Huck v. Target Corporation

Filing 26

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 20 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Remand to State Court filed by Natalie M Huck. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 12/4/12. (cc: Certified Copies of Docket Sheet, Order and Clerk's Judgment to Allen Superior Court). (cer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
NATALIE M. HUCK,
Plaintiff,
v.
TARGET CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:12 CV 249

OPINION and ORDER
On May 31, 2012, plaintiff Natalie M. Huck filed suit against defendant Target
Corporation in Indiana state court alleging that she was sexually assaulted on
defendant’s property due to defendant’s negligence. (DE # 1.) Defendant removed the
suit to federal court on July 20, 2012, claiming that jurisdiction was proper under 28
U.S.C. § 1332. That section provides: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction
of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different
States.” Id. § 1332(a).
Plaintiff then moved for dismissal and asked this court to remand this case back
to state court because she was not setting forth a claim or demand exceeding $75,000.00.
(DE # 20.) In a two-page response, defendant argued that plaintiff waited three months
after removal to file her motion to dismiss, so her motion should be denied. (DE # 24.)
Defendant overlooks the fact that subject matter jurisdiction may be challenged
“at any time before final judgment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the

court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must
dismiss the action.”). Defendant cites cases where plaintiffs impermissibly attempted to
amend their complaint or stipulate to a limitation in damages in order to avoid
diversity jurisdiction, but this is not the case here. This is not a case where plaintiff
previously claimed damages in excess of $75,000.00, but has now changed her tune. In
this case, plaintiff has never claimed that measure of damages, and she may properly
contest removal at this point in the litigation.
Defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that
the “amount in controversy” requirement is satisfied. Meridian Sec. Ins. Co. v. Sadowski,
441 F.3d 536, 540 (7th Cir. 2006). However, defendant has made no real attempt to do
so. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to dismiss this case and remand this matter to
Indiana state court is GRANTED. (DE # 20.)
SO ORDERED.
Date: December 4, 2012
s/James T. Moody________________
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT