Strojnik v. Costar Realty Information, Inc. et al

Filing 867

Download PDF
Strojnik v. Costar Realty Information, Inc. et al Doc. 867 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Steven Plitt (SBN 007481) Joshua D. Rogers (SBN 021300) KUNZ PLITT HYLAND DEMLONG & KLEIFIELD 3838 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-1902 Telephone: (602) 331-4600 sp@kunzlegal.com; jdr@kunzlegal.com Attorneys for Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Carol Linn, A married woman, Plaintiff, vs. Liberty Mutual Insurance Holding Company, Inc., a foreign corporation; Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, a foreign corporation; DOES I-X, Defendants. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1441(a), Defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Holding Company, Inc., hereby file this Notice of Removal and show the court the following: I. Plaintiff is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona. II. Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Holding Company, Inc. is a foreign corporation with its place of incorporation in Massachusetts and its principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. NOTICE OF REMOVAL CASE NO.: (Maricopa County Superior Court, Case No. CV2006-014887) Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 III. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company is a foreign insurer which is a Wisconsin corporation with its principle place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. IV. Plaintiff Carol Linn filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Arizona, in and for the County of Maricopa on October 18, 2006. The civil lawsuit filed by Plaintiff is captioned Carol Linn v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Holding Company, Inc. and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Civil Cause No. CV2006-014887. A copy of the lawsuit is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." A copy of the Complaint was served on the Arizona Department of Insurance on February 5, 2007. This Notice of Removal is filed within the 30-day time limitation prescribed by 28 U.S.C. 1446(b). V. Plaintiff Carol Linn alleges that Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued an automobile policy to her which provided physical damage coverage for her automobile. On or about October 9, 2004, Plaintiff's vehicle was involved in an accident receiving damage. Plaintiff alleges that the total cost of repairs for the vehicle exceeded Sixteen Thousand Dollars ($16,000) and, therefore, the vehicle should have been totaled rather than repaired. As a result, Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants have breached the insurance contract, the Defendants breached their duty of good faith and fair dealing and that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages against Defendants. Based on the allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint, it appears to a legal certainty that the amount claimed or to be claimed by Plaintiff and her attorney in this matter will exceed Seventy-five Thousand Dollars ($75,000). See Pakledinaz v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 737 F.Supp. 47, 48 (E.D. Mich. 1990) (holding that removal was proper even though the amount in controversy cannot be determined by plaintiff's paper because a successful, plaintiff's allegation of damages could exceed $50,000.00); -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Compare, Matter of Shell Oil Co., 966 F.2d 1130, 1131 (7th Cir. 1992)(citing cases for the proposition that the removal is proper even if the complaint asks for less than the jurisdictional amount, when state law permits a court to award more than the court is likely to do so if it decides in plaintiff's favor). Plaintiff has filed a Certificate of Compulsory Arbitration pursuant to Rule 3.2 of the Maricopa County Rules of Practice in which she indicates that the amount in controversy exceeds the limits set by local rules for compulsory arbitration which, in Maricopa County, Arizona, is Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00). VI. Had Plaintiff initially filed her lawsuit in federal court, this court would have diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). Removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1441(a). VII. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(d) Defendants will give written notice of the filing of this Notice of Removal to Plaintiff promptly after this Notice of Removal is filed with the Court. In accordance with Rule 3.7 of the Rule of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Defendants state that a copy of this Notice of Removal has been filed with the Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court. A copy of the Notice of Filing of the Notice of Removal filed with the state court clerk is attached hereto as Exhibit "B." ... ... ... ... ... ... -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 VIII. This Notice is signed pursuant to Rule 11 Fed.R.Civ.P., as required by Local Rule 3.7. DATED this 7th day of March, 2007. KUNZ PLITT HYLAND DEMLONG & KLEIFIELD By: s/ Steven Plitt Steven Plitt Joshua D. Rogers 3838 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1902 Attorneys for Defendants ORIGINAL electronically filed with Clerk this 7th day of March, 2007 to. and a COPY electronically delivered or mailed this 7th day of March, 2007 to: Richard A. Dillenburg, Esq. Law Office of Richard A. Dillenburg, PC 2173 E. Warner Rd., Suite 101 Tempe, AZ 85284-3503 Attorney for Plaintiff /s Stacey Shirer -4-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?