Seibert v. Target Stores Inc.

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 2/16/12 denying 7 Motion to Remandcc:counsel (DAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-16-H

JANICE M. SEIBERT

PLAINTIFF

V.
TARGET CORPORATION

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case was removed from Jefferson Circuit Court on January 10, 2012, based upon
diversity of citizenship and the assertion that the amount in controversy could exceed $75,000.
Plaintiff has now moved to remand based on her assertion that damages will not exceed the
jurisdictional amount.
The key factor at this juncture is that Plaintiff has not stipulated to damages of less than
$75,000. Because jurisdiction is determined at the time of removal, as a general matter, events
occurring after removal that reduce the amount in controversy do not oust jurisdiction under the
diversity statute. Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 230 F.3d 868, 872 (6th Cir. 2000); see also,
Ahearn v. Charter Twp. of Bloomfield, 100 F.3d 451, 453 (6th Cir. 1996). However, this Court
has taken the view that a post-removal stipulation can be used to clarify the amount at issue. See
Egan v. Premier Scales & Systems, 237 F.Supp. 2d 774 (W.D. Ky. 2002). Such a stipulation
must be unequivocal to suffice. Id. Here, Plaintiff has not made such an adequate stipulation
and, therefore, the amount at issue remains contested.
The Court being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED.

February 16, 2012

cc:

Counsel of Record