Crawford et al v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc.

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Dft shall Show Cause by 4/2/2013 why this matter should not be remanded to Jessamine Circuit Court. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 3/12/2013.(STB)cc: COR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
JAMES LEE CRAWFORD, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
KOHL’S DEPARTMENT STORES,
INC.,
Defendant.

Civil Case No. 13-cv-65-JMH

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

***

Upon a review of the Defendant’s Notice of Removal [DE 1],
as well as Plaintiffs’ Complaint [DE 1-1], which was originally
filed in Jessamine Circuit Court, the Court calls into question
its jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
The

district

courts

“have

original

jurisdiction

of

all

civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value

of

between

$75,000,

.

.

1332(a)(1).

.

exclusive

citizens

of

of

interests

different

and

costs

and

is

28

U.S.C.

§

states.”

Further, “any civil action brought in a State court

of which the district courts of the United States have original
jurisdiction,
district

may

court

be

of

removed

the

by

United

the

States

defendant.
for

the

.

.

to

the

district

and

division embracing the place where such action is pending.”
U.S.C. §1441(a).
jurisdiction

is

28

In this instance, the Court is concerned that
lacking

because

nowhere

in

the

record

has

Defendant come forward with competent proof to show that it is
more likely than not that Plaintiffs’ claims exceed $75,000
“The objection that a federal court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, see Fed. Rule Civ. P. 12(b)(1), may be raised by a
party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any stage in the
litigation even after trial and the entry of judgment.”
v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006).

Arbaugh

Indeed, this Court has

“an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter
jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any
party.”
Co.,

Id. at 514; see also Freeland v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins.

632

F.3d

250,

252

(6th

Cir.

2011).

It

is

with

this

obligation in mind that the Court undertakes this inquiry at
this time.
In

their

Complaint,

Plaintiffs

aver

that

they

suffered

injury due to the negligence of Defendant with respect to the
condition

of

Defendant.

the

premises

at

a

store

owned

and

operated

by

Specifically, Plaintiff James Lee Crawford alleges

that he tripped on a display protruding into an aisle at a store
in Nicholasville, Kentucky.
that

he

“suffered

severe

[DE 1, Compl. at ¶1.]
and

permanent

mental

He complains
and

physical

injuries which have resulted in, and will continue to result in,
medical

expenses

and

pain

and

suffering.”

[Id.

at

¶

3.]

Plaintiff Norma Crawford alleges that she has suffered “the loss
of enjoyment with her husband, .. . . loss of consortium and the

normal

services

Crawford”

and

and

will

assistance
continue

future.

[Id. at ¶4.]

varying

types

of

of

to

her

suffer

husband,
these

James

losses

Lee

in

the

Plaintiffs seek unspecified amount of
damages

which

“exceed

the

minimum

jurisdictional requirements” of the Jessamine Circuit Court.
As to the amount in controversy, Defendant offers nothing
more than stating that “upon information and belief, the amount
in

controversy

exceeds

$75,000.00

in

damages,

exclusive

of

interests and costs” and that because “Plaintiffs have placed no
limitation on their prayer for relief . . . [,] it is apparent
that

the

amount

in

controversy

exceeds

the

minimum

jurisdictional amount” for diversity jurisdiction in this Court.
It

is

not,

however,

as

apparent

as

Defendant

claims.

Rather, “[i]n 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).
competent

proof

showing

Defendants must come forward with
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
competent

(E.D.Ky. May 10, 2010) (holding that there was no

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 the Notice of Removal, Defendant relies solely on the
averments of Plaintiffs’ Complaint in an attempt to demonstrate
the requisite amount-in-controversy.

This is not enough, and,

unless Defendants 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 Jessamine Circuit Court.
Accordingly and upon the Court’s own motion, IT IS ORDERED
that Defendant shall SHOW CAUSE on or before April 2, 2013, why
this matter should not be remanded to Jessamine Circuit Court.
This the 12th day of March, 2013.