IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHRN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

WINDY CITY LIMOUSINE COMPANY, LLC, a )

limited liability company, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No. 1:20-cv-4901

v. )

)

CINCINNATI FINANCIAL CORPORATION, )

a corporation, THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE )

COMPANY, a stock insurance company, )

THE CINCINNATI CASUALTY COMPANY, )

a stock insurance company, THE CINCINNATI )

INDEMNITY COMPANY, a stock insurance )

Company, and VALLEY COMPANIES, INC., )

a corporation, )

)

Defendants. )

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Now come Defendants, Cincinnati Financial Corporation, The Cincinnati Insurance 

Company, The Cincinnati Casualty Company, and The Cincinnati Indemnity Company

(collectively the “Cincinnati Defendants”), by and through their counsel Litchfield Cavo. LLP, 

and files this Notice of Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In support of this Notice of Removal, 

the Cincinnati Defendants respectfully state as follows:

I. STATEMENT OF GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL

1. This suit is an action in which this Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§1332, as it is an action between citizens of different states, and the matter in controversy exceeds 

$75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. Thus, this action may be removed to this Court 

Case: 1:20-cv-04901 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/20/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1
2

pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §14411and 28 U.S.C. §1446.

2. Plaintiff, Windy City Limousine Company, LLC filed its Complaint on or about 

June 15, 2020 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois in Case No. 2020 CH 04563 styled 

Windy City Limousine Company, LLC v. Cincinnati Financial Corporation, et al.

2

3. Plaintiff sued the Cincinnati Defendants seeking a declaratory judgment regarding 

alleged insurance coverage obligations relating to the recent COVID-19 outbreak and its 

detrimental effects on Plaintiff’s business.

4. Service of Plaintiff’s Complaint upon the Cincinnati Defendants was purportedly 

made through service upon CT Corporation as registered agent on July 21, 2020.3 The Cincinnati 

Defendants file this Notice of Removal within 30 days of the purported service of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) (1). 

II. DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP

5. For the purpose of determining diversity, a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of

both the state of its incorporation and the place where it maintains its principal place of business.4

6. The citizenship for diversity purposes of a limited liability company is the 

citizenship of each of its members. Wise v. Wachovia Sec., LLC, 450 F.3d 265, 267 (7th Cir.2006); 

Wolf v. Kennelly, 540 F.Supp.2d 955, 960 (N.D. Ill. 2008).

7. At the time of the filing of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Windy City Limousine Company, 

LLC was a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Illinois and with its 

 

1

28 U.S.C. §1441(b) provides that suits that do not arise under federal law are removable if none of the 

parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such actions is 

brought.

2 See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Summons and Complaint.

3 See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Summons and Complaint. It is disputed that proper service has been made as to 

any of the Cincinnati Defendants. The Cincinnati Defendants reserve the right to seek dismissal under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5).

4 See 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1).

Case: 1:20-cv-04901 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/20/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:2
3

principal place of business at 2801 South 25th Avenue, Broadview, Cook County, Illinois.

5

8. After conducting a diligent search of publicly available information, the members 

of Windy City Limousine Company, LLC include one or more of the following entities or 

individuals: Salvatore Milazzo (an Illinois resident); George Jacobs (an Illinois resident); Stanton 

Subeck (an Illinois resident) and Leonard H. Sherman (an Illinois resident) and Windy City 

Limousine Manager, LLC a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of 

Illinois and with its principal place of business at 2801 South 25th Avenue, Broadview, Cook 

County, Illinois.

9. After conducting a diligent search of publicly available information, the members 

of Windy City Limousine Manager, LLC include one or more of the following entities or 

individuals: Salvatore Milazzo (an Illinois resident); Janet Milazzo (an Illinois resident); George 

Jacobs (an Illinois resident); Stanton Subeck (an Illinois resident) and Leonard H. Sherman (an 

Illinois resident).

10. All members of Windy City Limousine Company, LLC and Windy City Limousine 

Manager, LLC are or were Illinois residents at all relevant times. Neither Windy City Limousine 

Company, LLC, its members, or any members of its members, are residents of Ohio for purposes 

of determining diversity jurisdiction.

11. The Cincinnati Defendants are and were at the time that this action was instituted, 

incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of Ohio with principal places of business in 

Fairfield, Ohio. The Cincinnati Defendants were not at the time this action was instituted, and still 

are not, a citizens of the State of Illinois.

 

5 See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Complaint at ¶ 1.

Case: 1:20-cv-04901 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/20/20 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:3
4

12. It is alleged that Defendant Valley Companies, Inc. d/b/a Valley Insurance Group 

(“Valley”) was and continues to be a domestic corporation, operating as an insurance agency, 

organized, licensed, and doing business in the State of Illinois.6 With respect to the claims against 

Defendant Valley, however, the Cincinnati Defendants assert that such party has been improperly 

and/or fraudulently joined in this action and need not be considered as part of the diversity 

jurisdiction analysis. 

13. Although a plaintiff is generally free to choose its own forum, a plaintiff “may not 

join an in-state defendant solely for the purpose of defeating federal diversity jurisdiction.” 

Schwartz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 174 F.3d 875, 878 (7th Cir.1999); Gottlieb v. Westin 

Hotel, 990 F.2d 323, 327 (7th Cir.1993). In that case, the defendant is considered fraudulently 

joined, and may be disregarded for purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction. Schwartz, 174 

F.3d at 878; Midland Management Company v. American Alternative Insurance Corporation, 132 

F.Supp.3d 1014, 1021-22 (N.D.Ill.2015). “To establish fraudulent joinder, a removing defendant 

must show that, after resolving all issues of fact and law in favor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot 

establish a cause of action against the in-state defendant.” Morris v. Nuzzo, 718 F.3d 660, 666 

(7th Cir.2013). When a removing defendant meets this burden, the federal court considering 

removal may disregard, for jurisdictional purposes, the citizenship of non-diverse defendants, 

assume jurisdiction over case, dismiss the non-diverse defendants, and retain jurisdiction. Id.

14. Here, not only are there insufficient facts to determine a reasonable basis of 

recovery against Valley, Plaintiff does not actually state a claim against Valley or seek any relief 

from such party through its single cause of action for a declaratory judgment under 735 ILCS 5/1-

101 and 735 ILCS 5/2-701.7 Without a claim against Valley, Plaintiff has no chance of success 

 

6 See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Complaint at ¶ 3.

7 See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Complaint at ¶ 41.

Case: 1:20-cv-04901 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/20/20 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:4
5

against Valley. Therefore, Valley has been fraudulently joined. Midland Management Company, 

132 F.Supp.3d at 1021-22.

15. Although removal may be considered procedurally defective when not “all 

defendants who have been properly joined and served” consent to removal, 28 U.S.C. § 

1446(b)(2)(A), consent is not required from defendants who have been fraudulently joined. 

Midland Management Company, 132 F.Supp.3d at 1024; Hess v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 520 

F.Supp. 373, 375–76 (N.D.Ill.1981). Because Valley was fraudulently joined, its consent to 

removal is not necessary. Nevertheless, Cincinnati has contacted Valley and obtained its consent 

to removal.8

16. There is complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff Windy City Limousine 

Company, LLC and The Cincinnati Defendants.

9 Therefore, removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. 

§1332 and this Court has jurisdiction over these proceedings.

III. AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY

17. The Cincinnati Defendants would show that the Court has diversity jurisdiction 

over this matter as there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the monetary 

relief sought by Plaintiff exceeds the minimum jurisdictional amount of $75,000.

18. Plaintiff pleads in its Complaint that it purchased an insurance policy from the 

Cincinnati Defendants and seeks a judgment declaring that the Cincinnati Defendants must pay 

for ongoing losses allegedly incurred as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and lost business 

income since March 2020.

10

 Based on the allegations regarding the nature and duration of 

 

8 See Exhibit 2, Consent to Removal from Valley Companies, Inc.

9 The policy at issue was issued by The Cincinnati Insurance Company. See Common Policy Declarations

(Form IA 509 01 12) at p. 4 of Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Dismissal of the other Cincinnati 

Defendants will be sought based on their lack of involvement with, or potential obligations under, the 

subject policy issued to Plaintiff.

10 See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Complaint at ¶¶ 31, 40, 41.

Case: 1:20-cv-04901 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/20/20 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:5
6

Plaintiff’s alleged loss, the amount in controversy between the Plaintiff and the Cincinnati

Defendants exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.

IV. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REMOVAL

19. The Cincinnati Defendants file this Notice of Removal within 30 days of July 21, 

2020, the date upon which service of Plaintiff’s Complaint was purportedly made and within the 

1 year period set forth in 28 U.S.C. §1446(c). The Cincinnati Defendants file this Notice of 

Removal without waiving any objections, exceptions or defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

20. This Court embraces the locality in which the state court action is now pending and,

thus, is a proper forum for this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441(a).

21. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1446(d), a copy of this Notice of Removal is being

served on all parties, and a copy is being filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, 

Illinois.

22. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) and Local Rule 3.1, true and correct copies of the

following documents are being submitted with this Notice of Removal: (a) civil cover sheet; and 

(b) true and legible copies of all process, pleadings, orders, and other documents that have been 

served on the Cincinnati Defendants in the state court.

23. If any question arises as to the propriety of the removal of this action, the Cincinnati

Defendants request the opportunity to present a memorandum of law, evidence, and oral argument 

in support of the Notice of Removal and the removal of this action.

WHEREFORE, the Cincinnati Defendants pray the Court hereby remove the state court 

action from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois to the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois.

Case: 1:20-cv-04901 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/20/20 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:6
7

Date: August 20, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

Defendants Cincinnati Financial Corporation, The 

Cincinnati Insurance Company, The Cincinnati 

Casualty Company, and The Cincinnati Indemnity 

Company Insurance Company

By: /s/ Brian M. Reid

One of their attorneys

Brian M. Reid

Litchfield Cavo LLP

303 W. Madison St., Ste. 300

Chicago, IL 60606

312-781-6617 (Reid)

reid@litchfieldcavo.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04901 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/20/20 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:7
8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 20, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing NOTICE OF 

REMOVAL with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of 

such filing to the following:

Thomas A. Demetrio

Daniel S. Kirshner

Corboy & Demetrio, PC

33 North Dearborn Street, 21st Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60602

312-346-3191

TAD@CorboyDemetrio.com

DSK@CorboyDemetrio.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs

J. Hayes Ryan

Katherine P. Decker

GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP

One North Franklin, Suite 800

Chicago, IL 60606

Ph. 312-565-1400

Fax. 312-565-6511

hayesryan@grsm.com

kdecker@grsm.com

Counsel for Defendant Valley Companies, Inc.

and I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the document to the 

following non-CM/ECF participant:

None.

By: /s/ Brian M. Reid

Case: 1:20-cv-04901 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/20/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:8