Daly v. Home Depot USA Inc The

Filing 15

OPINION AND ORDER: REMANDING CASE back to Lake Superior Court. The request for attorney's fees contained in Daly's 13 RESPONSE to 12 Statement of Defendant Home Depot Regarding Plaintiff's Damages is DENIED. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 6/17/2015. (lhc)(cc: Certified copy of Order/Docket sheet to Lake Superior Court)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
LINDA DALY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.,
Defendant.

No. 2:15-CV-79

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Notice of Removal filed
on March 4, 2015.

For the reasons set forth below, the case is

REMANDED back to the Lake Superior Court, Indiana, on the basis
that

this

Court

lacks

subject

matter

jurisdiction

over

this

controversy. Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees, contained in
the response brief (DE #13) is DENIED.

BACKGROUND
Linda Daly (“Daly”) filed a complaint in the Lake Superior
Court on January 22, 2015, alleging that her prior employer, Home
Depot, U.S.A. Inc. (“Home Depot”), falsely imprisoned her in
violation of Indiana law.

Home Depot filed a notice of removal

with this Court on March 4, 2015, asserting that this Court has
jurisdiction because the parties are of diverse citizenship and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

On May 18, 2015, this Court indicated that Home Depot had not
yet met its burden of demonstrating a factual basis for its belief
that Daly’s claims are valued in excess of $75,000.

The Court

directed Home Depot to file a statement demonstrating the basis for
its assertion that the amount in controversy is in excess of
$75,000.
On June 9, 2015, Home Depot filed a statement that, in
substance, states only the following:
1.
Plaintiff Linda Daly alleges a false
imprisonment claim against Home Depot arising
out of an incident that occurred on September
10, 2014. As a result of the alleged false
imprisonment, Daly claims that she was forced
to sign a document admitting fault and
acknowledging a debt owed to Home Depot in
excess of $50,000.
2. She also claims to have suffered mental
anguish, severe emotional distress, and public
humiliation.
3.
Accordingly, Daly’s claim that she was
forced to sign a document admitting a debt to
Home Depot in excess of $50,000, when combined
with her claims for mental anguish, several
[sic]
emotional
distress
and
public
humiliation, establish that her claims, in
total,
exceed
the
Court’s
$75,000
jurisdictional threshold.
(DE #12).
In response, Daly has indicated that the reference in her
complaint to the $50,000 debt was made to show the “extent to which
The Home Depot went to obtain an acknowledgment of an unsupported,
unproven theft or loss.” (DE #13 at 2). The reference to the
$50,000 debt was not raised as a category of damages stemming from

2

her alleged false arrest.

Counsel for Daly further indicates in

his response that he offered to enter into a stipulation to limit
damages to $75,000 before the May 14, 2015, pre-trial conference
and again at the conference.

Both times counsel for Home Depot

indicated he would need to check with his client. Counsel for Daly
also requests attorney’s fees.
In reply, counsel for Home Depot alleges that the statement in
response to this Court’s jurisdictional concerns was filed after
reading only the text of the docket entry, not the Court’s order.
Apparently the order was somehow overlooked.
Depot

suggests

that,

had

he

read

the

Counsel for Home

order,

he

would

have

understood that the Court had concerns and provided a more detailed
statement. Yet, the reply offers no more information to support
Home Depot’s jurisdictional claims than either the Notice of
Removal or the initial statement filed on June 9, 2015.

While

urging the Court to find that it has jurisdiction, Home Depot’s
counsel also states that the offer to stipulate that damages were
below the amount in controversy was never rejected and “Home Depot
stands ready and willing to allow the matter to be remanded to
State Court in exchange for the stipulation.”

(DE #14 at 3).

Despite the apparent agreement of the parties that a stipulation
that damages are less than $75,000 is appropriate, no stipulation
has been filed with the Court.

3

DISCUSSION
Home Depot has the burden of showing that this case was
removable.

Wellness Cmty-Nat’l v. Wellness House, 70 F.3d 46, 49

(7th Cir. 1995); Fate v. Buckeye State Mut. Ins. Co., 174 F.Supp.2d
876, 878 (N.D. Ind. 2001) (“when a federal court’s exercise of
jurisdiction

is

challenged

following

removal,

the

burden

of

establishing federal jurisdiction rests on the party seeking to
preserve removal.”); Roberson v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., 770
F. Supp. 1324, 1328 (N.D. Ind. 1991).
The federal courts have limited jurisdiction.
F.3d at 50.

Wellness, 70

A federal court has diversity jurisdiction where the

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties to the suit
are citizens of different states.

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

A

defendant may remove a case that is properly filed in state court
if that case could have originally been brought in federal court.
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
Here, Home Depot has made almost no effort to satisfy this
Court’s jurisdictional concerns.

The complaint does not seek to

invalidate the document acknowledging a debt to Home Depot of
$50,000,

does

not

allege

that

any

portion

of

that

debt

was

satisfied, and does not seek the return of any sums paid as a
result of this agreement.

In fact, the only damages the complaint

appears to seek are damages for mental anguish, severe emotional
distress, and public humiliation as a result of being held by her

4

employer for a period of approximately six hours, arrested, taken
to the police station, and released without charges being filed
against her.

These facts, when combined with counsel for Daly’s

willingness to stipulate that damages are less than $75,000 and
counsel for Home Depot’s stated willingness to accept such a
stipulation, demonstrated that remand is proper.
The only other issue is whether Daly should be awarded
attorney’s fees.

As the Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he process

of removing a case to federal court and then having it remanded
back

to

state

court

delays

resolution

of

the

case,

imposes

additional costs on both parties, and wastes judicial resources.”
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 140 (2005).

Under

Seventh Circuit law, “if, at the time the defendant filed his
notice in federal court, clearly established law demonstrated that
he had no basis for removal, then a district court should award a
plaintiff his attorneys’ fees.”

Lott v. Pfizer, Inc., 492 F.3d

789, 793 (7th Cir. 2007).
As the court in Parks v. Guidant Corp., 402 F.Supp.2d 964, 971
(N.D. Ind. 2005), stated:
The district court has a broad discretion in
deciding whether to award fees under § 1447(c). In
this circuit, plaintiffs who prevail on a remand
motion are presumptively entitled to attorneys’
fees. The presumption, of course, is rebuttable.
Home Depot’s reply does not address Daly’s request for attorney’s
fees.

The Court notes that counsel for Daly, as an officer of the

5

Court, has asserted that he offered to stipulate that damages were
under $75,000 twice prior to the filing of Home Depot’s statement
in support of jurisdiction.
dispute this assertion.
of attorney’s fees.

Counsel for Home Depot does not

This weight in favor of granting an award

Nonetheless, Home Depot’s belief that the

amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal,
based on the categories of damages claimed and the allegations
regarding the forced promise to pay Home Depot over $50,000,
support a finding that Home Depot’s position was not unreasonable.
Accordingly, the request for attorney’s fees is DENIED.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the case is REMANDED back to
the Lake Superior Court, Indiana, on the basis that this Court
lacks

subject

matter

jurisdiction

over

this

controversy.

Additionally, the request for attorney’s fees contained in Daly’s
response brief (DE # 13) is DENIED.

DATED: June 17, 2015

/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court

6