Love v. G4S Secure Solutions USA, Inc.
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 9/26/2017 denying 5 Motion to Remand. cc: Counsel (JBM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-00434-JHM
CHRISTINA LOVE
PLAINTIFF
V.
G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS USA. INC.
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Christina Love’s motion to remand. (DN 5.)
Fully briefed, this matter is ripe for decision.
I. BACKGROUND
According to the complaint, Plaintiff Love was employed by Defendant G4S Secure
Solutions USA, Inc. (“G4S”). (Pl.’s Compl. [DN 1-2] ¶ 4.) While employed, she was treated
less favorably than her male counterparts, and she raised this issue with her employer. (Id. ¶ 5.)
She also lawfully possessed a firearm while employed by G4S. (Id. ¶ 6.) Love was ultimately
terminated by G4S. (Id. ¶ 7–11.) She brought the present action against G4S in Jefferson
Circuit Court, asserting claims of gender discrimination and retaliatory discharge under the
Kentucky Civil Rights Act, KRS Chapter 344 et seq., as well as a claim of public policy
wrongful termination for possessing a firearm. (Id. ¶ 11–14.) G4S removed to this Court (DN
1), and Love has moved to remand the case to state court on the basis that the amount in
controversy is less than the $75,000 threshold required to meet this Court’s jurisdictional
requirement for diversity cases.
(DN 5.)
In support of this argument, Love submitted a
stipulation through her counsel that she “will not seek a judgment or request a verdict for an
amount in excess of $74,999.00[.]” (DN 7-1.) G4S has opposed the motion. (DN 7.)
II. DISCUSSION
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Removal from state to federal court is proper for “any civil action brought in a State court
of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
G4S removed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, claiming that this Court has diversity
jurisdiction over the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity jurisdiction gives “[t]he district
courts . . . original jurisdiction [over] all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds
the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of
different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), (a)(1).
B. ANALYSIS
It is undisputed that the parties are diverse and that Love has stipulated that the amount in
controversy does not exceed $75,000. Therefore, the principal issue here is whether this
stipulation is sufficient for the Court to remand Love’s action to Jefferson Circuit Court.
Courts within the Sixth Circuit have “noted on several recent occasions that postremoval
stipulations reducing the amount in controversy below the jurisdictional threshold are generally
disfavored because” if plaintiffs “were able to defeat jurisdiction by way of a post-removal
stipulation, they could unfairly manipulate proceedings merely because their federal case begins
to look unfavorable.” Gatlin v. Shoe Show, Inc., 2014 WL 3586498, at *3 (W.D. Ky. July 21,
2014) (citations and quotations omitted); see Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 230 F.3d 868, 872
(6th Cir. 2000); Agri-Power, Inc. v. Majestic JC, LLC, 2013 WL 3280244, at *3 (W.D. Ky. June
27, 2013); Proctor v. Swifty Oil Co., 2012 WL 4593409, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 1, 2012). The
Sixth Circuit has advised that “a post-removal stipulation reducing the amount in controversy to
below the jurisdictional limit does not require remand to state court.” Rogers, 230 F.3d at 872.
2
“However, where a state prevents a plaintiff from pleading a specific amount of damages,” as
Kentucky does, “and the plaintiff provides specific information about the amount in controversy
for the first time in a stipulation, this district views such stipulations as a clarification of the
amount in controversy rather than a reduction of such.” Agri-Power, 2013 WL 3280244, at *3
(citing Proctor, 2012 WL 4593409, at *3) (emphasis in original). Therefore, a plaintiff may
submit a stipulation that will destroy the amount in controversy requirement for the purposes of
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Id.
When a plaintiff chooses to submit a stipulation as to the amount in controversy, the
stipulation must be unequivocal in order to “limit the amount of recoverable damages and
warrant remand.” Egan v. Premier Scales & Sys., 237 F. Supp. 2d 774, 778 (W.D. Ky. 2002); see
Agri-Power, 2013 WL 3280244, at *3; Proctor, 2012 WL 4593409, at *3. This district “has
recognized that a plaintiff may stipulate that it neither seeks, nor will accept, damages in an
amount greater than $75,000, and that such a stipulation will” be sufficiently unequivocal to
destroy diversity jurisdiction. Agri-Power, 2013 WL 3280244, at *3 (emphasis added).
Love’s stipulation in this case does not meet this standard. It states that she “will not
seek a judgment or request a verdict for an amount in excess of $74,999.00 and will not seek
attorney’s fees for any amount that, together with any judgment or verdict, would exceed
$74,999.” (DN 7-1.) While Love stipulates that she will not seek a verdict of $75,000 or more,
she does not stipulate that she will not accept or seek to enforce a judgment of that amount. The
stipulation is “less than unequivocal” and thus deficient to defeat removal. Accord Egan, 237 F.
Supp. 2d at 778 (denying motion to remand as stipulation did not effectively limit the judgment).
Compare with Leavell v. Cabela’s Wholesale, Inc., 2015 WL 9009009, at *2–3 (W.D. Ky. Dec.
15, 2015) (Court lacked jurisdiction when plaintiff stipulated that she “will neither seek nor
3
accept damages in excess of $75,000”). Because the stipulation does not effectively limit the
amount in controversy to a sum below $75,000, and there being no other challenge to the amount
in controversy, this Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Therefore, the
motion to remand is DENIED.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Christina
Love’s motion to remand is DENIED.
September 26, 2017
cc: counsel of record
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?