohn
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 25-10870-DMG (Ex) Date February 25, 2026

Title Yul Gevargis v. AmGUARD Insurance Company, et al. Page 4 of 5

v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2002). The amount in controversy includes attorneys’
fees awarded under fee-shifting statutes or contract. Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona, LLC,
899 F.3d 785, 793 (9th Cir. 2018). Gevargis seeks attorneys’ fees under (1) Brandt for his
insurance bad faith claim and (2) Section 15657.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for his
elder financial abuse claim. See Compl. at ¶¶ 39, 53. California law permits a plaintiff to recover
attorneys’ fees “[w]hen an insurer’s tortious conduct reasonably compels the insured to retain an
attorney to obtain the benefits due under a policy[.]” Brandt, 37 Cal.3d at 817. Gevargis’ demand
letter requested “$7,500 to date, subject to continuing accrual” specifically for “attorney’s fees
incurred to obtain policy benefits[.]” Compl. Ex. 8.2 Thus, AmGUARD presents sufficient
evidence that there is at least $7,500 worth of attorneys’ fees in controversy.3

Gevargis cursorily asserts AmGUARD failed to show that reimbursement for the $6,000
engineering report is legally recoverable. Reply at 3. Notably, Gevargis does not disavow the
amount claimed for the engineering report. Moreover, Gevargis cites no authority that would
prevent the Court from including the report in the amount in controversy. “The amount in
controversy is simply an estimate of the total amount in dispute, not a prospective assessment of
defendant’s liability.” Lewis v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 400 (9th Cir. 2010);
Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase Co., 888 F.3d 413, 414–15 (9th Cir. 2018) (amount in controversy
“encompasses all relief a court may grant on [the] complaint if the plaintiff is victorious.”). Even
if the Court assumed the engineering report was a “cost” excluded from the amount in controversy
under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a), the amount in controversy for the repairs and Brandt fees alone
is $72,910.92. This amount does not include the “continuing accrual” of Brandt fees, attorneys’
fees under the Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5(a), or damages relating to Gevargis’
claims for emotional distress, punitive damages, and treble damages.

AmGUARD has met its burden to show that it is more likely than not that the amount in
controversy is in excess of $75,000, and thus removal was proper.

2 The language in Gevargis’ own demand letter negates his argument in Reply that “Defendant relies on a
single, lump-sum figure referenced in a pre-suit demand letter, without any showing that the amount represents fees
incurred exclusively to obtain policy benefits rather than mixed or non-recoverable attorney work.” Reply at 2–3.
Gevargis makes no argument that his own estimate was unreasonable, and the Court has no reason to believe that it
is.
3 Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5(a) also provides for “reasonable attorney’s fees and costs”
in addition to compensatory damages. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15657.5(a).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 25-10870-DMG (Ex) Date February 25, 2026

Title Yul Gevargis v. AmGUARD Insurance Company, et al. Page 5 of 5

IV.
CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that it has diversity jurisdiction over this
action under 28 U.S.C. section 1332. The Court therefore DENIES Gevargis’ MTR and
VACATES the February 27, 2026 hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11367661. Public record. Not legal advice.