EAST ST. LOUIS – Washington restaurants asserting St. Clair County jurisdiction over a suit for lockdown losses made false, inaccurate and misleading statements in U.S. district court, Zurich American Insurance argues in a response brief.
Zurich counsel Eileen Bower of Chicago challenged statements of Knightsbridge Restaurant Group, which opposes transfer to the District of Columbia.
In a Dec. 11 brief, Bower says that exceptional circumstances warranted a reply.
Bower wrote that given a limit of five pages for her brief, she addressed the group’s statements instead of its arguments.
Knightsbridge, consisting of ten restaurants that belong to Ashok Bajaj, sued Zurich in St. Clair County circuit court on Oct. 26.
Joseph Bartholomew, of Bruce Cook’s firm in Belleville, filed the complaint in association with six lawyers of the Cohen Millstein firm in Washington.
He listed awards, quoted rosy reviews, and dropped names of celebrity diners.
Bartholomew wrote that Knightsbridge formerly employed about 500 people at nine locations and currently employed about 250 people at seven locations.
“Knightsbridge believed that it had purchased comprehensive coverage that would apply to business interruption under circumstances like this, where plaintiff has done everything right to protect its businesses and the public,” he wrote.
Bajaj “is not a risk assessment professional aware of every possible catastrophe that might occur,” he wrote.
He asserted Illinois state court jurisdiction because Zurich maintains headquarters in Schaumburg.
Zurich removed the suit to district court on Nov. 3, alleging diverse citizenship between itself and Knightsbridge ownership entities.
On Nov. 20, Zurich moved for transfer to district court in Washington.
Zurich counsel Jared Clapper of Chicago claimed each restaurant was less than five miles from district court and one was in the same building as Cohen Millstein.
Clapper wrote that the complaint listed six Cohen Millstein attorneys, “the size of the entire Cook law firm.”
He wrote that St. Clair County “has a reputation for being plaintiff friendly and where meritless claims are allowed to survive.”
On Nov. 25, Bartholomew moved to remand the suit to St. Clair County.
He opposed transfer on Dec. 4, claiming central events occurred in Schaumburg.
“Though plaintiffs are located in the District of Columbia and could conveniently litigate there, plaintiffs are willing to accept the costs of litigating in their chosen forum (and) are entitled to deference when analyzing that choice,” Bartholomew wrote.
He wrote that a majority of likely witnesses were in Illinois.
He wrote that the dispute would require inquiry into the drafting of the policy.
“Plaintiffs plan to depose and call at trial Zurich employees who drafted the policy language at issue,” Bartholomew wrote.
“Plaintiffs will also depose and call as witnesses Zurich employees and agents involved in the underwriting process to determine the types of risks contemplated by Zurich in issuing the policy.
“Though discovery will reveal with certainty the identity of these employees and their location, these employees are almost certainly located at Zurich’s Illinois headquarters.”
He wrote that Zurich raised an insurance broker as a possible witness but failed to suggest the broker would be an important witness.
He wrote that the law office of Craig Hansen in St. Louis, directly adjacent to St. Clair County, coordinated Zurich’s litigation.
He wrote that Zurich stated its lead counsel would be Patrick Hofer of Washington, but he expressed doubt that Hofer’s location mattered.
He wrote that Hofer didn’t enter an appearance and signed the transfer motion but no other filings.
Bower replied that, “none of the Zurich employees involved in the process of underwriting and drafting the Zurich policy was located in Illinois.”
She wrote that the underwriter was in Washington and two assistants were in Owing Mills, Maryland.
“The Hansen firm is not coordinating Zurich’s litigation activities in this case, has not been consulted about this case, and does not represent Zurich in this case or in any declaratory judgment actions like this one,” Bower wrote.
She wrote that Hansen defends tort actions in Central and Southern Illinois, and its existence has no bearing on the convenience of the parties.
“Plaintiffs argue that the location of its own suburban Washington, D.C. broker who negotiated the terms of the Zurich policy on plaintiffs’ behalf has no bearing on the location of witnesses,’ she wrote.
She wrote that if discovery regarding negotiation of the terms of the policy were necessary, the location of witnesses who negotiated would be relevant.
She wrote that Clapper, not Hofer, signed the transfer motion.
Zurich faces a Jan. 4 deadline for responding to Knightsbridge’s remand motion.
Magistrate Judge Gilbert Sison has set a scheduling conference Jan. 6.