Bowles v. Horwedel

Filing 21

ORDER OF REMAND: Case remanded to Madison County, Illinois Circuit Court as the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Order GRANITING 13 MOTION to Remand filed by Diana Bowles and denying as moot 6 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim in Count II of Plaintiff's Complaint filed by Sue Horwedel. See Order for details. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 11/5/15. (klh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DIANA L. BOWLES,
d/b/a LADYDI PERSIANS,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 15-0946-DRH

SUE HORWEDEL,
d/b/a STERLINGPAWS,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Introduction and Background
Pending before the Court is plaintiff Diana L. Bowles’ motion to remand
(Doc. 13). Defendant Sue Horwedel opposes the motion (Doc. 17). Based on the
following, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, grants the
motion to remand and remands this matter to the Madison County, Illinois Circuit
Court.
On August 25, 2015, Horwedel removed this case to this Court based on
diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Doc. 1). Horwedel maintains that Bowles’
August 3, 2015 first amended small claim complaint indicated, for the first time,
that the amount in controversy met the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000 to

Page 1 of 4

confer subject matter jurisdiction. 1 This dispute arises out of a purported breach
of contract for the breeding of a certain Persian cat. Bowles claims that Horwedel,
after receiving the female cat for breeding, simply reneged on her alleged
contractual obligations and returned the subject cat to plaintiff in poor health and
with no basis for doing so.
On September 4, 2015, Horwedel filed a motion to dismiss Count II (Doc. 6).
Thereafter, Bowles filed the motion to remand arguing that the amount in
controversy has not been met (Doc. 13). Horwedel opposes the motion to remand
(Doc. 17). Based on the following, the Court grants the motion.
Analysis
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may only hear cases
authorized by the Constitution or Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of

Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the
burden

of

establishing

the

existence

of

the

district

court's

original jurisdiction. Hart v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 457 F.3d 675,
679 (7th Cir. 2006). Any uncertainty as to federal jurisdiction must be resolved in
favor of remand. Doe v. Allied–Signal, Inc., 985 F.2d 908, 911 (7th Cir. 1993).
Horwedel removed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 whereby district
courts have jurisdiction over a civil action exceeding $75,000 and between diverse
parties. The parties do not contest diversity, and Horwedel properly pleaded

1Originally on September 4, 2014, Bowles filed a small claim complaint against Horwedel in the
Madison County, Illinois Circuit Court for $10,000.00 for breach of contract (Doc. 1-1, ps. 1-2).

Page 2 of 4

diversity in its notice of removal. The amount in controversy, however, is at issue
in the instant motion.
The amount in controversy in

a

case

removed

from state court

is

“the amount required to satisfy the plaintiff's demands in full on the day ... the
suit was removed.” Oshana v. CocaCola Co., 472 F.3d 506, 510–11 (7th Cir.
2006) (citing BEM I, L.L.C. v. Anthropologie, Inc., 301 F.3d 548, 552 (7th Cir.
2002)). A plaintiff may prevent removal by stipulating that damages will not exceed
$75,000. Oshana, 472

F.3d

511 (citing BEM

at

I, L.L.C., 301 F.3d at

552; Workman v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 234 F.3d 998, 1000 (7th Cir. 2000)).
Here, the first amended complaint is a small claims complaint that seeks in
excess of $50,000.00 and but not to exceed $75,000.00 (Doc. 1-3. p. 4). Further,
Bowles’ first amended complaint contained an affidavit attesting the same (Docs.
1-1, p. 33 and 1-3, p. 8). Bowles properly avoided federal court jurisdiction by
filing an affidavit along with her first amended small claim complaint
stipulating/limiting

damages

to

below

$75,000.00

As

such,

this

Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim and must remand the case
to state court.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Bowles’ motion to remand (Doc. 13) and
DENIES as moot the motion to dismiss Count II (Doc. 6). Because the Court lacks

Page 3 of 4

subject matter jurisdiction over Bowles’ cause of action, the Court REMANDS this
case to the Madison County, Illinois Circuit Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 5th day of November, 2015.

Digitally signed by
Judge David R.
Herndon
Date: 2015.11.05
16:36:46 -06'00'

United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4