Gordon v. Suero et al
ORDER granting 7 the motion for remand to state court; making no determination on the issue of the stipulated amount in controversy; and directing the Clerk of Court to remand this action to the Circuit Court of Pulaski County. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 10/10/2017. (mef)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
Case No. 4:17-cv-00216 KGB
ENOC SUERO, AMERICAN VAN LINES
INC, and JOHN DOE, Entities Nos. 1-5
Before the Court is plaintiff Robilyn Gordon’s motion for remand to state court (Dkt. No.
7). In her motion for remand, Ms. Gordon indicates that she will stipulate that her damages will
not meet the $75,000.00 threshold required for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. To
date, defendants Enoc Suero and American Van Lines, Inc., have answered Ms. Gordon’s
complaint (Dkt. Nos. 3, 4). Although Ms. Gordon names John Doe defendants one through five
in her complaint, there is no indication in the record before the Court that she has identified or
attempted service on those defendants or that she is aware of their residency. See Percherski v.
General Motors Corp., 636 F.2d 1156 (8th Cir. 1981) (addressing removal in cases that include
Doe defendants); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Separate defendants Enoc Suero and American Van
Lines have no objection to Ms. Gordon’s motion for remand. The Court grants the motion for
remand to state court, but the Court makes no determination on the issue of the stipulated amount
in controversy (Dkt. No. 7). The Court directs the Clerk of Court to remand this action to the
Circuit Court of Pulaski County.
So ordered this the 10th day of October, 2017.
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?