Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv-00284-GI\/IS Document 9-4 Filed 06/07/2005 Page1 0f 3
EXHIBIT 3

Case 1:05-cv-00284-GI\/IS Document 9-4 Filed 06/07/2005 Page 2 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE
SARA S. ECHEVARRIA,
Plaintiff, Case N0. 05-284 (GMS)
V. Removed from Superior Court,
U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC., New Castle County, Delaware
ROGER MAYFIELD, and C.A. No.: 05C-03-188 WCC
NATIONWIDE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY
Defendants.
AFFIDAVIT OF FRANCIS H. LOCOCO
STATE OF WISCONSIN )
MILWAUKEE COUNTY iss
FRANCIS H. LoCOCO, being first duly sworn, on oath, deposes and states as follows:
I. I am an attorney at Quarles & Brady LLP, counsel of record for defendant U—Haul
International, Inc. ("U-Haul"), in this matter and make this affidavit upon personal knowledge
being duly authorized to do so.
2. Based on my understanding of plaintiff` s injuries and claims in this case, U-Haul
is not uninsured or underinsured.
3. Upon receipt of plaintiff` s Motion for Remand, I attempted to contact Richard
DiLiberto, Jr., Ms. Echevarria’s counsel, on May 25, 2005 to request that he withdraw the
motion to remand. Although I did not speak with him directly, I did leave a voicemail
explaining that Nationwide had consented to removal.
4. On May 26, 2005, I again left Mr. DiLiberto a voicemail and sent him a letter
asking him to withdraw his Motion to Remand. I explained that Nationwide had, in fact,
574vss9_i.Doc

Case 1:05-cv-00284-GI\/IS Document 9-4 Filed 06/07/2005 Page 3 of 3
consented in writing prior to U-Haul tiling the Notice of Removal. I also explained that U—Haul
had not tiled Nationwide’s consent based on the advice of the Clerk of the Court. I have
attached a true and correct copy of this letter as Exhibit A.
5. Finally, on May 31, 2005 I spoke by telephone with Mr. DiLiberto. I again
explained U—Haul’s position that plaintiff s Motion to Remand was baseless because Nationwide
had consented in writing to removal prior to U—Haul’s removal and because the Clerk of the
Court had informed U-Haul that tiling Nationwide’s consent was not necessary. I again
requested that he withdraw his Motion to Remand.
6. In our telephone conversation, Mr. DiLiberto refused to withdraw the motion.

Subscribiyzl and sworn? before me
this Qefday of {gg , 2005
. »~ Q wi ._,.
/1., r `·)"’ir, { ` I X p i
is J .;Z‘2?2/ , Sh; ¤ gr} . ZZ /U
Notary Public] State of Wisconsin
My Commission : G ,><,.1t1"r'S zJ*§5°.2 [ UQ
sv475s9_r.r>oc -2-