Kelley v. Proctor & Gamble Dist., LLC
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Dft shall SHOW CAUSE on or before 7/8/2011, why this matter should not be remanded to Madison Circuit Court. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 6/23/2011.(GLD)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
DONNA S. KELLEY,
PROCTOR & GAMBLE
Civil Action No. 5:11-194-JMH
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Notice of Removal filed in this
matter, as well as the Complaint, which was originally filed in
Madison Circuit Court [Record No. 1].
In that Complaint, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Proctor &
Gamble Distributing, LLC is liable to her under theories of
[Compl., Counts I-IV.]
Plaintiff seeks compensatory
damages including pain and suffering, medical expenses and loss of
earning capacity, as well as punitive damages. [Compl. ¶¶ 12, 18,
26, 28.] Plaintiff does not specify an amount of damages except to
state that she seeks “compensatory damages in an amount in excess
of the jurisdictional limits of [Madison Circuit] Court.”1 [Id. at
jurisdiction, having “original jurisdiction of all justiciable
causes not exclusively vested in some other court.” KRS § 23A.010.
Kentucky district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over civil
“In cases like the one at hand, ‘where the plaintiff seeks to
recover some unspecified amount that is not self-evidently greater
or less than the federal amount-in-controversy requirement,’ the
defendant must show that it is more likely than not that the
plaintiff's claims exceed $75,000."
King v. Household Finance
Corp. II, 593 F.Supp.2d 958, 959 (E.D. Ky. 2009) (emphasis in
original)(quoting Gafford v. Gen. Elec. Co., 997 F.2d 150, 158 (6th
Cir. 1993)(abrogated on other grounds)).
Defendant must come
forward with competent proof showing that the amount-in-controversy
requirement is satisfied and speculation is not sufficient to meet
Id. (holding that defendant offered “mere averments”
and not “competent proof” where notice of removal stated only that
“in light of the plaintiffs' claims for compensatory damages,
punitive damages, and attorney fees, ‘it is clear that the amount
Thibodeaux, Civil Action No. 10-35-JBC, 2010 WL 1872875, *2
(E.D.Ky. May 10, 2010) (holding that there was no competent
evidence of requisite amount in controversy where defendant relied
on plaintiff’s pleading which sought to recover past and future
medical expenses, lost wages, future impairment of the power to
cases in which the amount in controversy does not exceed four
thousand dollars ($4,000), exclusive of interest and costs, meaning
that the amount in controversy must exceed $4,000.00 in order for
jurisdiction of a civil matter to lie in the circuit court of a
given county. See KRS §§ 23A.010 and 24A.120.
earn money, and past and future pain and suffering and mental
anguish for injuries which are “serious and permanent in nature.”).
In its Notice of Removal, Defendant appears to rely solely on
the averments of Plaintiff’s Complaint in an attempt to demonstrate
Plaintiff’s alleged bases for damages, and then stating “The amount
in controversy, therefore, exceeds $75,000.00.” [Record No. 1 at ¶
This is not enough, and, unless Defendant can offer some
competent proof of an amount in controversy which exceeds $75,000,
the Court is of the opinion that it lacks jurisdiction over this
matter and that the matter should be remanded to Madison Circuit
Accordingly, upon the Court’s own motion, IT IS ORDERED that
Defendant shall SHOW CAUSE on or before July 8, 2011, why this
matter should not be remanded to Madison Circuit Court.
This the 23rd day of June, 2011.
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?