Source: http://ace-insurance-litigation.com/ace-ina-litigation/case/garel-v-ace-american-insurance-company-et-al
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:12:57+00:00

Document:
3. Attached as Exhibit “A” in globo are copies of all processes, pleadings and orders served on Defendants in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). All Defendants join in and consent to the removal of the action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). Accordingly, the "rule of unanimity" established in Getty Oil Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 841 F. 2d 1254, 1262-63 (5th Cir. 1998), is met.
5. Defendants reserve the right to amend or supplement this Petition of Removal and to file post-removal affidavits and exhibits, if necessary.
6. Plaintiff served Ace American Insurance Company with the Petition for Damages, through its agent for service of process, the Louisiana Secretary of State on May 21, 2013.
7. On June 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Petition naming additional Defendants, Cargotec Holding, Inc. and Terry L. Stevens.
8. On June 26, 2013, Cargotec Holding, Inc., and Ace American Insurance Company were served with the First Amended Petition for Damages.
3 See attached, Exhibit “B”, Correspondence from Plaintiff’s counsel verifying date of service of process.
10. On September 6, 2013, Defendants timely filed the instant Notice of Removal which is within thirty (30) days of receipt of notice in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
11. This action is removable based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs.
Complete diversity of citizenship exists as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
13. Plaintiff, Carole F. Garel, is an individual of full age and majority domiciled in Jefferson Parish, State of Louisiana.4 Carole F. Garel is a citizen of Louisiana.
4 See attached Exhibit “A”, Petition for Damages ¶1.
5 See attached Exhibit “A”, Petition for Damages ¶ 4.
14. Defendant, Ace American Insurance Company, is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Ace American Insurance Company is a citizen of Philadelphia.
15. Defendant, Cargotec Holding, Inc., is a Nevada Corporation with its principal place of business in Ottawa, Kansas. Cargotec Holding, Inc. is a citizen of Nevada and Kansas.
16. Defendant, Terry L. Stevens, is an individual of full age and majority domiciled in Pearl River County, State of Mississippi. Terry L. Stevens is a citizen of Mississippi.
18. The Petition for Damages and the First Amended Petition for Damages does not allege the amount in controversy. Therefore, Defendants have the burden of proof to show the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 by a preponderance of the evidence. Treadway v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., CIV.A. 11-2965, 2012 WL 219369 p. 2 (E.D. La. Jan. 25, 2012).
20. On March 18, 2013, Plainitff’s counsel provided written correspondence evidencing Plainitff’s past medical expenses total approximately, $13,279.46.
21. On July 22, 2013, through informal discovery, Plaintiff provided medical records which reveal she underwent arthroscopic shoulder surgery on June 13, 2013. The informal discovery also reveals Plaintiff underwent injections and chiropractic treatment.
22. Plaintiff continues to treat.
$150,000 – Plaintiff was injured in car accident and was under a doctor’s care for over three years. During that time, she underwent physical therapy and shoulder surgery. The testimony indicated that shoulder injury resulted in plaintiff being permanently disabled. Maddox v. City of Oakdale, 99-726 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/3/99); 746 So.2d 764.
24. “[A] plaintiff wishing to prevent removal must affirmatively renounce the right to accept a judgment in excess of $75,000.00 in its state court pleadings or a stipulation filed with the complaint.” Treadway, 2012 WL 219369 p. 2. No such renouncement or stipulation has been filed in state court.
25. On August 20, 2013, undersigned contacted Plaintiff’s counsel via telephone to determine whether he would stipulate that his client’s claims do not exceed $75,000.00. Plainitff’s counsel refused to stipulate.
26. While Defendants do not admit any element of damages, they have met the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence the amount in controversy is expected to exceed the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs. Plaintiff’s alleged damages, coupled with the arthroscopic shoulder surgery and past medical expenses clearly evidence the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold."

References: § 1446
 § 1446
 v. 
 § 1446
 § 1332
 § 1332
 v. 
 v.