IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION

IBRAHAM SALTI, et al., 

 Plaintiffs 

vs. 

FIRST GUARD INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

 Defendant 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. 17-865 

JUDGE 

DEFENDANT FIRST GUARD 

INSURANCE COMPANY.’S NOTICE 

OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(A)(1), 1441(A) 

Hamilton County Court of Common 

Pleas Case No. A 1706161 

 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant First Guard Insurance Company (“First 

Guard”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby removes this case from the 

Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, to the Southern District of Ohio, Western 

Division. First Guard denies the allegations and damages claimed in the Complaint, and 

files notice without waiving any defenses, exceptions, or obligations that may exist in its 

favor in either state or federal court. 

TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL 

 1. On November 27, 2017, Plaintiffs Ibraham Salti and Just In Time 

Transportations, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) filed a civil action in the Hamilton County Court of 

Common Pleas, entitled Ibraham Salti, et al. v. First Guard Insurance Company Case 

No. A 1706161. 

 2. On December 4, 2017, Plaintiffs first served First Guard with a copy of the 

summons and Complaint. A true and correct copy of the summons and Complaint, 

along with “all [remaining] process, pleadings and orders served upon” First Guard to 

Case: 1:17-cv-00865-WOB Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/28/17 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 1
 

date while this action was pending in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, is 

attached hereto as Exhibit A. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). 

 3. First Guard’s removal notice is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) because 

the removal notice is filed within thirty (30) days after service of the summons and 

Complaint upon First Guard on December 4, 2017. 

VENUE 

4. The Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas is within the Southern 

District of Ohio, Western Division. 28 U.S.C. § 115(b)(1). This Notice of Removal is 

therefore properly filed in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 

DIVERSITY JURISDICTION 

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1441 because the action could have been filed in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332(a)(1). This is a civil action in which there is complete diversity of citizenship 

between Plaintiffs and Defendant First Guard, and the amount in controversy exceeds 

the sum of $75,000, exclusive of costs and interest. 

6. Complete Diversity. The diversity requirement of § 1332(a) is satisfied 

here because the action is between citizens of different states. 

 a. The named Plaintiff Ibraham Salti is a resident and citizen of the 

state of Ohio. The named Plaintiff Just In Time Transportation, Inc. is an Ohio 

corporation with its principal place of business in the state of Ohio. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 2.) 

 b. Defendant First Guard is an insurance company incorporated in the 

state of Arizona and with its principal place of business in the state of Florida. (Id. ¶ 3.) 

Therefore, First Guard is a citizen of the states of Florida and Arizona. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(c)(1). 

Case: 1:17-cv-00865-WOB Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/28/17 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 2
 

7. Amount in Controversy. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), this Court has 

“original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum 

or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs . . . .” “[A] defendant’s notice of 

removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds 

the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 

547, 554 (2014). No submission of evidence accompanying the removal notice is 

required. Owens, 135 S. Ct. at 554. First Guard avers—without admitting that it 

engaged in any improper conduct, that Plaintiffs’ claims have any merit, or that 

Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from First Guard any of the relief requested—that the 

matter in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of $75,000. 

 a. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs have been damaged in an 

amount that exceeds $40,000. (Compl. ¶29.) Plaintiffs seek that relief through claims 

for declaratory judgment that the loss is covered under the First Guard insurance policy 

and bad faith. 

 b. In addition to damages for the above claims, Plaintiffs seek punitive 

damages. A court must also consider punitive damages when determining whether the 

jurisdictional amount is met. See Hayes v. Equitable Energy Res. Co., 266 F.3d 560, 

572 (6th Cir. 2001). Furthermore, “[d]efendant is not required to prove that the 

plaintiff is actually entitled to punitive damages exceeding [the jurisdictional amount] . . 

. as long as ‘state law at least arguably permits the type of damages claimed . . . .’” 

McMahon v. Alternative Claims Service, Inc., 521 F. Supp. 2d 656, 661 (N.D. Ohio 

2007) (citation omitted). Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages suffices to establish 

that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See T & W Forge, Inc. v. V & L Tool, 

Inc. No. 05-CV-1637, 2005 WL 2739321, at *4 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 24, 2005) (noting that 

Case: 1:17-cv-00865-WOB Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/28/17 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: 3
 

courts have upheld awards of punitive damages that were three times the compensatory 

damages sought). 

 c. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek attorneys’ fees. Damages arising from a 

bad faith insurance claim can also include attorney fees. Estate of Millhon v. UNUM 

Life Ins. Co. of America, S.D. Ohio No. 2:08-cv-652, 2009 WL 2431252, *3 (Aug. 5, 

2009); Avis Rent A Car System, LLC v. City of Dayton, S.D. Ohio No. 3:12-cv-399, 2015 

WL 5636897 *4 (Sept. 25, 2015). Even though the principal claimed under the 

insurance policy is less than $75,000, the addition of pleas for attorney fees to Plaintiffs’ 

alleged damages and punitive damages solidifies that Plaintiffs’ Complaint places into 

controversy at least $75,000. See Millhon, supra. 

NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND PLAINTIFF 

 8. Counsel for First Guard certifies that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), 

copies of this Notice of Removal will be filed with the Clerk of the Hamilton County 

Court of Common Pleas, and served on Plaintiffs promptly. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant First Guard, by counsel, removes the subject action 

from the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas to the United States District for the 

Southern District of Ohio. 

 /s/Frank G. Mazgaj ______________ 

 Frank G. Mazgaj, Esq. (0037910) 

 Emily R. Yoder, Esq. (0084013) 

HANNA CAMPBELL & POWELL LLP 

 3737 Embassy Parkway/Suite 100 

 Akron OH 44333 

 P: 330.670.7300/F: 330.670.7450 

 fmazgaj@hcplaw.net

 

 Attorneys for Defendant, 

 First Guard Insurance Company 

 

Case: 1:17-cv-00865-WOB Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/28/17 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 4
 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 Pursuant to Civil Rule 5(B)(2)(f), I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing 

Notice of Removal has been served by electronic mail, this 28th day of December/2017, 

upon: 

James K. Ferris, Esq. (0030378) 

6124 Corbly Road 

Cincinnati OH 45230 

JamesKF@fuse.net

Attorney for Plaintiffs, 

Ibraham Salti and Just In Time 

Transportation, Inc. 

 /s/Frank G. Mazgaj ______________ 

Salti/First Guard 

962216

Case: 1:17-cv-00865-WOB Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/28/17 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: 5