Opinion
Case No: 6:23-cv-979-GAP-EJK
2023-07-12
Matthew KLEINSTEUBER and Laura Kleinsteuber, Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant
Anthony J. Gonzalez, The Law Office of Kanner and Pintaluga, PA, Coral Gables, FL, for Plaintiffs. Thomas A. Keller, Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, Tampa, FL, for Defendant.
Anthony J. Gonzalez, The Law Office of Kanner and Pintaluga, PA, Coral Gables, FL, for Plaintiffs. Thomas A. Keller, Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, Tampa, FL, for Defendant.
ORDER
GREGORY A. PRESNELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (Doc. 9) and Defendant's Response in Opposition thereto (Doc. 11).
Plaintiffs Matthew Kleinsteuber and Laura Kleinsteuber ("Plaintiffs") filed a Complaint for breach of an insurance policy in State Court on March 13, 2023, seeking damages in excess of $50,000.00. Doc. 1-1, ¶ 1. After an extension, Defendant Federal Insurance Company ("Defendant") answered the Complaint on May 8, 2023. Doc. 1-2. On May 15, 2023, Plaintiffs sent a $108,000 settlement demand to Defendant. Doc. 1-8. Defendant, within 30 days thereafter, removed the case to this Court. Doc. 1.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), "the grounds for removal must appear on the face of the initial pleading in order for the 30-day clock then to begin to run." Thompson v. Columbia Sussex Corp., 2016 WL 6134868, *2 (M.D. Fla. 2016) (quoting Lovern v. General Motors, 121 F.3d 160, 162 (4th Cir. 1997)); see also Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 694 (9th Cir. 2005) ("[N]otice of removability under § 1446(b) is determined through examination of the four corners of the applicable pleadings, not through subjective knowledge or a duty to make further inquiry."). Accordingly, the Court looks only to the four corners of the pleadings to determine whether a case was removable at the outset. See, e.g., Thompson, 2016 WL 6134868 at *2.
Here, the Complaint alleged an amount less than $75,000.00; Plaintiff relies on pre-suit communications to support its contention that the case was removable as of filing. Doc. 9 at 2-4. Because these pre-suit letters were not incorporated within the Complaint, however, they do not establish that the case was initially removeable under § 1446(b)(1). See Doc. 1-1; see also Armstrong v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 2017 WL 1501385, *2 (M.D. Fla. 2017).
These documents include a civil remedy notice (CRN) dated January 23, 2023 (Doc. 9-2), and a notice of intent to litigate dated February 6, 2023 (Doc. 9-4), which reflect various disputed amounts.
In an effort to avoid the application of 1446(b)(3), Plaintiffs refer to the civil cover-sheet filed with their State Court Complaint. Doc. 9 at 6-7. However, like the other documents Plaintiffs have invoked, the cover sheet is not part of the Complaint. See Doc. 1-1; see also infra at n. 2. Nor does it constitute a subsequent "other paper" that would trigger the 30-day period. See Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, n. 62 (11th Cir. 2007).
If a case is not initially removable, courts may look to § 1446(b)(3), which allows removal "within 30 days after receipt by the defendant . . . of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper" which establishes removability. Here, that "other paper" was Plaintiffs' demand letter which was received by Defendant less than 30 days before it filed its Notice of Removal. Doc. 1-8. Removal was therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (Doc. 9) is hereby DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on July 12, 2023.