Newbauer v. Hill-Rom Co., Inc.
Filing
27
ORDER denying 7 Motion to Remand to State Court and denying request for attorney's fees.(Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 5/29/2018. (ECW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
KELLY NEWBAUER,
Case No. 18‐CV‐0559 (PJS/HB)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
HILL‐ROM CO. INC.,
Defendant.
Heather M. Gilbert and Terra L. Frazier, GILBERT LAW PLLC, for
plaintiff.
Kerry L. Middleton and Brandon M. Haugrud, LITTLER MENDELSON,
P.C., for defendant.
This is a sex‐discrimination case brought by plaintiff Kelly Newbauer against her
former employer, Hill‐Rom Company Inc. (“Hill‐Rom”). Newbauer initially sued
Hill‐Rom in state court, asserting claims solely under state law. ECF No. 1. Hill‐Rom
removed the case to federal court, contending that this Court has diversity jurisdiction
over the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). See 28 U.S.C. § 1441. This matter is before the
Court on Newbauer’s motion to remand and request for an award of attorney’s fees.
ECF No. 7.
Removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction is proper where there is complete
diversity of citizenship among the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1441. Newbauer does not
dispute that the parties are diverse.1 Instead, she contends that the amount in
controversy is not met because her complaint “is silent as to any specific allegation of an
amount in controversy.” ECF No. 9 at 2.
“Where, as here, the complaint alleges no specific amount of damages or an
amount under the jurisdictional minimum, the removing party . . . must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” In re
Minn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. Sales Practices Litig., 346 F.3d 830, 834 (8th Cir. 2003). “What
matters is what is possible, not what is likely; if it is possible for the plaintiff to recover
more than $75,000, the amount‐in‐controversy requirement is met.” Hillesheim v. Casey’s
Retail Co., 16‐CV‐0061 (PJS/FLN), 2016 WL 3676164, at *2 (D. Minn. July 6, 2016); see also
Hartis v. Chi. Title Ins. Co., 694 F.3d 935, 944 (8th Cir. 2012) (the question “is not whether
the damages are greater than the requisite amount, but whether a fact finder might
legally conclude that they are” (quotation marks omitted; emphasis in original)).
In deciding whether Hill‐Rom has proven by a preponderance of the evidence
that it is possible for Newbauer to recover more than $75,000, the Court may take into
account the allegations made in the complaint. Indeed, the Eighth Circuit has found
1
Newbauer is a citizen of Minnesota. Compl., ECF No. 1‐1, ¶ 2. Hill‐Rom is an
Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois, and thus is not a
citizen of Minnesota. ECF No. 1 ¶ 3.
-2-
that a removing defendant met its burden of proving the jurisdictional amount by
“looking at the face of the complaint alone.” Hartis, 694 F.3d at 946.
In light of the claims and allegations in the complaint—and evidence that
Newbauer’s annual salary at the time of her discharge was $100,500, James Decl., ECF.
No. 13, ¶ 3—the Court readily finds that Hill‐Rom has carried its burden of proving by
a preponderance of the evidence that Newbauer could recover more than $75,000 in this
action. Newbauer alleges that Hill‐Rom discriminated against her on the basis of sex
when it (1) paid her significantly less than male employees doing similar jobs, (2) failed
to promote her to a higher‐paying job, and (3) eventually fired her. Newbauer further
alleges that Hill‐Rom engaged in unlawful retaliation by firing her for complaining
about its acts of sex discrimination. Newbauer alleges that after her unlawful
termination, she remained unemployed for nearly 17 months until she was forced to
accept a lower‐paying job. Compl., ECF No. 1‐1, ¶¶ 38‐39.
Newbauer requests numerous forms of relief, including all past lost wages and
benefits, all future lost wages and benefits, and compensatory damages for emotional
distress. Newbauer also asks that these damages be trebled. Newbauer also asks for
exemplary and punitive damages. And Newbauer also seeks an award of attorney’s
fees and costs. Given that Newbauer was earning over $100,000 per year at the time of
her discharge—and given that she alleges that she was unemployed for 17 months after
-3-
her discharge—Hill‐Rom has easily established that the amount in controversy in this
matter exceeds $75,000.2 See, e.g., Mathieu v. Gopher News Co., 273 F.3d 769, 779 (8th Cir.
2001) (upholding a back pay award of $94,370, a front pay award of $288,466, and
$165,000 damages for mental anguish in a disability discrimination case under the
MHRA where plaintiff’s salary at the time of his termination was less than $50,000).
“‘Once the removing party has established by a preponderance of the evidence
that the jurisdictional minimum is satisfied, remand is only appropriate if the plaintiff
can establish to a legal certainty that the claim is for less than the requisite amount.’”
Hartis, 694 F.3d at 946 (quoting Bell v. Hershey Co., 557 F.3d 953, 956 (8th Cir. 2009)).
Newbauer has made no attempt to establish that she is not seeking more than $75,000.
For these reasons, the Court finds that the case was properly removed to federal
court. Newbauer’s motion to remand and request for attorney’s fees are therefore
denied.
2
Newbauer faults Hill‐Rom for failing to introduce evidence “regarding whether
Plaintiff has other income, whether she adequately mitigated her damages, or the value
of Plaintiff’s continuing wage and benefit loss at her new position.” ECF No. 18 at 4.
Newbauer demands too much of Hill‐Rom. As the Court has already explained, Hill‐
Rom need not prove to a legal certainty that Newbauer will recover more than $75,000 if
she prevails; instead, Hill‐Rom need only prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
Newbauer might recover more than $75,000 if she prevails. See Hartis, 694 F.3d at 944.
Hill‐Rom has done so.
-4-
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff’s motion to remand [ECF No. 7] is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is DENIED.
Dated: May 29, 2018
s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
United States District Judge
-5-
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?