Perry v. Chase Auto Finance et al
ORDER denying 21 plaintiff's Motion to Remand 21 Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 17-10017
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
CHASE AUTO FINANCE and
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND (DOC. 21)
Plaintiff Bruce Perry filed a complaint against defendants Chase Auto
Finance and JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, in Wayne County Circuit Court
on December 7, 2016. Plaintiff brought three claims allegedly arising out of
the parties interactions regarding the defendants’ lien on plaintiff’s vehicle;
detrimental reliance, conversion, and fraud. Defendants removed the case
to federal court on January 4, 2017. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff amended his
complaint to add a negligence claim on June 21, 2017. (Doc. 12).
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on October 30, 2017.
(Doc. 17). Plaintiff filed a response on November 20, 2017. (Doc. 18).
Plaintiff acknowledged defendants’ arguments regarding detrimental
reliance, conversion, and fraud, stipulated that he could not recover an
amount over $75,000 and stated that he waives any claim for any amount
over $75,000. (Doc. 18-1 at PageID 235). Plaintiff asserted that the amount
in controversy “is no longer sufficient” for jurisdiction and noted that he
would bring a motion asking the Court to “decline supplemental jurisdiction
over the remaining state law claim for negligence or negligent
misrepresentation.” (Id.). This matter is presently before the Court on
plaintiff’s subsequent motion to remand. For the reasons stated below,
plaintiff’s motion is DENIED
Defendants in a civil action brought in state court may remove the
action to federal district court if the federal court has original jurisdiction. 28
U.S.C. § 1441. Federal courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions
where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and
is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
“[D]etermination of federal jurisdiction is made as of the time of
removal.” Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 230 F.3d 868, 871 (6th Cir.
2000). As such, “events occurring after removal that reduce the amount in
controversy do not oust jurisdiction.” Id. at 872. “[A] post-removal
stipulation, reducing the amount in controversy to below the jurisdictional
limit does not require remand to state court.” Id.
At the time of removal, plaintiff’s complaint included a claim for
conversion, which provides for triple damages and attorney fees. Plaintiff
admits that, on the basis of this claim alone, the amount in controversy at
that time exceeded $75,000. (Doc. 21 at PageID 285). Moreover, the
parties are diverse. As such, the elements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) were
satisfied at the time of removal. Pursuant to Rogers, plaintiff’s subsequent
stipulation and waiver do not oust jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s motion to remand
is, therefore, DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 11, 2018
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
January 11, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
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?