McCollum v. Motorists Mutual Insurance Company
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Dft shall SHOW CAUSE on or before December 2, 2011 why this matter should not be remanded to Madison Circuit Court. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on November 21, 2011. (AWD) cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
LOWELL T. MCCOLLUM,
Plaintiff,
v.
MOTORISTS MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
**
**
)
)
) Civil Action No. 5:11-CV-370-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 [DE 1].
In that Complaint, Plaintiff avers
that he “has suffered ascertainable loss of money and property” as
the result of Defendant’s actions.
[DE 1-1 at 2,3].
While
Plaintiff does not specify an amount of damages sought, he avers
that
he
has
incurred
damages
in
an
amount
that
jurisdictional minimum of the Madison Circuit Court.1
exceeds
the
Id. at 4-5.
“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
1
Kentucky circuit courts are courts of general 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 cases in
which the amount in controversy does not exceed five thousand
dollars ($5,000), exclusive of interests and costs, meaning that
the amount in controversy must exceed $5,000.00 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.
defendants must prove that it is more likely than not that the
plaintiffs’ claims exceed $75,000.”
II,
593
F.
original).
Supp.
2d
958,
959
King v. Household Fin. Corp.
(E.D.
Ky.
2009)
(emphasis
in
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. at 960
(defendant offered “mere averments,” 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’”).
In the case at bar, Plaintiff avers that he suffered injury
due to Defendant’s alleged actions in connection with an insurance
policy issued to him by Defendant.
In its Notice of Removal,
Defendant relies on Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s Requests
for Admission, in which Defendant requested, “Admit that your
damages exclusive of costs and interest to do not exceed the sum of
$75,000.00.” [DE 1-3 at 1].
Plaintiff responded, “Admit, so long
as my attorney’s fees are not included.”
Id.
Contrary to
Defendant’s assertion, it is not “apparent” from this response that
Plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $75,000.00.
Further,
this admission does not satisfy Defendant’s burden of proving, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount-in-controversy
requirement is met.
Additionally, the Court takes notice of
2
Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate and Stay Discovery.
[DE 1-4].
In
the Motion, Defendant reports that Plaintiff previously demanded
$6,099 to replace the property covered by the insurance policy at
issue.
persuaded
Id. at 4.
that
the
Given this low figure, the Court is not
amount
in
controversy,
including
punitive
damages and attorney’s fees, exceeds the amount-in-controversy
requirement. 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 Court.
Accordingly, upon the Court’s own motion, IT IS ORDERED that
Defendant shall SHOW CAUSE on or before December 2, 2011 why this
matter should not be remanded to Madison Circuit Court.
This the 21st day of November, 2011.
3
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?