Watkins v. Oscar G. Carlstedt Company

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER - dfts shall SHOW CAUSE by 7/27/2011 why this matter should not be remanded to Fayette Circuit Court. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 07/20/2011.(RJD)cc: COR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
VICKI WATKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
OSCAR G. CARLSTEDT COMPANY
Defendant.
**

**

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 5:11-224-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
Fayette Circuit Court [Record No. 1].
In that Complaint, Plaintiff avers that Defendant negligently
maintained the parking lot on its premises, which resulted in her
injury.

[Compl. at ¶¶ 3-9.]

Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages

for past and future medical expenses, permanent impairment of her
ability to earn money as well as physical and mental pain and
suffering.

[Compl. at ¶¶ 7-9.]

Plaintiff does not specify an

amount of damages, and Defendant states only that “[b]ased upon
information and belief, Oscar G. Carlstedt Company believes that
the Plaintiff’s aggregate claim for damages is in excess of
$75,000.00...” [Record No. 1, ¶ 6.]
“In cases like the one at hand, ‘where the plaintiff seeks to
recover some unspecified amount that is not self-evidently greater

-1-

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)). Defendants must come
forward with competent proof showing that the amount-in-controversy
requirement is satisfied and speculation is not sufficient to meet
this burden.

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
in

controversy

threshold

is

met’”).

See

also

Hackney

v.

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
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 does not specify what
information

it

relies

on

for

the

basis

that

the

amount

in

controversy exceeds $75,000. While it appears from the record that
Defendant propounded a Request for Admission regarding the amount

-2-

in controversy to the Plaintiff, Defendant fails to identify
whether it was a response to this document (or the lack of response
to that document) or some other information on which it relies.
The information provided is not alone sufficient, 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 Fayette Circuit Court.
Accordingly, upon the Court’s own motion, IT IS ORDERED that
Defendants shall SHOW CAUSE on or before July 27, 2011, why this
matter should not be remanded to Fayette Circuit Court.
This the 20th day of July, 2011.

-3-