Skip to Navigation
The Collaborative Clearinghouse for Lawsuits and Other Claims Against ACE Group Insurance Companies


ATTENTION: It is possible that this information may no longer be current and therefore may be inaccurate. The index contains both open and closed cases and is not a complete list of cases in which an ACE Insurance Group company is involved. This information is provided to give interested persons an idea of the issues disputed in the indexed cases. For a full understanding of a case, one should read the rest of the court file, including the response. For the most up-to-date and complete information on a case, visit or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Case Number: 
3:14-cv-01637 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Lee Berry
Court Type: 
US District Court: 
Northern District of Texas
Date Filed: 
May 2 2014


Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, Landmark American Insurance Company
("Landmark"), one of the Defendants in Cause No. DC-14-02525, pending in the 193rd Judicial
District Court of Dallas County, Texas, files this Notice of Removal from that court to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, on the basis of diversity of
citizenship and amount in controversy and respectfully shows:

1. Removal is proper because complete diversity of citizenship exists between the
Plaintiffs and Defendants, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest,
costs and attorneys' fees.
2. Plaintiffs seekjudgmentinthe amount of $1,780,931.90.
3. Complete diversity exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants as follows:
a. Plaintiffs, Lee Berry, Carl Gooden, Edward Green, Tracy Hodge, Ranthanius
Horn, Daniel Garza, Barret Gibson, Kimyatta Grimes, Randy Mathis, Gerardo
Moreno, Johnny Haskins and Wilson Peoples, are citizens of the State of Texas
because they are, and were at the time the lawsuit was filed, domiciled in the State of
Texas. See Palazzo v. Corio, 232 F.3d 38, 42 (2nd Cir. 2000)(an individual's
citizenship, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, is determined by his or her
domicile); see also Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 249 (5th Cir. 1996)(stating that if
diversity is established at the commencement and removal of the suit, it will not be
destroyed by subsequent changes in citizenship).
b. Defendant Landmark is, and was at the time the lawsuit was filed, a citizen
of Oklahoma and Georgia for diversity purposes because it is organized under the
laws of Oklahoma and its principal place of business is in Georgia.
c. Defendant Ace American Insurance Company is, and was at the time the
lawsuit was filed, a citizen of Pennsylvania for diversity purposes because it is
organized under the laws of Pennsylvania and its principal place of business is in
d. Defendant The Cincinnati Insurance Company is, and was at the time the
lawsuit was filed, a citizen of Ohio for diversity purposes because it is organized
under the laws of Ohio and its principal place of business is in Ohio.
4. Plaintiffs served Landmark with their Original Petition and process on April 22,
5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), Landmark timely removes this case within thirty
(30) days of its receipt of the initial pleading.
6. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) because the state court
action is pending in this district and division.

7. On or about March 12, 2014, Plaintiffs filed its Original Petition in the state court
suit, seeking judgment against the Defendants for the amount of an arbitration award and judgment
allegedly entered against ATI Enterprises, Inc., ATI Acquisition Company, Ability Holdings, Inc.,
ATI Enterprises of Florida, Inc., Ability Intermediate Holdings, Inc., and Ability Acquisition, Inc.
(collectively, the "ATI Companies"). Plaintiffs allege they were parties to an arbitration proceeding
(the "Underlying Action") against the ATI Companies involving claims arising out the ATI
Companies' ownership and operation of certain for-profit, proprietary schools. Plaintiffs allege its
claims were submitted, with the consent of the ATI Companies, to binding arbitration, resulting in
an award in favor of Plaintiffs in the amount of $1,780,931.90, which Plaintiffs claim was later
reduced to judgment against the ATI Companies. Plaintiffs allege that each Defendant issued
liability insurance policies to ATI Companies covering the claims asserted by Plaintiffs in the
Underlying Action. Plaintiffs now seek to recover directly against the Defendants.
8. Simultaneously with the filing of this Notice of Removal, attached as Exhibit "A" is
the Index of State Court Documents clearly identifying each document and indicating the date
the document was filed in state court. Attached as Exhibit "B" is a copy of the docket sheet and
all documents filed in the state court action enumerated as Exhibit "B-l" thru Exhibit "B-7" as
identified on the Index of State Court Documents.
9. Landmark will promptly file a copy of this removal with the clerk of the state court
in which the action was pending.

10. Accordingly, Landmark hereby removes this case to this Court for trial and

The provided text is an excerpt from a document filed in this case. For a full understanding of the case, one should read the complete court file, including the response.

Javascript is required to view this map.