Cincinnati Financial Corporation v. Elkay Manufacturing Company et al

Filing 24

CONSENT ORDER OF REMAND granting 17 Pltf's Motion to Remand to State Court, with consent of the Defts, and this action is hereby REMANDED to the Cleveland County Superior Court. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 3/19/12. (ejb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:12cv19

CINCINNATI FINANCIAL CORPORATION, )
a/b/a CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, )
a/s/o DELTA PARTNERS, INC.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ELKAY MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
)
d/b/a HALSEY TAYLOR, EMBRACO
)
NORTH AMERICA, INC., and
)
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
CONSENT ORDER OF REMAND

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand.
[Doc. 17].
On January 27, 2012, this case was removed from state court by
Defendant Elkay Manufacturing Company (Elkay) based on diversity
jurisdiction. [Doc. 1]. On February 9, 2012, Defendant General Electric
Company (GE) filed a Consent to Removal.1 [Doc. 12]. The Plaintiffs’ cause
1

Defendant Embraco North America, Inc. did not file such a consent and the
Notice of Removal does not contain a provision that it consented. The omission,

of action arises from a water leak which occurred at property owned by Delta
Partners, Inc. (Delta). [Doc. 1-1 at 12-24]. The insurance claim for the
damage was paid by Plaintiff Cincinnati Financial Corporation (Cincinnati)
which now seeks to assert its right of subrogation against the Defendants.
[Id.]. The water leak is alleged to have occurred as a result of a defective
drinking fountain. [Id.].
After the case was removed, the Plaintiffs timely moved to remand to
state court on the ground that the amount in controversy does not exceed the
sum of $62,511.18, exclusive of costs. [Doc. 17-1 at 2]. The Plaintiffs also
concede that an award of attorneys’ fees is not available in this matter. [Id. at
5]. Attached to the motion is a Sworn Statement of Loss in the amount of
$62,511.18. [Doc. 17-3]. As a result, the threshold for diversity jurisdiction is
not met.

28 U.S.C. §1332(a) (the matter in controversy must exceed

$75,000.00). Based on this statement by the Plaintiffs, Embraco and Elkay
both filed responses in which they consented to remanding the case to state
court. [Doc. 22; Doc. 23]. Although Defendant GE did not file a response, it
did advise the Court that it also consents to remand. Having reviewed the
matter and the parties consenting, the Court finds that the case should be

however, is not relevant in view of the parties’ agreement to remand the case.
2

remanded to state court since diversity jurisdiction does not exist. 28 U.S.C.
§1332.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand
[Doc. 17], which is consented to by the Defendants, is hereby GRANTED and
this action is hereby REMANDED to the Cleveland County Superior Court.
Signed: March 19, 2012

3