UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION

DALE KRASINSKI, TERESA KRASINSKI, ) 

and ELEANOR KRASINSKI b/n/f ) Case No. 2:15-cv-346 

DALE KRASINSKI, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

v. ) 

 ) 

SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE CO., ) 

DWAYNE RANCIFER, and ) 

RANCIFERS INVESTMENTS, LLC a/k/a ) 

RANCIFER INVESTMENT, LLC. ) 

 ) 

Defendants. ) 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CASE TO THE UNITED STATES 

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

Defendant, Scottsdale Insurance Company, ("Scottsdale"), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1332, 1441 and 1446, hereby submits this Notice of Removal from the Lake County Circuit 

Court to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, the federal 

judicial district in which this action is pending, as follows: 

1. On or about July 31, 2015, Plaintiffs, Dale Krasinski, Teresa Krasinski, and 

Eleanor Krasinski b/n/f Dale Krasinski ("Plaintiffs") filed a Complaint and Jury Demand 

against Scottsdale in the Lake County Circuit Court, State of Indiana, which was assigned 

Case No. 45D021508PL00065 ("State Court Action") and in which Scottsdale, Dwayne 

Rancifer and Rancifers Investments, LLC a/k/a Rancifer Investment, LLC, are Defendants. 

(Exhibit 1, true and correct copy of Complaint). 

2. The Summons and Complaint was served on Scottsdale on August 10, 2015. 

3. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), copies of all process, pleadings and 

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00346-RL-JEM document 1 filed 09/09/15 page 1 of 5
2 

orders served upon Scottsdale in the State Court Action are attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

4. Plaintiffs are citizens of Indiana. (Exhibit 1, Plaintiffs' Complaint, ¶2) 

5. Defendant Scottsdale is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of 

business in Arizona. 

6. The amount in controversy is $5,000,000. (Exh. 1) 

7. Plaintiffs seek a declaration in this action that an insurance policy issued by 

Scottsdale provides coverage for a consent judgment entered into between Plaintiffs and 

Dwayne Rancifer and Rancifers Investments, LLC a/k/a Rancifer Investment, LLC (the 

"Rancifer Defendants") in an underlying tort action entitled Dale Krasinski, et al. v. Litton 

Loan Servicing, LP, et al., Lake County Superior Court Case No. 45D11-1108-PL-00078. 

(Exh. A to Exh. 1), 

8. The Rancifer Defendants have assigned their rights against Scottsdale to 

Plaintiffs. (Exh. 1, ¶58) 

9. Notwithstanding the assignment, Plaintiffs’ Complaint also names the 

Rancifer Defendants, each of whom is a citizen of Indiana. 

 10. That although the Rancifer Defendants are citizens of Indiana, there is no 

actual controversy between Plaintiffs and the Rancifer Defendants. The only cause of 

action alleged against the Rancifer Defendants is Count I – Declaratory Judgment. This 

cause of action merely seeks to hold Scottsdale liable for the consent judgment entered into 

between Plaintiff and the Rancifer Defendants. ( Exh A., ¶¶60-66) However, the Rancifer 

Defendants have assigned their rights against Defendant Scottsdale to the Plaintiffs. (Exh. 

A, ¶58) Accordingly, the Rancifer Defendants have no interest in this litigation at all. 

Furthermore, even if the Rancifer Defendants have any interest in this litigation, that 

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00346-RL-JEM document 1 filed 09/09/15 page 2 of 5
3 

interest is aligned with Plaintiffs’ interests and against those of Scottsdale in seeking to 

establish liability of Scottsdale for the consent judgment. 

 11. Accordingly, the parties in this case should be realigned for diversity 

jurisdiction purposes as the assignment by the Rancifer Defendants to plaintiffs reflects 

their similar positions in this action. Veenstra v. Ashley, 2013 WL 1499157 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 9, 

2013)("[T]he formal designation of a party in the complaint as 'plaintiff' or 'defendant' is 

not necessarily controlling. Where there is a basis for doing so, the court will look beyond 

the pleadings, and arrange the parties according to their sides in the dispute."); City of 

Dawson v. Columbia Avenue Savings Fund, Safe Deposit, Title, & Trust Co., 197 U.S. 178, 180, 

25 S.Ct. 420, 49 L.Ed. 713 (1905)); Am. Motorists Ins. Co. v. Trane Co., 657 F.2d 146, 149 (7th 

Cir. 1981)(Wisconsin law)("[w]here jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, the 

court may ascertain whether the alignment of the parties as plaintiff and defendant 

conforms with their true interests in the litigation."); Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank, 

314 U.S. 63, 69, 62 S.Ct. 15, 86 L.F.d. 47 (1941). (“The Court has a duty to look beyond the 

pleadings, and arrange the parties according to their sides in the dispute.”) 

12. Additionally, the Rancifer Defendants' non-diverse residency status is not an 

impediment to removal of this civil to federal court under the doctrine of fraudulent 

joinder. Walton v. Bayer Corp., 643 F.3d 994, 999 (7th Cir. 2011)("Like many legal 

doctrines, 'fraudulent joinder' is misnamed, since ... proof of fraud, though sufficient, is not 

necessary for retention of federal jurisdiction—all that's required is proof that the claim 

against the non-diverse defendant is utterly groundless, and as a groundless claim does not 

invoke federal jurisdiction); Ilopons v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 39 

L.Ed.2d 577 (1974); McCurdy v. Sheriff of Madison County, 128 F.3d 1144, 1145 (7th 

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00346-RL-JEM document 1 filed 09/09/15 page 3 of 5
4 

Cir.1997). Plaintiff's "claims" against the Rancifer Defendants are utterly groundless for the 

simple reason that the Rancifer Defendants have assigned all their rights against Scottsdale 

to the Plaintiffs. Courts are instructed to disregard nominal or formal parties and rest 

jurisdiction only upon citizenship of “real and substantial parties to the controversy”. 

Navarro Savings Ass’n v Lee, 446 U.S. 458, 460-1 (1980). 

13. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), upon proper re-alignment and/or disregard 

of the Rancifer Defendants, this Court has original jurisdiction over this civil action in that it 

involves a controversy between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy 

exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Thus, removal is proper in accordance 

with 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 

 14. Scottsdale has not filed any responsive pleadings in the State Court Action. 

 15. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), this Notice of Removal is being filed 

within 30 days after Scottsdale's receipt of Plaintiffs’ Complaint on August 10, 2015. 

 16. Concurrent with the filing of this Notice of Removal, by means of the Notice 

of Filing Notice of Removal filed in the State Court Action and attached hereto as Exhibit 2, 

Scottsdale is providing notice to Plaintiff and to the Lake County Circuit Court (a) of this 

Notice of Removal; (b) that this action is to be docketed in this Court; and (c) that this Court 

shall hereafter be entitled to grant all relief-to the parties as is proper under the 

circumstances. 

 17. Scottsdale reserves the right to supplement this Notice of Removal if it 

becomes necessary to do so. 

WHEREFORE, Scottsdale respectfully requests that this action proceed in the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana as a removed claim or cause of 

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00346-RL-JEM document 1 filed 09/09/15 page 4 of 5
5 

action under 28 U.S.C. §§, 1332, 1441 and 1446. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

By: /s/ Pamela A. Paige 

Pamela A. Paige (16163-49) 

Attorney for Scottsdale 

Insurance Company 

PLUNKETT COONEY, P.C. 300 

N. Meridian St., Suite 990 

Indianapolis, IN 46204 

ppaige@plunkettcooney.com 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing document has been 

served this ______ day of September 2015, via United States mail, first class postage prepaid, 

upon the following counsel of record. 

Steven J. Sersic 

Kevin C. Smith 

SMITH SERSIC 

9301 Calumet Ave., Suite 1F 

Munster, IN 46432 

/s/ Pamela A. Paige 

 

Plunkett Cooney, P.C. 

300 N. Meridian St., Suite 990 

Indianapolis, IN 46204 

Open.20622.52509.15893792-1 

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00346-RL-JEM document 1 filed 09/09/15 page 5 of 5