Calvary Baptist Church v. Church Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 9

ORDER denying 6 plaintiff's Motion to Remand (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 2/10/2016. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-15-1283-M

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and Brief in Support, filed December
16, 2016. On December 31, 2016, defendant responded. Based on the parties’ submissions, the
Court makes its determination.
I.

Introduction
On October 2, 2014, plaintiff filed this action in the District Court of Garfield County,

State of Oklahoma. On November 18, 2015, defendant removed this action to this Court.
Plaintiff now moves this Court for an order remanding this action back to state court.
Specifically, plaintiff contends that this action should be remanded back to state court because:
(1) the removal was untimely; (2) there is an insufficient amount in controversy; and (3) the
citizenship of defendant is questionable.
II.

Discussion
The timeliness of defendant’s Notice of Removal is generally governed by 28

U.S.C. § 1446(b), which provides, in pertinent part:
(1) The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be
filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through
service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth

the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based .
...
*
*
*
(3) Except as provided in subsection (c), if the case stated by the
initial pleading is not removable, a notice of removal may be filed
within 30 days after receipt by the defendant, through service or
otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or
other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is
one which is or has become removable.
28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1),(3). “Under § 1446(b), the removal period does not begin until the
defendant is able to intelligently ascertain removability so that in his petition for removal he can
make a simple and short statement of the facts.” Huffman v. Saul Holdings Ltd. P’ship, 194 F.3d
1072, 1078 (10th Cir. 1999) (internal quotations omitted). However, removal based on diversity
of citizenship is prohibited under § 1446(b)(3) if the removal is “more than [one] year after
commencement of the action, unless the district court finds that the plaintiff acted in bad faith in
order to prevent a defendant from removing the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1).
Diversity jurisdiction exists if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive
of interest and costs, and the action is between citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a). Further, in determining a corporation’s citizenship, for diversity jurisdiction, the Court
looks to the corporation’s principal place of business.
“[P]rincipal place of business” is best read as referring to the place
where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the
corporation’s activities. It is the place that Courts of Appeals have
called the corporation’s “nerve center.” And in practice it should
normally be the place where the corporation maintains its
headquarters—provided that the headquarters is the actual center
of direction, control, and coordination, i.e., the “nerve center,” and
not simply an office where the corporation holds its board
meetings . . . .
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 599 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010).

2

Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that this action was timely and
properly removed to this Court. When this action was initially filed in state court, plaintiff only
asserted damages in excess of $10,000, in violation of Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(A)(2). 1
Defendant was served on February 20, 2015, and on February 25, 2015, defendant’s counsel
contacted plaintiff’s counsel and requested that plaintiff file an amended complaint in
compliance with Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(A)(2). See Def. Resp. Ex. 2 Email from Kenyatta
Bethea to Mike Roberts. After no response from plaintiff regarding filing an amended complaint,
on May 8, 2015, defendant filed a Motion to Clarify Damages, and on May 21, 2015, plaintiff
responded by filing a Clarification of Damages in which plaintiff indicated it was seeking
damages in an amount less than $75,000.00. See id. at Ex. 3, Defendant Church Mutual
Insurance Company, Inc.’s Motion to Clarify Damages and Brief in Support and Ex. 4,
Clarification of Damages. In an effort to ascertain the amount of damages plaintiff sought in this
case, defendant issued discovery, to which plaintiff was non-responsive, and on September 22,
2015, defendant filed its Motion to Compel. See id. at Ex. 5, Defendant’s Motion for Order
Compelling Discovery and Brief in Support. On October 21, 2015, plaintiff filed its Initial
Disclosure Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3226(A)(2) seeking damages of approximately $90,503.66. See
id. at Ex. 6, Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosure Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3226(A)(2).
Based on the evidence provided by defendant, the Court finds that plaintiff acted in bad
faith in order to prevent defendant from removing this action, and, therefore, defendant is not

1

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(A)(2) provides in part:
Every pleading demanding relief for damages in money in an
amount that is required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to
Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code or less shall
specify the amount of such damages sought to be recovered.
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(A)(2).
3

subject to the one year prohibition on removal in diversity actions. Specifically, the Court finds
that defendant made significant attempts to ascertain the amount of damages in this matter, once
served with this action, and plaintiff was either non-responsive or unresponsive to defendant’s
requests. It was only after plaintiff filed its Initial Disclosure Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3226(A)(2),
over a year after this action had been filed, that defendant was able to ascertain the amount of
damages that plaintiff was pursuing and timely removed this action to this Court. Further, the
Court finds that defendant has provided the Court sufficient evidence for the Court to determine
that its principal place of business is located in Merrill, Wisconsin.2 Therefore, the Court finds
that the requirements of diversity jurisdiction have been met and plaintiff’s motion to remand
should be denied.
III.

Conclusion
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, this Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to

Remand and Brief in Support [docket no. 6].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of February, 2016.

2

Out of defendants 978 employees, 728 employees are employed at their headquarters in
Merrill, Wisconsin, including the two defendant employees assigned to plaintiff’s claims. See
Def. Resp. at 10 (citing defendant’s website at www.churchmutual.com/3/About%20Us).
4