Clark v. Welspun Tubular LLC

Filing 11

ORDER denying 5 Motion to Remand. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 2/14/12. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

MICHAEL CLARK, on
behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated
v.

PLAINTIFF
No.5:11-cv-321-DPM
DEFENDANT

WELSPUN TUBULAR LLC
ORDER

The Court denies the motion to remand. The complaint does not
include a comprehensive stipulation capping recovery in all forms.

Cf

Rolwing v. Nestle Holdings, Inc., No. 11-3445, 2012 WL 301030 (8th Cir. 2

February 2012); Murphy v. Reebok Int'l, Ltd., No. 4:11-cv-214-DPM, 2011 WL
1559234 (E.D. Ark. 22 April 2011). Through the Withee affidavit and related
math, Welspun has proved by a preponderance that the amount in
controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. In re Minnesota Mut. Life Ins.
Co. Sales Practices Litigation, 346 F.3d 830,834 (8th Cir. 2003); Advance America
Servicing of Arkansas, Inc. v. McGinnis, 526 F.3d 1170, 1173 (8th Cir. 2008).

Clark has not stipulated, for example, that he will accept no attorney's fee that
would push his total recovery across the jurisdictional line. Welspun having
carried its burden under the cases, Clark must show to a legal certainty that
II

the claim is for less than the requisite amount." Bell v. Hershey Co., 557 F.3d
953,956 (8th Cir. 2009). He has not done so. Motion to remand, Document No.
5, denied.
So Ordered.

-2­