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

RAGALLER v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY et al

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 www.pacer.gov or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Case Number: 
4:15-cv-00327 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Brian James Ragaller
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
District of Arizona
Date Filed: 
Jul 24 2015

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, Defendants ACE
American Insurance Company (“ACE”), Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.
(“Sedgwick”) and Elizabeth Young (“Young”) (collectively “Defendants”) petition this
Court for removal of the state court action, which was originally commenced in the
Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for the Pima County, entitled Brian James
Ragaller v. ACE American Insurance Company, Sedgwick Claims Management Services,
Inc., and Elizabeth Young, Case No. C20151313 (the “State Court Action”), on the
following grounds:
1.    On March 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed the State Court Action. Plaintiffs
Complaint did not state an amount of damages. A true and correct copy of the Complaint
is attached as Exhibit 1.
2.    On April 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in
the State Court Action. The FAC added Young as a defendant, but still did not state an
amount of damages. A true and correct copy of the FAC is attached as Exhibit 2.
3.    On May 27, 2015, ACE filed its Answer to the FAC. A true and correct
copy of the Answer is attached as Exhibit 3.
4.    On May 27, 2015, Sedgwick and Young filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC.
A true and correct copy of the Motion to Dismiss is attached as Exhibit 4. On June 12,
2015, Plaintiff filed a Response to the Motion to Dismiss. A true and correct copy of the
Response is attached as Exhibit 5. On June 24, 2015, Sedgwick and Young filed a Reply
in Support of their Motion to Dismiss. A true and correct copy of the Reply is attached as
Exhibit 6. The Judge in the State Court Action has not ruled on the Motion to Dismiss
and the Motion to Dismiss remains pending at the time of removal.
5.    Attached as Exhibit 7 are copies of all other process, pleadings and orders
filed in the State Court Action.

VENUE

6.    Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), venue of this action is proper in this Court as
the district and division within which the State Court Action was brought.

JURISDICTION

7.    Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, Congress has granted defendants the statutory right
to remove a case from state court to a United States District Court where that case could
have originally been filed in federal court. This grant is authorized by Article III, Section
2 of the United States Constitution, which extends judicial power of the federal courts to
controversies “between citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C §1332.
8.    Removal is proper in this case because the Court has original jurisdiction of
this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because there is complete diversity of citizenship
between the parties and the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs,
exceeds $75,000.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY

9.    Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 26.1(a)(7) requires parties to include in
their initial disclosure statements “a computation and the measure of damage alleged by
the disclosing party and the documents or testimony on which such computation and
measure are based.”
10.    On July 20, 2015, Plaintiff served Defendants with his Initial Rule 26.1
Disclosure Statement (“Disclosure Statement”). A true and correct copy of the Disclosure
Statement is attached as Exhibit 8. The Disclosure Statement states Plaintiff’s damages
are in excess of $2,000,000. Ex. 8 at 15-16.
11.    Plaintiff seeks damages arising from Defendants’ handling of his workers’
compensation claim. According to the Disclosure Statement, Plaintiff seeks damages for
mental anguish ($725,000); pain and suffering ($725,000); physical impairment
($675,000); lost wages, lost earning capacity and financial impacts ($227,000); and
attorneys’ fees (estimated between $78,000 to $117,000 through trial, plus additional fees
if matter is appealed). See id. Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages. See FAC.
12.    Based on the foregoing, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000,
exclusive of interest and costs. Defendants, however, do not concede that they are guilty
of any conduct that would warrant the imposition of any damages alleged by Plaintiff.

GEOGRAPHICAL DIVERSITY

13.    Upon information and belief. Plaintiff is a citizen of Arizona. See FAC ]f 2.
14.    ACE is incorporated under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania with its
principal place of business located in Pennsylvania.
15.    Sedgwick is incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois with its
principal place of business in the State of Tennessee.
16.    Young is a citizen of Colorado.
17.    This case meets the requirements for original jurisdiction in this Court
stemming from diversity of citizenship as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

REMOVAL IS PROPER

18.    Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), a case that is not removable based on the initial
pleading may be removed within thirty days after defendant receives a paper “from which
-3 -
it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable,” but no
later than one year after commencement of the action.
19.    This Notice of Removal is timely filed because it was filed within thirty
days after receipt of the Disclosure Statement (/. e., July 20, 2015), which, for the first
time, established the grounds for removal based on diversity, and within one year of the
filing of the commencement of the State Court Action (i.e., March 19, 2015). 28 U.S.C. §
1446(b).
20.    Defendants will also timely file a Notice of Removed Action with the Clerk
of the Pima County Superior Court.
21.    Defendants are providing written notice to Plaintiff. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).
22.    Defendants reserve the right to amend or supplement this Notice of
Removal.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request that the action now pending against them in the
Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for Pima County, be removed to this Court.
 

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.