Tardiff v. Encompass Insurance Company
ORDER denying 6 Motion to Remand. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (JOwe) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/22/2009: # 1 Exhibit A - LR 81.1) (JOwe).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DENEIL TARDIFF, Plaintiff, Case No. 09-10511 -vsHon: AVERN COHN ENCOMPASS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ________________________________________/ ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND This is a diversity case removed to this Court from Genesee County Circuit Court. Plaintiff has moved for remand on the grounds diversity is lacking, 28 USC §1332(c)(1), because defendant insurer should be deemed a citizen of the state (Michigan) in which the insured (plaintiff) is a citizen, and because defendant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. The motion is DENIED. 28 USC §1332(c)(1) is not applicable. See Davis v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Company, 382 F.Supp.2d 957 (E.D. Mich. 2005) (Cohn, J). The petition to remand does not comply with L.R. 81.1, and particularly subsection (d): If a plaintiff moves to remand, contending that the amount in controversy does not exceed the required jurisdictional amount, the plaintiff must include with the motion a signed statement of damages claimed, itemizing all damages by category and amount, or, for those categories for which the plaintiff is unable to specify a precise amount, an estimate of 1
the maximum amount and a detailed description of the factual basis for the estimate. Moreover, the petition for removal contains allegations of fact sufficient to justify the $75,000.00 requirement. SO ORDERED. s/ Avern Cohn AVERN COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: May 22, 2009 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of record on this date, May 22, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/ Julie Owens Case Manager, (313) 234-5160
S:\LORI\CASES\Tardiff v. Encompass\Remand Order.wpd
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?