1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PF SUNSET VIEW, LLC dba PLANET 

FITNESS, PF RIVERVIEW, LLC dba PLANET 

FITNESS, PF SKIPPER VIEW, LLC dba 

PLANET FITNESS, and PF WATER VIEW, 

LLC dba PLANET FITNESS, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

 Defendant. 

CASE NO. 

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

[Removal from the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Palm Beach County, Florida, Case No. 

2020CA005643] 

Complaint Filed: May 22, 2020 

TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT AND TO PLAINTIFFS AND 

THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, 1453, and 1446, 

Defendant Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company (“Defendant”), hereby removes the abovecaptioned matter—with reservation of all defenses and rights—from the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit 

in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Case No. 2020CA005643, to the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Florida. 

This Court has original jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) on the 

grounds that complete diversity exists between all the parties and the amount in controversy 

exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Removal is also proper because the 

Complaint allegations facially meet the requirements under the Class Action Fairness Act 

(“CAFA”) for federal jurisdiction. 

I. BACKGROUND 

1. This action was filed on May 22, 2020 in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for 

Palm Beach County, Florida (“State Court Action”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), true and 

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 1 of 8
2 

correct copies of the Docket Sheet, Summons, Complaint, Civil Cover Sheet, and Plaintiffs’ Proof 

of Service, are attached hereto as Exhibits 1 through 4 to the Declaration of Christine M. Renella 

(“Renella Decl.”) filed concurrently herewith.1

 

2. Plaintiffs are four limited liability companies which own and operate fitness club 

franchises in Florida. Compl. ¶ 1 (Renella Decl., Ex. 3). They bring this action “individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated.” Id. at 1. 

3. Plaintiffs seek certification of a putative class comprised of: 

All persons and entities in Florida with Business Income, Civil Authority, or Extra 

Expense coverage under an insurance policy issued by Atlantic Specialty, who 

suffered loss of business income or incurred extra expenses due to a suspension of 

business related to COVID-19, and for which Atlantic Specialty denied a claim for 

the losses or has otherwise failed to acknowledge, accept as a covered loss, or pay 

for the covered loss. 

Id. ¶ 70 and at 24. 

4. Plaintiffs (on behalf of themselves and the putative class) seek business interruption 

and extra expense coverage for losses caused by COVID-19 and/or related actions of civil 

authorities taken in response to COVID-19. Id. ¶¶ 58-65, 74. 

5. Plaintiffs allege breach of contract and seek declaratory relief, “damages for breach 

of contract,” “attorneys’ fees and litigation costs,” and “pre- and post-judgment interest.” Id. at 

24. 

II. REMOVAL IS TIMELY 

6. While Plaintiffs had sent the Complaint to the Chief Financial Officer of the Florida 

Department of Financial Services (“FLDFS”), the FLDFS did not serve the Complaint on 

Defendant’s agent until July 9, 2020. Service of process is not complete until “the Chief Financial 

 

1

 The Complaint served on Defendant has missing pages. Filed concurrently herewith as Renella 

Decl., Ex. 3 is a full version of the Complaint filed in the State Court Action.

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 2 of 8
3 

Officer sends or makes available by other verifiable means a copy of the process.”2

 Fla. Stat. Ann. 

§ 624.423. 

7. Defendant’s agent for service of process was served with the Summons and 

Complaint on July 9, 2020. See Renella Decl., Ex. 2. This notice of removal is therefore timely 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) because it is filed within 30 days after service was completed. 

III. REMOVAL IS PROPER BASED ON DIVERSITY CITIZENSHIP 

8. The State Court Action may be removed to the United States District Court in 

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), since this Court has original jurisdiction over the State Court 

Action on the basis of diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Specifically, the State 

Court Action is a civil action between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy 

exceeds the sum of $75,000. 

A. Complete Diversity of Citizenship Exists 

9. In order to qualify for diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, all of the named 

plaintiffs’ citizenship must be completely diverse from all the named defendants’ citizenships, 

excluding nominal, fraudulent and/or sham defendants. Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, 

L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 571 (2004). 

10. The Complaint alleges that all four named plaintiffs are Florida corporations with 

principal places of business in Florida and their members are also citizens of Florida. Compl. ¶¶ 

11-14. 

11. Defendant has been at all times during the pendency of this action an insurance 

company organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with its principal place 

of business in Plymouth, Minnesota. Id. ¶ 15. Thus, Defendant is a citizen of New York and 

Minnesota for purposes of determining diversity. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). 

 

2

 This delay caused Judge Jaimie R. Goodman to grant Plaintiffs’ motion for default in the State 

Court Action on July 7, 2020. Judge Goodman entered an order vacating the default on July 10, 

2020. See Renella Decl., Ex. 1. 

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 3 of 8
4 

12. Because all of the named plaintiffs’ citizenships are completely diverse from 

Defendant’s citizenship, complete diversity exists. 

B. The Amount-in-Controversy Requirement Is Satisfied 

13. In addition to diversity of citizenship, “the matter in controversy [must] exceed[s] 

the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Generally, the 

amount in controversy is determined from the allegations or prayer of the complaint. See St. Paul 

Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938). 

14. Here, Plaintiffs seek both monetary damages and declaratory relief. Compl. at 24; 

see also id. ¶¶ 78-95 (“Count I Declaratory Judgment”) and 96-107 (“Count II Breach of 

Contract”). 

15. While Plaintiffs’ action ultimately asks the Court to find coverage under the 

commercial insurance policies issued by Defendant, id. ¶¶ 96-107 (“Count II Breach of Contract”), 

Plaintiffs claim an unspecified amount of damages. See id. ¶ 9 (only alleging Florida county court 

jurisdictional threshold of $30,000). 

16. “When the complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from 

state court is proper if it is facially apparent from the complaint that the amount in controversy 

exceeds the jurisdictional requirement.” Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 

2001). 

17. Although Defendant denies that Plaintiffs’ claims have any merit and disputes that 

Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the sums sought in the Complaint, it is facially apparent that, 

Plaintiffs’ allegations—if accepted—would easily place in excess of $75,000 in controversy for 

each named plaintiff, exclusive of interest and costs. 

18. Plaintiffs allege that “COVID-19 caused direct physical loss of and damage to 

Plaintiffs’ Planet Fitness gyms and other Class members’ insured premises, resulting in suspension 

of business operations at these premises” and “[t]hese suspensions have caused [Plaintiffs] and 

Class members to suffer losses of business income and to incur necessary extra expenses.” Compl. 

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 4 of 8
5 

¶ 100; see also id. ¶¶ 62, 64, 86. Plaintiffs allege that these suspensions and losses triggered 

business income coverage under the insurance policies. Id. ¶¶ 87, 101. 

19. Plaintiffs further allege that they and other insureds have suffered losses of business 

income and incurred expenses as result of the governmental mandates that prohibited access to 

insured premises under the insurance policies. Id. ¶¶ 89, 103. Plaintiffs allege that these losses 

triggered Civil Authority coverage under the insurance policies. Id. ¶¶ 90, 104; see also id. ¶¶ 63, 

65. 

20. Therefore, the value of the relief ultimately requested by Plaintiffs on their own 

behalf—the amount in controversy—is the coverage available under the “Business Income” and 

“Extra Expense” provisions for the claimed losses under their policies. See generally id. ¶ 70. 

21. The insurance policy of each of the named Planet Fitness entities has a combined 

limit for “Business Interruption” and “Extra Expense” coverage of $400,000. See PF Sunset View 

Policy No. 710-03-88-23-0001 at 26 (Renella Decl., Ex. 3 at 52); PF Riverview Policy No. 710-

03-90-50-0000 at 26 (Renella Decl., Ex. 3 at 263); PF Skipper View Policy No. 710-03-84-17-

0001 at 26 (Renella Decl., Ex. 3 at 469); PF Water View Policy No. 710-03-73-58-0002 at 26 

(Renella Decl., Ex. 3 at 680).3

 As a result, Defendant’s potential exposure for each of the four 

named plaintiffs’ time element losses is $400,000.4

 

22. In addition, Count I of the Complaint seeks declaratory relief. “When a plaintiff 

seeks injunctive or declaratory relief, the amount in controversy is the monetary value of the object 

of the litigation from the plaintiff’s perspective.” Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., 204 F.3d 1069, 

1077 (11th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see also Hartford Ins. Grp. v. Lou-Con Inc., 293 F.3d 

908, 910 (5th Cir. 2002) (amount-in-controversy in an action for declaratory relief is “the value of 

 

3

 Because Plaintiffs refer to the insurance policies in their Complaint, Compl.¶¶ 11-14, the Court 

can consider the policies when determining removal. Cf. Hoefling v. City of Miami, 811 F.3d 1271, 

1277 (11th Cir. 2016) (“A district court can generally consider exhibits attached to a complaint in 

ruling on a motion to dismiss”). 

4

 Time element coverages are those where the measurement of loss is tied to a period of time—

here, the period of interruption or the period of restoration.

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 5 of 8
6 

the right to be protected or the extent of the injury to be prevented”). In the insurance context, the 

“value of the right to be protected is the [insurer’s] potential liability under the policy, plus 

potential attorneys’ fees, penalties, statutory damages and punitive damages.” Canopius U.S. Ins., 

Inc. v. Prestige Gen. Cleaning Servs., Inc., No. 14-CIV-81095, 2014 WL 6979658, at *2 (S.D. Fla. 

Dec. 9, 2014) (citation omitted). 

23. Clearly, the right to be protected in Count I is the cause of action set forth in Count 

II. In other words, the amount that will be put at issue—the amount in controversy—is the amount 

that each named plaintiff may be eligible to recover from Defendant in the event that Plaintiffs 

obtain declaratory relief. See South Florida Wellness, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 745 F.3d 1312, 

1318 (11th Cir. 2014) (“The amount in controversy is not proof of the amount the plaintiff will 

recover. Rather, it is an estimate of the amount that will be put at issue in the course of the 

litigation”) (citation omitted). As demonstrated above, since Defendant’s potential liability under 

each plaintiff’s policy exceeds $75,000, Count I also meets the amount-in-controversy 

requirement. 

IV. THE COMPLAINT ALSO SATISFIES THE REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS 

UNDER CAFA 

24. Under CAFA, federal courts have original jurisdiction over class actions where the 

amount in controversy exceeds $5 million in the aggregate for the entire class, exclusive of interest 

and costs; the putative class action contains at least 100 members; and any member of the putative 

class is a citizen of a state different from that of any defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), (d)(5)(B), 

and (d)(6). 

25. While Defendant disputes the size of the proposed class and the amount the putative 

class is ultimately likely to recover, Plaintiffs’ allegations facially meet the removal requirements 

under CAFA. 

A. The Putative Class Allegedly Consists of More Than 100 Members 

26. Plaintiffs allege that “Defendant has failed to pay for similar business interruption 

losses and expenses by thousands of other insureds holding policies that are, in all material 

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 6 of 8
7 

respects, identical to [Plaintiffs’] Policy.” Compl. ¶ 7. 

27. Plaintiffs further allege that “[t]here are, at a minimum, thousands of members of 

the proposed Class.” Id. ¶ 73. 

28. Accordingly, while Defendant denies that class treatment is permissible or 

appropriate, based on the Complaint’s allegations the proposed class consists of more than 100 

members. 

B. There Is Minimal Diversity

29. Minimal diversity of citizenship exists in this matter because Plaintiffs and 

Defendant are citizens of different states and the proposed class is comprised of persons and 

entities in Florida. Id. ¶ 70. 

C. The Amount in Controversy Exceeds $5 Million 

30. As previously demonstrated, the amount in controversy for each named plaintiff 

easily exceeds $75,000. Therefore, the amount in controversy in the aggregate for the proposed 

class—which allegedly contains “thousands of members” holding “identical” policies (id. ¶¶ 7, 

73)—would far exceed $5 million. See also Plaintiffs’ Civil Cover Sheet, Renella Decl., Ex. 4 

(stating that the estimated amount of claim is $10,000,000). 

V. THE OTHER PREREQUISITES FOR REMOVAL ARE SATISFIED 

31. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida is the 

appropriate venue for removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) because it embraces the place where 

Plaintiffs originally filed the case. 

32. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), true and correct copies of all process, 

pleadings, and orders served upon Defendant are attached as Exhibits 1 through 4 to the Renella 

Declaration. 

33. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), the undersigned counsel hereby certifies that a 

true and correct copy of this Notice of Removal will be promptly filed with the Clerk of the 

Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, and served upon Plaintiffs’ 

counsel. 

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 7 of 8
8 

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this action, now pending in the 

Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, be removed to the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 

Respectfully submitted this 29th day of July, 2020. 

/s/ Christine M. Renella 

 CHRISTINE M. RENELLA (SBN 65485) 

 ZELLE LLP 

SunTrust International Center 

One Southeast Third Avenue, Ste. 1600 

Miami, Florida 33131-4332 

Telephone: (786) 693-2353 

Facsimile: (612) 336-9100 

crenella@zelle.com 

PAUL SULLIVAN (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

ZELLE LLP 

161 Worcester Road, Ste. 502 

Framingham, MA 01701 

Telephone: (781) 466-0734 

Facsimile: (781) 466-0701 

psullivan@zelle.com 

Counsel for Defendant Atlantic Specialty Insurance 

Company 

Case 9:20-cv-81224-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 8 of 8