McCulley v. Emich Dodge LLC et al

Filing 12

ORDER Remanding Case by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 5/23/2013. (klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Honorable Marcia S. Krieger
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01226-MSK
THULA MCCULLEY
Plaintiff,
v.
EMICH DODGE, LLC, d/b/a Go Dodge Arapahoe;
CENTENNIAL AUTOMOTIVE, LLC, d/b/a Go Dodge Arapahoe; and
REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendants.
ORDER REMANDING CASE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court sua sponte upon receipt of the Defendants’
Notice of Removal (#1). The Plaintiff, Thula McCulley, commenced this action in the Colorado
District Court for Boulder County, asserting claims for negligence and premises liability. The
Defendants removed the case to this Court, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as the basis for jurisdiction.
A civil action is removable only if the plaintiff could have originally brought the action in
federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The Court is required to remand “[i]f at any time before
final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c). Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 exists when the case involves a dispute
between citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)(1). As the party invoking the federal court’s jurisdiction, the Defendants bear the
burden of establishing that the requirements for the exercise of diversity jurisdiction are met. See
Huffman v. Saul Holdings Ltd. P’ship, 194 F.3d 1072, 1079 (10th Cir. 1999).

1

In removed cases, the amount in controversy must be evident from the allegations of
either the Complaint or the Notice of Removal. See Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873
(10th Cir. 1995); Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 251 F.3d 1284, 1290 (10th Cir. 2001).
Here, neither the Complaint nor the Notice of Removal expressly quantifies the amount
in controversy. Instead, the Defendants rely solely on the “Civil Cover Sheet” preceding the
Complaint to establish the amount in controversy. On the cover sheet, the Plaintiff checked the
box to indicate that she is seeking a monetary judgment in excess of $100,000, and thus the case
is not subject to C.R.C.P. 16.1.
For the reasons stated in Baker v. Sears Holdings Corp., 557 F.Supp.2d 1208 (D.Colo.
2007), the Court finds that, in the absence of additional facts, the Defendants’ reliance on the
Civil Cover Sheet is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for purpose of
establishing federal diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over this action and the case must be remanded to the State Court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the case is REMANDED to the Boulder County
District Court. The Clerk of the Court shall take appropriate action to accomplish the remand.
Dated this 23rd day of May, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger
Chief United States District Judge

2