Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00908/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00908-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Breach of Contract- Insurance

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

ANCHOR MANAGING GENERAL )

AGENCY, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:05cv908-MHT

) (WO)

LLOYD’S OF LONDON, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Now before the court is plaintiff’s motion to remand

this lawsuit back to state court. “This is a civil

action wherein plaintiff makes claims against [defendant]

Underwriters at Lloyd’s under theories of fraud, deceit,

reckless and wanton conduct, negligence, wantonness,

suppression and outrage relative to a Binding Authority

Agreement ... and an underlying suit in which the parties

were involved as co-defendants (Comprehensive Shooting,

Inc. v. Anchor Managing General Agency, Inc. and Lloyd’s

of London, et al., Circuit Court of Lee County,

Case 2:05-cv-00908-MHT-VPM Document 23 Filed 08/04/06 Page 1 of 4
2

Mississippi, CV02-147(PF)L ...).” Notice of Removal (Doc.

No. 1), at 3-4. Defendant then removed this lawsuit to

this court based on diversity-of-citizenship

jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1332, 1441. 

A removing defendant has the burden of proving that

the $ 75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement for

diversity jurisdiction is met. Leonard v. Enterprise

Rent-a-Car, 279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002). “A

conclusory allegation in the notice of removal that the

jurisdictional amount is satisfied, without setting forth

the underlying facts supporting such an assertion, is

insufficient to meet the defendant’s burden.” Williams

v. Best Buy Company, Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319-20 (11th

Cir. 2001). The conclusory allegation in the notice of

removal--that, for example, “plaintiff seeks recovery of

an $ 11,000 settlement contribution, and unspecified

attorney’s fees, costs, expenses and other economic

losses, compensatory and punitive damages based on

conduct which it describes as ‘malicious, intentional

Case 2:05-cv-00908-MHT-VPM Document 23 Filed 08/04/06 Page 2 of 4
3

willful, reckless, wanton and/or outrageous’ (Complaint,

¶ 28),” Notice of Removal (Doc. No. 1), at 4--is

therefore insufficient.

Finally, “[a]lthough [defendant] also cites

‘representative cases’ from Alabama courts that it

contends prove the value of this case, the factual

backgrounds in those cases are not identical to the

present case, so the court cannot draw any definitive

conclusions from them. Some juries may have awarded

damages beyond the jurisdictional limit for similar

causes of action, but that does not prove that a jury

would award more than $ 75,000 on the particular facts of

this case.” Alexander v. Captain D’s LLC, ___ F. Supp.2d

___, ___, 2006 WL 1765902,*2 (M.D. Ala. 2006). 

Accordingly, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of

the court that plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. No. 8)

is granted and that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1447(c),

this cause is remanded to the Circuit Court of Montgomery

County, Alabama, for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Case 2:05-cv-00908-MHT-VPM Document 23 Filed 08/04/06 Page 3 of 4
All other motions are left for resolution by the

state court after remand.

The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to take

appropriate steps to effect the remand. 

DONE, this the 4th day of August, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00908-MHT-VPM Document 23 Filed 08/04/06 Page 4 of 4