GRIGSBY et al v. DOE et al

Filing 23

MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson: Evidentiary Hearing held on 3/16/2015. The Court held an evidentiary hearing regarding the propriety of its diversity jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiffs were represented by counsel Bryan Maximino. Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm") was represented by counsel John Drummy and Eric Sanders. Thus, the Court finds it proper to exercise diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff Cand ice Grigsby's claims and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff Ann Grigsby-Ballard's claims at this time. The Court cautioned the parties, however, that if Defendant John Doe is later identified as an Indiana citizen, the Court would be required to remand this matter to state court at that time. (SEE ORDER FOR MORE.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson. (Court Reporter Jean Knepley.)(MRI)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
CANDICE GRIGSBY,
ANN GRIGSBY-BALLARD,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JOHN DOE, ONE,
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:14-cv-01956-JMS-DKL

ENTRY
On March 16, 2015, the Court held an evidentiary hearing regarding the propriety of its
diversity jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiffs were represented by counsel Bryan Maximino.
Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) was represented by
counsel John Drummy and Eric Sanders. The Court Reporter was Jean Knepley.
The Court first heard argument from State Farm, since it bears the burden of proof as the
proponent of jurisdiction. State Farm proffered Exhibit A—a January 2014 demand letter from
Plaintiffs—which was admitted without objection by Plaintiffs. The Court then heard argument
from Plaintiffs, followed by reply argument from State Farm.
After considering the parties’ jurisdictional filings, combined with the argument and
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court finds that at the time of removal, State Farm made a
plausible, good-faith estimate that the amount in controversy in this matter exceeded $75,000,
exclusive of interest and costs. See Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506, 511 (7th Cir. 2006).
Additionally, although “John Doe” defendants are typically not allowed in federal diversity suits,
“naming a John Doe defendant will not defeat the named defendants’ right to remove a diversity

case if their citizenship is diverse from that of the plaintiffs.” Howell v Tribune Entertainment
Co., 106 F.3d 215, 218 (7th Cir. 1997) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)) (emphasis added). Thus, the
Court finds it proper to exercise diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff Candice Grigsby’s claims and
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff Ann Grigsby-Ballard’s claims at this time. The Court
cautioned the parties, however, that if Defendant John Doe is later identified as an Indiana citizen,
the Court would be required to remand this matter to state court at that time.

March 16, 2015

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Electronic Distribution via CM/ECF:
John B. Drummy
KIGHTLINGER & GRAY
[e-mail]
R. Eric Sanders
KIGHTLINGER & GRAY
[e-mail]
Bryan Maximino
SCHILLER LAW OFFICES
[e-mail]