Hulbert v. Singh et al
ORDER OF REMAND: Case remanded to Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 4/13/2018. (mah)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
HJM TRANSPORT, INC., and
BRS EXPRESS, INC.,
Case No. 18-CV-544-SMY-RJD
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Pursuant to the Court’s obligation to raise sua sponte whether it has subject matter
jurisdiction, (Craig v. Ontario Corp., 543 F.3d 872, 875 (7th Cir. 2008)), and having reviewed
the Notice of Removal in this case (Doc. 1), the Court finds that Defendants insufficiently
pleaded diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of
St. Clair County, Illinois.
Plaintiff Kathy Hulbert filed suit against Defendants Paramjt Singh, HJM Transport, Inc.,
and BRS Express, Inc. on February 6, 2018, alleging that she sustained personal injuries in an
automobile accident. The lawsuit was originally filed in the Circuit Court of St. Clair, Illinois.
Federal subject matter jurisdiction is alleged on the basis of diversity of citizenship pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1332.
A civil action may be removed to federal court if the district court has original
jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Courts have original jurisdiction of civil actions if there is
complete diversity between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive
Page 1 of 3
of interest and costs. Jurisdiction depends on the amount in controversy when the federal suit
began. Meridian Sec. Ins. v. Sandowski, 441 F.3d 536, 538 (7th Cir. 2006). The amount in
controversy stated in the plaintiff’s Complaint generally controls, unless it is legally impossible.
Rising-Moore v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., 435 F.3d 813, 815 (7th Cir. 2006). If the Complaint does
not establish the amount in controversy, the party invoking federal jurisdiction can use other
evidence. Meridian, 441 F.3d at 541-42; Chase v. Shop N’ Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110
F.3d 424, 427-28 (7th Cir. 1997).
Jurisdictional facts must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Meridian,
441 F.3d at 540. The removing party’s burden is to show “what the plaintiff hopes to get out of
the litigation.” Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446, 449 (7th Cir. 2005)
(“[P]art of the removing party's burden is to show not only what the stakes of the litigation could
be, but also what they are given the plaintiff's actual demands.”). The removal statute is
construed narrowly and any doubts regarding jurisdiction are resolved in favor of remand. Doe
v. Allied–Signal, Inc., 985 F.2d 908, 911 (7th Cir. 1993). The burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction falls on the party seeking removal.
If the district court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, the action must be remanded to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Id.
In this case, Plaintiff’s Complaint requests judgment “in an amount more than
$50,000.00” (Doc. 1-1). Defendants assert that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000
based on Plaintiff’s allegations that she sustained temporary and permanent injuries and will
"incur large sums of money in endeavoring to become cured of the said injuries" (Doc. 1, p. 2).
These allegations are insufficient to establish the amount in controversy.
Because Defendants have not provided the Court with any competent evidence indicating
that the amount in controversy actually exceeds $75,000, they have failed to meet their burden to
Page 2 of 3
provide the Court with a plausible basis for concluding that the amount in controversy exceeds
the jurisdictional requirement. See McMillian v. Sheraton Chi. Hotel & Towers, 567 F.3d 839,
844–45 (7th Cir. 2009) (finding claims for “future medical expenses” and “pain and suffering”
could not account for jurisdictional shortfall without competent proof). Therefore, this Court
does not have proper subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and is obligated, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1447(c), to REMAND the case to the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 13, 2018
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge
Page 3 of 3
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?