ORDER

TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, District Judge.

On June 27, 2011, the Court conducted a hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Based on argument at the hearing, the Court determined that it was unable to rule on the issues framed by the Motion and that a number of issues must be resolved before the case can move forward. See Doc. 66. Accordingly, the Court directed Plaintiffs to file a Third Amended Class Action Complaint, which Plaintiffs have done (Doc. 73), and ordered the parties to brief several issues related to the management of the case and the Court's subject matter jurisdiction, which the parties also have done. (Docs. 74, 77, 80).

I. BACKGROUND

This lawsuit arises out an automobile accident in which Plaintiff, Metry Kelly1 was operating his GMC truck when he was struck by a negligent underinsured third-party. Plaintiffs allege that they have received the available liability insurance benefits under the third-party's policy. Now, Plaintiffs are seeking uninsured/underinsured motorist ("UM") benefits under their two State Farm policies — one policy issued on the GMC truck involved in the accident ("GMC Policy")2 and a second policy issued on an antique 1973 Corvette ("Corvette Policy").3 Plaintiffs allege that their damages exceed the UM coverage under the GMC Policy, and thus, Plaintiffs seek to "stack" the UM coverage from both Policies. Whether these Policies can be stacked is an issue central to this action.

The Corvette Policy contains a provision that purports to exclude UM coverage "for bodily injury to an insured ... while occupying a motor vehicle owned by or leased to you, your spouse or any relative if it is not insured for this coverage under this policy." Doc. 73-1 at 11. Despite this so-called "anti-stacking" provision, Plaintiffs contend that they should be entitled to stack the UM coverage from both policies because the provision is void pursuant to §627.727, Florida Statutes, which governs UM coverage and provides guidelines for limiting UM coverage. State Farm has taken the position that §627.727 does not apply to speciality insurance policies such as the Corvette Policy.

Plaintiffs initially filed suit against State Farm in the Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Marion County, Florida. State Farm subsequently removed the action to this Court alleging subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. §1332(d). (Doc. 1). After Plaintiffs' motion to remand was denied (Doc. 28), Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Class Action Complaint (Doc. 33) and now the Third Amended Class Action Complaint. (Doc. 73). In the Third Amended Class Action Complaint, Plaintiffs seek UM coverage under both the GMC policy and the Corvette policy.4 Plaintiffs also bring this action on behalf of themselves, and others similarly situated, as members of two damages subclasses and two declaratory/injunctive relief subclasses, asserting claims related to State Farm's alleged failure to comply with Florida law governing UM coverage.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction under CAFA

State Farm removed the action to this Court alleging subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. §1332(d). (Doc. 1). Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA only if (1) the number of proposed class members exceeds 100; (2) minimal diversity exists; and (3) the aggregate amount in controversy, excluding interest and costs, exceeds $5,000,000. Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1193 (11th Cir. 2007). At issue here is CAFA's numerosity requirement that the action must involve the monetary claims of 100 or more plaintiffs.5 The parties agree that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to meet the numerosity requirement.

CAFA jurisdiction does not turn on what Plaintiffs may ultimately prove, but on whether the alleged facts are sufficient to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements. See Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 751 (11th Cir. 2010). Even if it is later found that there are fewer than 100 members of the class, it would not divest the court of subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA, which is properly determined at the time of removal. See Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1268 n.12 (11th Cir. 2009).

In the First Amended Class Action Complaint, which was the operative pleading at the time of removal, as well as the most recent Third Amended Class Action Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that there are "more than 100" potential class members. Doc. 73 at ¶¶ 24, 28. Plaintiffs also clarified that this allegation was based on their investigation of State Farm's market share in the automobile insurance industry in both Florida and nationwide; statistics regarding State Farm automobile policies with UM coverage; and statistics regarding residency flow into Florida. See Doc. 73 at ¶23.

Based on these allegations, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiffs' allegations are made in good faith and are sufficient to meet CAFA's numerosity requirement. Accordingly, the Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to CAFA.

B. Case Management Issues

There is no dispute that Plaintiffs' claims under the Corvette Policy will not be at issue unless and until it is determined that the value of Plaintiffs' damages exceed the UM limits of the GMC Policy. After careful consideration, the Court finds that it would be most efficient to first resolve Plaintiffs' individual claims under the GMC Policy to determine if the Corvette Policy is implicated before addressing the issues related to the Corvette Policy, stacked coverage, and the class claims. See Chrysler Int's Corp. v. Chemaly, 280 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2002)(discussing the trial court's broad discretion in managing cases). The Court sees no reason to address the thorny legal issues related to the Corvette Policy — i.e., whether it is governed by Maine or Florida law and whether the requirements of §627.727 apply — before Plaintiffs' claims for UM benefits under the Corvette Policy are actually at issue. Moreover, the resolution of Plaintiffs' claims under the GMC Policy unquestionably will bear on Plaintiffs' standing in the class action claims.

State Farm represents, and Plaintiffs do not suggest otherwise, that the parties already have spent significant time litigating Plaintiffs' coverage claims under the GMC Policy and that they only need to complete discovery on Plaintiffs' damages claims and to determine whether summary adjudication or a jury trial is appropriate. Based on this undisputed representation, the Court is confident that Plaintiffs' individual claims under the GMC Policy can be resolved expeditiously.

Accordingly, the Court will bifurcate these proceedings to first litigate Plaintiffs' claims for UM coverage under the GMC Policy. If and when Plaintiffs receive a damages judgment in excess of the coverage limits of the GMC Policy, the Court then will address the other claims in this case, including Plaintiffs' individual claims under the Corvette Policy and the class action claims.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. No later than April 6, 2012, the parties shall confer and file an amended case management report limited solely to Plaintiffs' claims for coverage under the GMC Policy in Counts I and II of the Third Amended Class Action Complaint.

2. No later than April 6, 2012, State Farm shall file a response to Counts I and II of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Class Action Complaint. State Farm is not required to respond to the other Counts pending further Order of the Court.

3. The Clerk will administratively close the file pending receipt of the amended case management report and setting of case deadlines.

DONE and ORDERED.

CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT

The parties have agreed on the following dates and discovery plan pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) and Local Rule 3.05(c):

I. Meeting of Parties Lead counsel shall meet in person or, upon agreement of all parties, by telephone. (If all parties agree to conduct the case management conference by telephone, they may do so without filing a motion with the Court.) Pursuant to Local Rule 3.05(c)(2)(B) or (c)(3)(A), a meeting was held on ___________________ (date) at __________________ (time) and was attended by:

II. Preliminary Pretrial Conference

Local Rule 3.05(c)(3)(B) provides that preliminary pretrial conferences are mandatory in Track Three cases.

Track Two cases: Parties (check one) [__] request [__] do not request a preliminary pretrial conference before entry of a Case Management and Scheduling Order in this Track Two case. Unresolved issues to be addressed at such a conference include: ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

III. Pre-Discovery Initial Disclosures of Core Information

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A) — (D) Disclosures

The parties (check one) [__] have exchanged [__] agree to exchange information described in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A)-(D) on or by ______________ (date).

IV. Agreed Discovery Plan for Plaintiffs and Defendants

A. Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement

This Court makes an active effort to screen every case in order to identify parties and interested corporations in which the assigned judge may be a shareholder, as well as for other matters that might require consideration of recusal. Therefore, each party, governmental party, intervenor, non-party movant, and Rule 69 garnishee shall file and serve within fourteen (14) days from that party's first appearance a Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement using the attached mandatory form. No party may seek discovery from any source before filing and serving a Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement. All papers, including emergency motions, are subject to being denied or stricken unless the filing party has previously filed and served its Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement. Any party who has not already filed and served the required certificate is required to do so immediately. Each party has a continuing obligation to file and serve an amended Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement within eleven days of 1) discovering any ground for amendment, including notice of case reassignment to a different judicial officer; or 2) discovering any ground for recusal or disqualification of a judicial officer. A party should not routinely list an assigned district judge or magistrate judge as an "interested person" absent some non-judicial interest.

B. Discovery Plan/Deadline

The parties shall not file discovery materials with the Clerk except as provided in Local Rule 3.03. The Court encourages the exchange of discovery requests on diskette. See Local Rule 3.03 (e). In propounding and responding to discovery, the parties are directed to consult and comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and the Middle District of Florida's Discovery Handbook. Each party shall timely serve discovery requests so that the rules allow for a response prior to the discovery deadline. The Court may deny as untimely all motions to compel filed after the discovery deadline. In addition, the parties agree as follows: _______________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________

C. Confidentiality Agreements/Motions to File Under Seal

Whether documents filed in a case may be filed under seal is a separate issue from whether the parties may agree that produced documents are confidential. The Court is a public forum, and disfavors motions to file under seal. The Court will permit the parties to file documents under seal only upon motion and order entered under Local Rule 1.09.

The parties may reach their own agreement (without Court endorsement) regarding the designation of materials as "confidential." The Court discourages unnecessary stipulated motions for a protective order. The Court will enforce appropriate stipulated and signed confidentiality agreements. See Local Rule 4.15. Each confidentiality agreement or order shall provide, or shall be deemed to provide, that "no party shall file a document under seal without first having obtained an order granting leave to file under seal on a showing of particularized need." With respect to confidentiality agreements, the parties agree as follows: ______________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

D. Disclosure or Discovery of Electronically Stored Information and Assertion of Claims of Privilege

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f)(3), the parties have made the following agreements regarding the disclosure and discovery of electronically stored information as well as the assertion of claims of privilege or protection of trial preparation materials after production: ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

V. Mediation

Absent a Court order to the contrary, the parties in every case will participate in Court-annexed mediation as detailed in Chapter Nine of the Court's Local Rules. The parties have agreed on a mediator from the Court's approved list of mediators as set forth in the table above, and have agreed to the date stated in the table above as the last date for mediation. The list of mediators is available from the Clerk, and is posted on the Court's web site at www.flmd.uscourts.gov. If the parties do not so designate, the Court will designate the mediator and the deadline for mediation.

VI. Requests for Special Handling

Requests for special consideration or handling (requests may be joint or unilateral): ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Date: _____________________

Signature of Counsel (with information required by Local Rule 1.05(d)) and Signature of Unrepresented Parties. ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

I hereby disclose the following pursuant to this Court's interested persons order:

1.) the name of each person, attorney, association of persons, firm, law firm, partnership, and corporation that has or may have an interest in the outcome of this action — including subsidiaries, conglomerates, affiliates, parent corporations, publicly-traded companies that own 10% or more of a party's stock, and all other identifiable legal entities related to any party in the case:

2.) the name of every other entity whose publicly-traded stock, equity, or debt may be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceedings:

3.) the name of every other entity which is likely to be an active participant in the proceedings, including the debtor and members of the creditors' committee (or twenty largest unsecured creditors) in bankruptcy cases:

4.) the name of each victim (individual or corporate) of civil and criminal conduct alleged to be wrongful, including every person who may be entitled to restitution:

I hereby certify that, except as disclosed above, I am unaware of any actual or potential conflict of interest involving the district judge and magistrate judge assigned to this case, and will immediately notify the Court in writing on learning of any such conflict.