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.
This lawsuit arises out an automobile accident in which Plaintiff, Metry Kelly
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
1. No later than
2. No later than
3. The Clerk will administratively close the file pending receipt of the amended case management report and setting of case deadlines.
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):
Local Rule 3.05(c)(3)(B) provides that preliminary pretrial conferences are
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).
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
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.
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.
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: ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________
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.
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. ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________
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.