Watson Brickell Development, LLC v. ACE American Insurance Company et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 25-cv-25053-GAYLES
WATSON BRICKELL
DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and for an
Award of Fees and Expenses (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 11]. The Court has reviewed the Motion
and the record and is otherwise fully advised. As set forth below, the Motion is granted in part.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On October 1, 2025, Plaintiff Watson Brickell Development, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed this
action against Defendants ACE American Insurance Company (“ACE”), Starr Surplus Lines
Insurance Company (“Starr”), and Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company (“Allianz”)
(collectively “Defendants”) in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-
Dade County, Florida. [ECF No. 1-1]. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that (1) it is a Delaware
limited liability company; (2) Defendants are Pennsylvania, New York, and Illinois corporations,
and (3) it seeks damages in excess of $750,000. Id. After service, Defendants removed the action
to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. [ECF No. 1]. In the Notice of Removal, Defendants
alleged that Plaintiff’s members are citizens of Delaware, Florida, Japan, Singapore, and England
and that ACE is a citizen of Pennsylvania, Starr is a citizen of New York, and Allianz is a citizen
Case 1:25-cv-25053-DPG Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2025 Page 1 of 4

2
of Illinois. Based on these unsupported assertions, Defendants claimed that the parties are
completely diverse and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 such that this Court has
diversity jurisdiction. Id.
Plaintiff then moved to remand arguing that the parties are not completely diverse. [ECF
No. 11]. In particular, Plaintiff alleged that following removal, it notified Defendants that at least
one of its members is citizen of Pennsylvania and that, therefore, the parties are not completely
diverse. In support, Plaintiff attached email correspondence between Plaintiff’s and Defendants’
counsel regarding Plaintiff’s citizenship.
In response to the Motion, Defendants argued that prior to removing the action, they
reviewed SEC filings which did not identify any members in Plaintiff’s corporate chain who were
citizens of Pennsylvania. [ECF No. 14]. In addition, Defendants requested jurisdictional discovery.
[ECF No. 14]. Id.
In its reply, Plaintiff opposed any jurisdictional discovery and attached the Declaration of
Matthew Tarasoff, the Senior Vice President of one of Plaintiff’s members who is familiar with
Plaintiff’s corporate chain. Mr. Tarasoff attests that one of Plaintiff’s members is Fayerweather
Fund Matterhorn, L.P. (“Fayerweather”) and that one of Fayerweather’s partners is Joseph Fisher
(“Mr. Fisher”), a citizen of Pennsylvania. [ECF No. 18-1].1
On December 22, 2025, pursuant to the Court’s Order requiring Plaintiff to file its
corporate disclosure statement, Plaintiff filed, under seal, a detailed listing of its organizational
structure (the “Disclosure Statement”). [ECF No. 31]. While Plaintiff’s corporate structure is
complex and its members are vast, the Disclosure Statement clearly demonstrates that Plaintiff has
members who are citizens of Pennsylvania, New York, and Illinois.
1 Mr. Tarasoff also states that Mr. Fisher is trustee of the Jansjoerg Wyss 2014 Irrevocable Trust (the “Trust”) and that
the Trust is a part owner of Fayerweather.
Case 1:25-cv-25053-DPG Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2025 Page 2 of 4

3
II. 	APPLICABLE LAW
The procedure for a motion to remand is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), which mandates
that “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction falls on the party attempting to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal court. See McGee
v. Sentinel Offender Services, LLC, 719 F.3d 1236, 1241 (11th Cir. 2013). “[A]ll doubts about
jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand to state court.” Univ. of So. Ala. v. American
Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999). “Defendant’s right to remove and plaintiff’s
right to choose his forum are not on equal footing; for example, unlike the rules applied when
plaintiff has filed suit in federal court with a claim that, on its face, satisfies the jurisdictional
amount, removal statutes are construed narrowly; where plaintiff and defendant clash about
jurisdiction, uncertainties are resolved in favor of remand.” Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d
1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994).
III. 	DISCUSSION
The Court has diversity jurisdiction when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and
there is complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiffs and the defendants. 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a). Here, Plaintiff is a limited liability company. “[A] limited liability company is a citizen
of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen." Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast
SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004). Therefore, for the Court to have
diversity jurisdiction, all of Plaintiff’s members must be diverse from Defendants.
Here, 	the 	record 	clearly 	reflects 	that 	Plaintiff 	has 	members 	who 	are 	citizens 	of
Pennsylvania, New York, and Illinois. Moreover, it is undisputed that ACE is a citizen of
Pennsylvania, Starr is a citizen of New York, and Allianz is a citizen of Illinois. Because Plaintiff
Case 1:25-cv-25053-DPG Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2025 Page 3 of 4

4
and Defendants are not completely diverse, the Motion shall be granted.2
The Court has also considered whether Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “[C]ourts may award attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) only where
the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin v. Franklin
Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). While the record now reflects that the parties are not
completely diverse, at the time of removal, Plaintiff’s Complaint gave Defendants an objectively
reasonable basis to remove the action based on diversity of citizenship. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
request for attorney’s fees and costs is denied.3
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and for an Award of Fees and Expenses, [ECF No. 11],
is GRANTED in part. This matter is remanded to the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and
for Miami-Dade County, Florida.
2. 	This action is CLOSED, and all pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 30th day of December, 2025.
________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 The Court denies Defendant’s request for jurisdictional discovery. “[J]urisdictional discovery should be conducted
before removal—not after.” Mittenthal v. Florida Panthers Hockey Club, Ltd., 472 F. Supp. 3d 1211, 1225 (S.D. Fla.
2020). Moreover, “[s]uch fishing expeditions would clog the federal judicial machinery, frustrating the limited nature
of federal jurisdiction by encouraging defendants to remove, at best, prematurely, and at worst, in cases in which they
will never be able to establish jurisdiction.” Mittenthal, 472 F. Supp. 3d at 1226 (quoting Lowery v. Ala. Power Co.,
483 F.3d 1184, 1217 (11th Cir. 2007).
3 The Court does not find that sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 are warranted.
Case 1:25-cv-25053-DPG Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2025 Page 4 of 4