Watkins v. Oscar G. Carlstedt Company
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: the court's 3 order of 7/20/11 is DISCHARGED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 7/22/11.(KJR)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
OSCAR G. CARLSTEDT COMPANY
Civil Action No. 5:11-224-JMH
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On July 20, 2011 this Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and
Order [Record No. 3] requiring Defendant to show cause why this
Specifically, the Court was of the opinion that it lacked original
jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and that this
matter had been improperly removed to this Court under 28 U.S.C. §
1441 in the absence of any competent proof of an amount in
controversy which exceeds $75,000.
Defendants have now filed a Response [Record No. 4], detailing
the basis for its belief that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. Defendant relies on Plaintiff’s admission that the amount
of damages exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
The defendants “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).
This Court is of
the opinion that Defendants have shown by competent proof that it
is more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. See King, 593 F.Supp.2d at 959.
The Court is satisfied
that it has original jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332, and that the action was properly removed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Court’s Order [Record No.
3] of July 20, 2011, is DISCHARGED.
This the 22nd day of July, 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?