Degener v. Sephora USA, Inc. et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Senior Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 11/13/2014 - Plaintiffs motion to remand is DENIED.cc: Counsel(DAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-586-H
MARTHA T. DEGENER
LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY

PLAINTIFF

V.
SEPHORA USA, INC.
AND
GENERAL GROWTH PROPERTIES INC. or REIT

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter arises from an incident which allegedly took place on August 15,
2013, at the Oxmoor Center shopping mall, at which time Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants negligently failed to maintain safe conditions at the entrance to the Sephora
store and in the common areas surrounding it. Plaintiff now seeks remand to Jefferson
Circuit Court.
Plaintiff filed her original action in Jefferson Circuit Court as required under
Kentucky law. The complaint did not state a specific amount of damages. About two
months prior to filing the complaint, Plaintiff had sent Defendants a pre-suit settlement
demand asking for $80,000 to settle the claim. On August 22, 2014, Defendants timely
removed to federal court based on diversity of the parties and that the amount at issue
exceeded $75,000. Plaintiff has now moved to remand to Jefferson Circuit Court based

upon her stipulation that “her claim and the amount in controversy is and will be less than
$75,000.”
The Court has issued a number of opinions discussing the circumstances under
which a defendant may show that the amount at issue exceeds the jurisdictional amount.
As applied to Kentucky law, Plaintiff’s assertion by a letter prior to filing her complaint
that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 is consequential. It provided
Defendants every reason to believe that the amount in controversy satisfied federal
jurisdictional requirements. Therefore, removal was entirely appropriate under these
circumstances. Moreover, for Plaintiff to attempt to stipulate a lesser amount came too
late.
In addition, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s stipulation is not as thorough and
comprehensive as the Court would normally require under these circumstances. For all
these reasons, the Court concludes that this is a circumstance in which Defendants have
very properly removed and remand is inappropriate.
Being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED.

November 13, 2014

cc:

Counsel of Record