1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-1- 

Matthew G. Kleiner (SBN: 024275)

Nathan T. Mitchler (SBN: 028751) 

GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 

111 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1600 

Phoenix, AZ 85003 

Telephone: (602) 794-2466 

Facsimile: (602) 265-4716 

mkleiner@grsm.com

nmitchler@grsm.com

Attorneys for Defendants 

Lexington Insurance Company and 

AIG Claims, Inc. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Maricopa County Special Health Care 

District, a body politic, governing body for 

and doing business as Maricopa Integrated 

Health Systems 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Lexington Insurance Company, a foreign 

capital stock insurance company, and AIG 

Claims, Inc. a foreign corporation, ABC 

Corporations XYZ Partnerships, John Doe 

I-V and Jane Does I-V, 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

Defendants Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington”) and AIG Claims, Inc. 

(“AIG Claims”) (collectively, “Defendants”) file this Notice of Removal pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446, and in support thereof, Defendants respectfully allege 

the following: 

I. Commencement and Service 

1. On or about September 15, 2017, Plaintiff Maricopa County Special Health 

District (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against the Defendants in the Superior Court of the State of 

Case 2:17-cv-04554-SPL Document 1 Filed 12/08/17 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2- 

Arizona, in and for the County of Maricopa. (Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true 

and correct copy of the Summons and Complaint (“Complaint”). 

2. On November 8, 2017, the Complaint was served on AIG Claims and on 

November 13, 2017 the Complaint was served on Lexington through the Arizona 

Department of Insurance. (Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” is a true and correct copy of 

the Notice of Service of Process re AIG Claims, and as Exhibit “E” are true and correct 

copies of the Certificates of Service re Lexington.) 

3. The Notice of Removal is timely filed within 30 days of service of the 

Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b); Cooke v. Masterpharm, LLC, No. CV-10-845-

PHX-GMS, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70340, at *3 (D. Ariz. June 15, 2010) (holding a 

defendant must be properly served before the 30-day deadline begins to run) (citing 

Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, 526 U.S. 344, 354, 119 S. Ct. 1322, 1328-29 

(1999)). 

II. Grounds for Removal – Diversity Jurisdiction 

5. Defendants are entitled to remove the state court action to this Court 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1332, 1441, and 1446, because this action is a civil action 

involving an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, between parties with complete 

diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (district courts have original jurisdiction 

where the matter in controversy: (1) exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of costs and 

interest; and (2) is between citizens of different states). 

III. Diversity of Citizenship 

6. This is an action between parties with complete diversity of citizenship. 

7. Diversity of citizenship exists where the matter in controversy is between 

citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. §1332(a). A corporation for purposes of 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a) is considered a citizen of any state in which it is incorporated and in 

which it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. §1332(c). 

8. Plaintiff is a governmental body established and operating in Maricopa 

County, Arizona. (See Exhibit “A”, Complaint, ¶¶ 1 & 5.) 

Case 2:17-cv-04554-SPL Document 1 Filed 12/08/17 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-3- 

9. Lexington is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in 

Boston, Massachusetts, from which Lexington’s officers direct, control and coordinate 

Lexington’s activities. 

10. Lexington is authorized to transact business within the State of Arizona and 

this judicial district. 

11. AIG Claims is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in 

New York, New York, from which AIG Claims’ officers direct, control and coordinate 

AIG Claims’ activities. 

12. AIG Claims is authorized to transact business within the State of Arizona 

and this judicial district. 

 13. The defendants designated in the Complaint as “ABC Corporations,” “XYZ 

Partnerships,” and “John and Jane Does I-V,” are fictitious defendants and are to be 

disregarded for the purposes of removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1). 

14. No change in the citizenship of the Defendants has occurred since the 

commencement of the state court action. As Plaintiff and Defendants are from different 

states, complete diversity of citizenship exists and the first prong of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) 

is satisfied. 

IV. Amount in Controversy 

15. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), district courts have original jurisdiction where 

the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of costs and interest. 

Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 700 (9th Cir. 2007). The amount in 

controversy may also include any attorney’s fees as authorized by law. Id.; Ansley v. 

Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 215 F.R.D. 575, 576-78 (D. Ariz. 2003). 

16. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that it sustained approximately 

$307,630.38 in damage when Lexington failed to credit Plaintiff’s write-off of the 

underlying plaintiff’s medical services provided by Plaintiff to Plaintiff’s self-insured 

retention. (Complaint, ¶ 22.) Plaintiff further asserts damages when Lexington, relying 

on the policy’s exclusion for penalties, failed to pay the $391,753.55 Arizona Rule of 

Case 2:17-cv-04554-SPL Document 1 Filed 12/08/17 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-4- 

Civil Procedure 68 sanction. (Complaint, ¶¶ 25 and 40.) These two items of damage 

exceed the $75,000 amount in controversy. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for breach of 

contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, bad faith, and 

declaratory relief. In addition to compensatory damages, Plaintiff seeks punitive 

damages and attorney’s fees. Therefore, the Complaint demonstrates that the amount in 

controversy under the Complaint exceeds the diversity jurisdictional minimum of 

$75,000. 

V. Venue 

17. Venue properly lies in the United States District Court for the District of 

Arizona because Plaintiff filed the state court action in this judicial district and division. 

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446. 

VI. Notice 

18. Defendants will give notice of the filing of this Notice of Removal to all 

parties of record. Defendants will also file with the clerk of the state court and will serve 

upon Plaintiff a notice of the filing of this Notice of Removal. See LRCiv 3.6(A). 

VII. State Court Pleadings 

19. Copies of all state court pleadings and orders are attached to this Notice of 

Removal. Pursuant to Rule 3.6, Local Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants attach and 

incorporate by reference true and correct copies of all the pleadings and other documents 

that were previously filed with the state court, including the most recent copy of the State 

Court docket: 

• Exhibit “A” - Complaint 

• Exhibit “B” - Summons on AIG 

• Exhibit “C” - Notice of Service of Process re AIG 

• Exhibit “D” - Summons on Lexington 

• Exhibit “E” - Certificates of Service of Process re Lexington 

• Exhibit “F” - Certificate of Compulsory Arbitration 

• Exhibit “G” - Demand for Jury Trial 

Case 2:17-cv-04554-SPL Document 1 Filed 12/08/17 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-5- 

• Exhibit “H” - State Court docket 

VIII. Prayer 

WHEREFORE, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1332, 1441, and 1446, Defendants file 

this Notice of Removal with the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 

and hereby seek to remove this action from the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in 

and for the County of Maricopa. 

Dated this 8th day of December, 2017. 

GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP

By: /s/ Matthew G. Kleiner

Mathew G. Kleiner 

Nathan T. Mitchler 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Lexington Insurance Company and 

AIG Claims, Inc.

1145066/35890400v.1

Case 2:17-cv-04554-SPL Document 1 Filed 12/08/17 Page 5 of 5