Adams v. Zurich American Insurance Company

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedAugust 5, 2025
Docket3:25-cv-08159
StatusUnknown

This text of Adams v. Zurich American Insurance Company (Adams v. Zurich American Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Adams v. Zurich American Insurance Company, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Joseph Adams, No. CV-25-08159-PCT-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Zurich American Insurance Company, et al.,

13 Defendants.

14 Defendant Zurich American Insurance Company removed this case from Yavapai 15 County Superior Court and the case was assigned to the Prescott division. (Doc. 1.) Zurich 16 then filed an answer and a motion seeking dismissal based on improper venue. (Doc. 1, 3, 17 4.) Zurich’s motion is denied. This order also provides the court’s preliminary policies and 18 procedures and requires the parties file a Joint Case Management Report. 19 Plaintiff Joseph Adams was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident in 20 Maricopa County. Adams resides in Yavapai County and filed this suit in Yavapai County 21 Superior Court alleging he was entitled to the proceeds of an insurance policy obtained by 22 defendant Velv LLC from Zurich. In moving to dismiss Adams’s complaint, Zurich argues 23 Adams did not allege sufficient “venue facts” authorizing suit in Yavapai County Superior 24 Court. (Doc. 4 at 1.) Based on that failure, Zurich argues “[p]laintiff’s asserted venue does 25 not meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and this matter should be heard in the United 26 States District Court, District of Arizona, Phoenix Division.” (Doc. 4 at 2.) Zurich also 27 requests Adams “take nothing by his Complaint” and “that this matter be adjudicated in 28 the United States District Court, District of Arizona, Phoenix Division.” (Doc. 4 at 3.) 1 To the extent the court can understand Zurich’s motion, it appears to be premised 2 on a misunderstanding of the governing statutes. “Venue in cases removed from state court 3 [is] governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441, rather than 28 U.S.C. § 1391, which is the general venue 4 statute.” IBC Aviation Servs., Inc. v. Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V., 125 5 F. Supp. 2d 1008, 1013 (N.D. Cal. 2000). So “once a case is properly removed to federal 6 court, a defendant cannot move to dismiss on § 1391 venue grounds.” Hollis v. Fla. State 7 Univ., 259 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2001). Zurich’s argument that Adams has not met 8 “the requirements” of § 1391 is therefore inapplicable in this removed case. (Doc. 4 at 2.) 9 Zurich’s motion might be interpreted as requesting the complaint be dismissed and 10 Adams be required to file a new complaint in the Phoenix division. But if that is Zurich’s 11 intent, there is no legal basis to require such actions. Assuming diversity jurisdiction exists, 12 Adams is free to file suit in state or federal court and this court cannot prohibit him from 13 filing suit in state court. Alternatively, if Zurich’s motion is an attempt to argue this case 14 is assigned to the wrong division, a motion to transfer—not a motion to dismiss—is the 15 appropriate method of obtaining relief. Id. at 1300. 16 IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) is DENIED. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties are advised of the following preliminary 18 policies and procedures that will govern these proceedings: 19 Governing Rules 20 Both counsel and pro se litigants must abide by the Rules of Practice of the U.S. 21 District Court for the District of Arizona (“Local Rules”) and the Federal Rules of Civil 22 Procedure. 23 Disclosure Statements 24 Full compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 is required by plaintiff(s) 25 and defendant(s). Rule 7.1(a)(1) requires any nongovernmental corporation to file a 26 disclosure statement identifying “any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation 27 owning 10% or more of its stock.” Rule 7.1(a)(2) requires a party in an action where 28 jurisdiction is based on diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) to file a disclosure statement 1 identifying the citizenship of “every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to 2 that party.” A Corporate Disclosure Statement form is available at 3 https://www.azd.uscourts.gov/forms/disclosure-statement. 4 Service Deadline 5 Service of the summons and complaint on each defendant located in the United 6 States must occur within 90 days of filing the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). If service 7 cannot occur within 90 days, a request for an extension may be filed before expiration of 8 the 90-day period. Any such request must set forth the reason why service has not been 9 accomplished and request a specific short additional period of time. If the court believes 10 your reason constitutes “good cause,” it will authorize a brief additional period to 11 accomplish service. 12 Proof of service must be filed with the Clerk of Court, in the form of an affidavit, 13 promptly after service has been made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l). It is important to comply 14 with this requirement because absent proof of service, the court will have no way of 15 knowing that the complaint has been served. 16 This order serves as an express warning that the court will dismiss this action, 17 without further notice to plaintiff(s), with respect to any defendant that is not timely served. 18 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 19 Forms of Papers 20 The parties shall adhere to all of the requirements of Local Rule 7.1, including the 21 requirement that text and footnotes shall be no smaller than 13 point. Citations supporting 22 any textual proposition shall be included in the text, not in a footnote. 23 Notices of supplemental authority and responses to those notices are limited to 350 24 words excluding case captions and signature blocks. 25 Paper Courtesy Copies 26 Do not send paper courtesy copies of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a) 27 pleadings, short procedural motions (e.g., motions for extension of time), 26(f) reports, or 28 stipulations. A paper courtesy copy of dispositive motions (or other lengthy motions that 1 will be opposed) and any responses or replies thereto shall be either postmarked and mailed 2 to the judge or hand-delivered to the judge’s mailbox in the courthouse by the next business 3 day after the electronic filing. Do not attempt to deliver documents to the judge’s chambers. 4 Courtesy copies should be double-sided and include the ECF-generated header at the top 5 of each page. Courtesy copies of documents too large for stapling must be submitted in 6 three-ring binders. 7 Amending Pleadings 8 Before filing a motion for leave to amend a pleading, the party that wishes to amend 9 must seek the consent of the other parties in an attempt to file the amended pleading 10 pursuant to Local Rule 15.1(b). If any party is unwilling to consent, the motion for leave 11 to amend must indicate which party (or parties) will oppose the request. If a motion for 12 leave to amend a pleading fails to so indicate, the motion will be denied without prejudice 13 for failure to adhere to this order. 14 Motions and Stipulations 15 Every motion or stipulation, however mundane, must cite the rule(s) and/or law(s) 16 that permit the court to grant the requested relief.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mitsubishi International Corp. v. United States
5 F. Supp. 2d 991 (Court of International Trade, 1998)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Adams v. Zurich American Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-zurich-american-insurance-company-azd-2025.