Stevens v. Sam's East, Inc.
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Plaintiff's amended motion to remand 7 is GRANTED; 2. this matter is REMANDED to the Jessamine Circuit Court; 3. Plaintiff's original motion to remand 5 is DENIED AS MOOT; 4. all schedules and deadlines are CONTINUED GENERALLY; 5. this matter shall be STRICKEN FROM THE COURT'S ACTIVE DOCKET. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 11/10/2014.(lc)cc: COR, JESSAMINE CIRCUIT COURT (via us mail)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
PAMELA STEVENS,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
SAM’S EAST, INC.
Defendant.
**
**
Action No. 5:14-cv-344-JMH
MEMORANUDM OPINION AND ORDER
**
**
**
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s amended
motion to remand this action to state court.
has filed its response.
[DE 8].
[DE 7].
Defendant
Having considered Plaintiff’s
motion and being otherwise sufficiently advised, the Court will
grant Plaintiff’s motion and will remand this matter to the
Jessamine Circuit Court.
A defendant seeking to remove a case to federal court based
on
diversity
has
the
burden
controversy exceeds $75,000.
Co.,
266
F.3d
560,
572
of
showing
that
the
amount
in
See Hayes v. Equitable Energy Res.
(6th
Cir.
2001);
28
U.S.C.
§
1332.
“[W]here the plaintiff seeks to recover some unspecified amount
that is not self-evidently greater or less than the federal
amount-in-controversy
requirement,
a
removing
defendant
must
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in
controversy
exceeds
the
jurisdictional
threshold.”
Nowicki-
Hockey v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 14-1304 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2014)
(quoting Gafford v. Gen. Elec. Co., 997 F.2d 150, 158 (6th Cir.
1993) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted)).
The
removing defendant must make this showing by providing competent
evidence,
which
admissions.
may
include
interrogatories
or
requests
for
See King v. Household Fin. Corp. II, 593 F.Supp.2d
958, 961 n.2 (E.D. Ky. 2009).
Here, Defendant relies upon the
following request for admission and Plaintiff’s response thereto
to establish that the amount-in-controversy requirement is met.
REQUEST NO. 1: Please admit that you will not seek
damages in excess of $75,000, exclusive of interest
and costs, at the trial of this matter.
RESPONSE: Deny.
Plaintiff
reports
that
she
was
also
served
with
interrogatories asking her to state the amount of her damages.
Plaintiff responded, “will supplement,” since medical treatment
is ongoing and she does not yet know whether she will require
surgery.
claims
Although her complaint mentions lost income, she now
that
she
is
not
seeking
impairment to earn future income.
lost
wages
or
damages
for
She states that her damages
consist of past and future medical expenses (currently valued at
$10,000), pain and suffering, incidental expenses, and possible
punitive damages—all resulting from a slip and fall accident on
2
Defendant’s
premises.
Plaintiff
claims
that
she
is
simply
without the necessary knowledge, at this point, to value her
claim.
Accordingly,
admission,
she
was
when
not
responding
prepared
to
to
admit
the
that
request
she
for
would
be
seeking $75,000 or less.
Defendant’s wording of this request for admission is not
lost on the Court.
Denying that one will not seek a particular
amount of damages is not tantamount to admitting that one will
seek that amount.
In this case, Plaintiff has not admitted that
she seeks in excess of $75,000 in damages—she is simply leaving
her options open.
In fact, her current medical expenses are
valued at only $10,000.
meets
this
Court’s
It is far from clear that her claim
jurisdictional
threshold.
The
Court
emphasizes that it is Defendant’s burden to prove that this
threshold is met—not Plaintiff’s to prove that it is not.
If
Defendant later receives state-court discovery that establishes
the
amount
in
controversy,
window to remove the case.
Defendant
will
have
a
thirty-day
See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(3)(A).
As
of now, however, Defendant has not met its burden and the proper
course is to remand this case to state court.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1)
that Plaintiff’s amended motion to remand, [DE 7], is
GRANTED;
3
2)
that this matter is hereby REMANDED to the Jessamine
Circuit Court;
3)
that Plaintiff’s original motion to remand, [DE 5], is
DENIED AS MOOT;
4)
that
all
schedules
and
deadlines
are
CONTINUED
GENERALLY; and
5)
that this matter shall be and hereby is STRICKEN FROM
THE COURT’S ACTIVE DOCKET.
This the 10th day of November, 2014.
4
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?