West Coast Life Insurance Company v. US Life 1 Renditefonds 1 GMBH & Co KG et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 2/2/16. (SAC )

FILED
2016 Feb-02 PM 02:58
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WEST COAST LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY,

}
}
}
Plaintiff,
}
}
v.
}
}
US LIFE 1 RENDITEFONDS 1 GMBH }
& Co KG, et al.,
}
}
Defendants.
}
}

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:16-cv-00026-WMA

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, West Coast Life Insurance Company (“West Coast”),
filed this action in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County
Alabama against defendants SPV-LS LLC (“SPV”) and
Renditefonds 1 GMBH & Co KG (“Renditefonds”).

US Life 1

Before

Renditefonds was served, SPV removed the case to this court on
the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, alleging complete diversity of
citizenship between plaintiff, on the one hand, and all
defendants and affiliated entities, on the other.

However, the

relationships of these Renditefonds entities and their principal
places of business are in many instances averred honestly only on
“information and belief” as the means of establishing their nonAlabama citizenships. The heavy burden was on SPV to allege with
precision on actual knowledge and ultimately to prove the facts
demonstrating complete diversity in order to invoke § 1332.

1

West Coast filed a motion to remand now before the court,
whereupon SPV filed an amended notice of removal attempting to
explain its problem in ascertaining and alleging within the Rule
11 context the relationships and citizenships of all entities and
ownership interests in Renditefonds, which is a German limited
liability company with perhaps some unique features.

As a hoped

for solution to the problem, SPV moves for a stay of the motion
to remand to allow discovery limited to the facts bearing on the
§ 1332 jurisdictional issue.

In reply, West Coast says that a

case cannot be removed on the basis of jurisdiction that is
speculative.
To recognize and effectuate a basic principle of federalism,
namely, the primacy of the state courts, Congress did not make it
easy to remove to a federal court cases over which a state court
has jurisdiction. See Fuzzell v. DRC Emergency Servs., LLC, 2015
WL 412889, at *1 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 30, 2015) (quoting Russell Corp.
v. American Home Assur. Co., 264 F.3d 1040, 1050 (11th Cir. 2001)
(“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and there is
a presumption against the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such
that all uncertainties as to removal jurisdiction are to be
resolved in favor of remand.”).

This is such a case.

heavy burden which it has not met.

SPV had a

For this reason and those put

forward by West Coast, West Coast’s choice of forum will be

2

honored by a denial of the motion to stay and a grant of its
motion to remand.

DONE this 2nd day of February, 2016.

_____________________________
WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3