Freire v. Ceva Logistics U.S., Inc. et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 8/24/11; This action must be remanded to state court as the court lacks diversity jurisdiction. A separate order will be entered this date in accordance with this opinion. cc:counsel (JBM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE

CARLOS E. FREIRE

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11CV-360-S

CEVA LOGISTICS U.S., INC., et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on motion of the plaintiff, Carlos E. Freire, to remand this race
and national origin discrimination case to the Jefferson County, Kentucky, Circuit Court (DN 7).
Freire has stipulated that his damages in the case are less than $75,000.00.
The defendant, Ceva Logistics U.S., Inc. objects on the ground that Rogers v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. 230 F.3d 868 (6th Cir. 2000) precludes the plaintiff from obtaining a remand based upon
an after-removal stipulation to damages under the jurisdictional limit of this court.
Rogers is distinguishable from the case at bar. In Rogers, the plaintiff sought to reduce the
amount of damages claimed, contradicting his previous sworn answers to interrogatories upon which
removal had been based. Here, the complaint did no specify an amount in controversy nor were
damages otherwise established prior to removal. Thus the stipulation “clarifies [Freire’s] claim
rather than reducing it.” Baldori v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 2011 WL 1212069 (W.D.Mich. March 29,
2011).1

1

See also Roberts v. A & S Building Systems, L.P. 2008 WL 220627 (E.D.Tenn. Jan. 25, 2008); Stratton v. Konecranes,
Inc., 2010 WL 2178544 (E.D.Ky. May 28, 2010) which find that Rogers, supra. has effectively been abrogated by Powerx Corp.
v. Reliant Energy Services, 551 U.S. 224, 127 S.Ct. 2411, 168 L.Ed.2d 112 (2007) which stated that “a case can be properly removed
and yet suffer from a failing in subject-matter jurisdiction that requires remand.” Id. at 232.

Therefore, this action must be remanded to state court as the court lacks diversity
jurisdiction. A separate order will be entered this date in accordance with this opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 24, 2011

-2-