Konstantinidis v. First Student Inc.

Filing 20

AMENDED ORDER denying Motion. Amending 19 Order denying 13 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 12/16/14.(Blough, B.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

GIORGIOS KONSTANTINIDIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 3:14-cv-00844 (JAM)

FIRST STUDENT, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND
Following defendant’s removal of this case from state court, plaintiff has moved to
remand for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The parties agree that there is diversity of
citizenship, but disagree over whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been met,
because the plaintiff has not explicitly alleged an amount greater than $75,000. In order to
exercise jurisdiction on the basis of diversity when an action has been removed from state court,
the Court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Where, as here, plaintiff has declined
to stipulate as to the amount in controversy, the Court must “conduct an evidentiary inquest” to
determine whether the requirement has been met, looking at evidence outside the pleadings
where necessary. Luce v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc., 2014 WL 2169000, at *2 (D. Conn. 2014).
Plaintiff sues under a Connecticut statute that creates a cause of action for an employee
who has been discharged or discriminated against for having filed a workers’ compensation
claim. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-290a(b)(1). The employee may seek reinstatement, payment of
back wages, reestablishment of employee benefits, and any other damages (including punitive

1

damages), as well as a mandatory award of reasonable attorneys’ fees to a prevailing employee.
Ibid.
Defendant has easily carried its burden to show an amount in controversy that is more
than $75,000. Plaintiff’s salary for the last two years of his employment totaled over $110,000,
and plaintiff has provided no suggestion of any other employment during the two years during
which he was allegedly able but not allowed to return to work. Back pay alone for that period
would more likely than not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement, before considering
any damages for emotional distress, punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees (which
may be used to satisfy the amount in controversy when recoverable as a matter of statutory right,
Kimm v. KCC Trading, Inc., 449 F. App’x. 85, 85–86 (2d Cir. 2012)).
When a plaintiff refuses to stipulate as to whether she will seek damages in excess of
$75,000, and defendant cites to damages awards exceeding $75,000 in other similar cases, a
court may find that the defendant has met its burden as to the amount in controversy. Semack v.
35 Hamden Hills Drive, LLC, 2013 WL 395486, at *2 (D. Conn. 2013). Defendant persuasively
points to three cases in which plaintiffs have recovered more than $75,000 under the same
statute. See Sorrrentino v. All Seasons Servs., Inc., 245 Conn. 756, 772 (1998) (affirming a
judgment of $115,000 for emotional distress and directing the trial court to award approximately
$50,000 in attorneys’ fees); Oakes v. New England Dairies, Inc., 219 Conn. 1, 11 (1991)
(affirming a judgment of $165,000 for economic damages and mental/emotional distress and
$40,000 in attorneys’ fees); Lapre v. W&K Property Servs., LLC, 2014 WL 783653, at *4 (Conn.
Super. Ct. 2014) (awarding $52,040 for back pay of wage loss minus earnings in other
employment, and nearly $80,000 in attorneys’ fees).

2

Therefore, I find that defendant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED.
It is so ordered.
Dated at Bridgeport this 16th day of December 2014.

/s/
Jeffrey Alker Meyer
United States District Judge

3