- 3 -
of the lease has been continued pursuant to an executed extension of the Lease byDefendant. There are more than three years remaining on the current term of the lease,and Defendant has the right to extend the lease for three additional terms of five yeareach. Pursuant to the Lease between the parties, the use of the property is valuated at$15,479.17 per month.
Exhibit A att’d to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, att’dhereto as Exhibit E, at p. 4, § 4.01. Pursuant to a rent abatement provision in the lease,however, Defendant’s rent is abated as a result of the Plaintiff’s failure to maintain aminimum level of retail co-tenancy in the City Center mall.
at 10, § 5.04. In itscurrent Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the rental value of the property is $10,479,17 permonth.
Exhibit E at ¶ 17. In its Amended Complaint, Plaintiff now alleges that therent abatement provision of the Lease has been nullified, giving Plaintiff the alleged rightto payment of rent under the Lease.
at ¶ 17. The value of the alleged right soughtto be enforced by Plaintiff in this action, recovery of the property or the forced paymentof rent in contravention of the Lease’s abatement provision, thus exceeds $100,000 forthis year alone, and exceeds $2,000,000.00 for the remaining life of the lease. The issuein controversy thus exceeds the jurisdictional amount of more than $75,000 set forth in28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).7. This action may be removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) because thisCourt has original diversity jurisdiction.8. On the same date as this Notice of Removal was signed, Defendant servedby hand delivery a copy of this Notice of Removal upon Plaintiff’s counsel at the address
Case 0:10-cv-00191-RHK-JJK Document 1 Filed 01/22/10 Page 3 of 4