Murphy v. Baker et al

Filing 21

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 16 MOTION to Remand to State Court by Plaintiff Betty A. Murphy. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 2/24/2015. (lhc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION

Betty A. Murphy,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:14-cv-375-JVB-RBC

Russell W. Baker and,
KC Transportation,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Betty Murphy’s motion to remand the case to
state court for lack of jurisdiction. (DE 16.)

A. Background and Facts
Plaintiff filed her complaint with the Grant County Superior Court on September 3, 2014.
Plaintiff alleges that on September 24, 2012, Defendant Baker, driving for Defendant KC
Transportation, entered from the right to the left lane of southbound Interstate 69 and struck the
back of her vehicle. Plaintiff also claims Defendant Baker was driving too fast and failed to keep
a reasonable look-out before entering into Plaintiff’s lane. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
Baker’s semi-truck pushed Plaintiff’s vehicle into the median.
On November 26, 2014, Defendants Baker and KC Transportation removed the case
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2012). (DE 1.) Defendants assert that this Court has jurisdiction

because the action is between two individuals and a corporation, all from differing states.
Plaintiff is a citizen of Indiana, Defendant Baker is a citizen of Kentucky, and KC Transportation
has its principle place of business and is incorporated in Maine. Regarding the amount in
controversy, Defendants claim that “[w]hile Plaintiffs Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
damages[,] on . . . October 29, 2014, Plaintiff refused to admit her damages are less than
$75,000” and thus “the amount in controversy exclusive of interest and costs is greater than
$75,000, the jurisdictional threshold required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).” (DE 1 ¶ 9.)
On December 11, 2014, Plaintiff moved to remand the case to the Grant Superior Court,
asserting Defendants failed to establish that the amount in controversy is over $75,000. In
support of this, Plaintiff submits that, before filing the complaint, she “made a demand of
$66,086.15” and since has not asked for an amount more than $75,000. (DE 16 ¶ 6.)

B. Analysis
(1) Diversity Jurisdiction
Federal diversity jurisdiction requires that the suit in question be between “citizens of
different States” and the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
An amount in controversy must be the amount required to satisfy a plaintiff’s demands in
full on the day the suit begins or the day the suit was removed. Oshana v. Coca–Cola Co., 472
F.3d 506, 510–11 (7th Cir. 2006). After removal, the burden is on the defendant to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy requirement is met. Id. at 511. If a

plaintiff is not clear in the amount in controversy when asked, a good faith estimate is acceptable
if feasible and supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.
Here, Defendants sent Plaintiff a request for admission asking whether “the total of all
Plaintiff’s damages, tangible and intangible, arising from the accident for which Plaintiff seeks
compensation is less than $75,000.” (DE 19 ¶ 11.) Plaintiff objected to the request stating that
“discovery is ongoing and Plaintiff has not calculated the damages she will ask the jury to
allocate.” (DE 19 ¶ 11.) By refusing to respond to Defendants’ demand, Plaintiff was unwilling
to confirm that the amount in controversy was for less than $75,000. “[I]f the plaintiff does not
stipulate to damages of $75,000 or less, ‘the inference arises that he thinks this claim may be
worth more.’” Oshana, 472 F.3d at 512 (citing Workman v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 234 F.3d
998, 1000 (7th Cir. 2000)). A party may defeat removal “simply by stipulating that he is not
seeking and will neither demand nor accept any recovery in excess of $75,000 exclusive of costs
and interest.” Workman, 234 F.3d at 1000 (citing In re Shell Oil Co., 970 F.2d 355, 356 (7th Cir.
1992)).
Plaintiff argues that she had already stated that she would not be seeking damages in
excess of $75,000 when she sent Defendants a demand letter to settle the case for $66,000. Yet,
such letters don’t suffice for the purpose of evaluating the amount in controversy. While
somewhat informative, the letter was sent long before the lawsuit was even filed. As such, it
bears little weight in the Court’s consideration.
In making their estimate, Defendants point out that Plaintiff has not provided an updated
damage total since the accident and Plaintiff’s spinal injuries may be permanent, thus requiring
continuous care for the rest of her life. (DE 19 ¶ 14, Ex. B.) Plaintiff advised Defendants in the

request for admission that she will be seeking damages for her pain, suffering, and lost time. (DE
19 ¶ 11, 14, Ex. B.) These factors, combined with Plaintiff’s refusal to assert her damages are
less than $75,000, show that Defendants have a good faith estimate that Plaintiff’s damages will
exceed $75,000.
C. Conclusion
Plaintiff’s motion to remand (DE 16) is denied.

SO ORDERED on February 24, 2015.

s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE