Taylor et al v. Citifinancial Mortgage Company Inc

Filing 4

ORDER: The Court has a jurisdictional doubt. The Taylors say they seek only "up to $75,000" in total damages; but CitiFinancial insists that more than $75,000 is in controversy. If the Taylors stipulate that they will neither seek nor accept a total recovery exceeding $75,000 (including attorney's fees, but excluding interest and costs) on all claims, then the Court will remand. Any stipulation due by 29 June 2016. No remand motion will be needed if the jurisdictional doubt is resolved by the stipulation before the end of the month. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 6/21/2016. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
JAMES W. TAYLOR; and
WANDA JOY TAYLOR
v.

PLAINTIFFS
No. 4:16-cv-374-DPM

CITIFINANCIAL MORTGAGE
COMPANY, INC

DEFENDANT
ORDER

The Court has a jurisdictional doubt. Krein v. Norris, 250F.3d1184, 1187
(8th Cir. 2001). The Taylors say they seek only "up to $75,000" in total
damages; but Citifinancial insists that more than $75,000 is in controversy.

Compare Ng 2 at 9 with Ng 1at2-3; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). If the Taylors stipulate
that they will neither seek nor accept a total recovery exceeding $75,000
(including attorney's fees, but excluding interest and costs) on all claims, then
the Court will remand. Any stipulation due by 29 June 2016. No remand
motion will be needed if the jurisdictional doubt is resolved by the stipulation
before the end of the month.
So Ordered.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge