Schwartz v. Encompass Indemnity Company

Filing 6

ORDER denying 4 Motion to Reassign Case.. Signed by District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL SCHWARTZ,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 11-14101
Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff

v.

ENCOMPASS INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Defendant.
/

OPINION AND ORDER
AT A SESSION of said Court, held in the United States Courthouse,
in the City of Port Huron, State of Michigan, on October 21, 2011
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Docket #4). Defendant
filed a timely response to the Motion. The Court finds that the facts and legal arguments pertinent
to the Motion to Remand are adequately presented in the parties’ papers, and the decision process
will not be aided by oral arguments. Therefore, pursuant to E.D. Mich. Local R. 7.1(f)(2), it is
hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Remand be resolved on the briefs submitted, without this
Court entertaining oral arguments.

II. BACKGROUND
In this lawsuit, Plaintiff makes a claim for first party no-fault benefits stemming from an
automobile accident occurring on February 6, 2011. Plaintiff alleges to have sustained various

injuries for which he is allegedly incurring ongoing expenses that consist of reasonable charges for
the reasonable and necessary products, services and accommodations for the Plaintiff’s medical care,
treatment, recovery and rehabilitation. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant, a corporation duly
created and organized by and under the laws of the State of Illinois and a resident of Illinois, seeking
personal injury protection benefits.
Plaintiff originally filed this lawsuit in the Genesee County Circuit Court in the State of
Michigan, alleging that Plaintiff’s damages exceeded $25,000.00, exclusive of costs, interest and
attorney’s fees. Defendant filed a Notice of Removal alleging that Plaintiff’s claims, pursuant to the
Michigan No-Fault Act, exceed $75,000.00. Plaintiff then filed the Motion to Remand, asserting
that he “has specifically set forth damages, for less than $32,000, in his Complaint against Defendant
for violations of M.C.L. 500.3107, exclusive of costs, attorney fees, and interest.”

III. ANALYSIS
A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over a non-federal question case or
controversy when the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C.
§1332. There is no dispute that the parties in this matter are diverse as Plaintiff is a resident of
Michigan and Defendant is an Illinois corporation. Plaintiff, however, maintains that the amount in
controversy does not exceed $75,000. After reviewing Defendant’s notice of removal and
Defendant’s response to the motion to remand, the Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s position. More
specifically, the Court notes that:
(1)

Plaintiff has admitted that the damages to date are nearly $32,000;

(2)

The statute under which Plaintiff seeks recovery allows for three years of
replacement services and lifelong medical expenses, including medical mileage and
lifelong attendant care benefits;
2

(3)

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that he “continues to incur/suffer said allowable
expenses, replacement services, and mileage expenses, and he will continue to
incur/suffer allowable expenses, replacement services expenses, and mileage
expenses into the indefinite future;” and

(4)

Given the opportunity to enter into a stipulation to remand the case to state court,
Plaintiff’s counsel refused, at least in part because the stipulation required Plaintiff
to cap his damages at $75,000.

Based on the foregoing circumstances and allegations, the Court finds that Defendant has met its
burden of demonstrating that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Therefore, as the elements
necessary for diversity jurisdiction under Section 1332 have been satisfied, the Court denies
Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand.

IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for
Remand (Docket #4).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff
LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 21, 2011

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record
by electronic or U.S. mail on October 21, 2011.

S/Marie E. Verlinde
Case Manager
[phone]

4