Selby v. Pampered Chef, Ltd. et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Defendants shall SHOW CAUSE within 14 days of entry of this order why this matter should not be remanded toMercer Circuit Court. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 2/28/2014.(STC)cc: COR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
SHANA SELBY,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE PAMPERED CHEF, LTD., et
al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Case No. 14-cv-75-JMH

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

***
The Court has reviewed the Notice of Removal filed in this
matter by Defendant Makray Manufacturing Company (“Makray”) and
in which Defendant The Pampered Chef, Ltd. (“Pampered Chef”),
has joined.

[DE 1.]

In

Amended

the

Complaint,

Plaintiff

claims

injury

as

a

result of the defective condition of, absence of adequate or
proper warnings and instructions for, design defects in, and
design misrepresentations, negligence, and breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose
with respect to a micro cooker pot sold and/or manufactured by
the Defendants.
of damages.

[DE 1-1.]

Plaintiff does not specify an amount

[Id.]

“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).
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, Defendants rely solely on their
comparison of the language of the originally filed Complaint
with that of the Amended Complaint to establish the amount in
controversy.
Defendant

The Complaint, which made averments only against

Pampered

Chef,

averred
2

damages

“in

excess

of

the

minimum jurisdictional requirements of the Mercer Circuit Court
but . . . not in excess of $75,000.”

[DE 1-1 at 3, ¶4.]

The

Amended Complaint, which makes averments against both Pampered
Chef and Makray, states only that Plaintiff’s claims are for
damages “in excess of the minimum jurisdictional requirements of
the Mercer Cicuit Court.”

[DE 1-1 at 15, ¶ 4.]

The Court is

not immediately convinced that the omission of the phrase “not
in excess of $75,000” in the Amended Complaint is enough to
establish that this matter is appropriately before this Court.
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 Mercer Circuit Court.
Accordingly and upon the Court’s own motion, IT IS ORDERED
that Defendants shall SHOW CAUSE within fourteen (14) days of
entry of this order why this matter should not be remanded to
Mercer Circuit Court.
This the 28th day of February, 2014.

3