Freeman v. Progressive Insurance Company

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF REMAND IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Emilee Freemans Motion To Remand To State Court (Docket No. 9) is granted.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis. ORDER granting 9 Motion to Remand Case to State Court Signed by Magistrate Judge Frederick R. Buckles on 12/13/12. (JWJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
EMILEE FREEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:12CV2113 FRB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF REMAND
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Emilee
Freeman’s Motion To Remand To State Court.

(Docket No. 9).

All

matters are pending before the undersigned United States Magistrate
Judge, with consent of the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Plaintiff commenced this action in the Circuit Court for
the City of St. Louis on or about September 12, 2012.
1, Attachment 3).

(Docket No.

In her three-count Petition, plaintiff alleged

that defendant failed to perform in accordance with the terms of an
automobile insurance policy.

On November 12, 2012, defendant

removed the matter to this Court, alleging that this Court has
diversity jurisdiction over this action.
(Docket No. 1).

28 U.S.C. §§ 1332.

In support, defendant averred that the parties are

diverse, and that plaintiff’s Petition “seeks recovery of an amount
in

excess

of

$75,000,

and

therefore

there

is

a

reasonable

probability that the matter in controversy herein exceeds the sum
of $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs.”

(Docket No. 1, page

1).
On November 29, 2012, plaintiff filed the instant Motion

- 1 -

To Remand. Therein, plaintiff argues that this Court does not have
subject matter jurisdiction inasmuch as the maximum recovery for
her claim falls below section 1332’s jurisdictional threshold of
$75,000.00.

Plaintiff avers that she agrees to an “irrevocable

cap” of $74,999.99, exclusive of interest and costs, upon the
damages that she may seek or be awarded on her claims against
defendant.

(Docket No. 9 at page 1).

In response to plaintiff’s

Motion To Remand, defendant filed a “Consent To Remand,” in which
defendant

wrote

that

it

“hereby

consents

to

this

case

being

remanded to state court pursuant to the stipulations entered into
by Plaintiff in the Motion [To] Remand.”

(Docket No. 10).

Because there is no evidence before the Court that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, this Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over this action, and must therefore remand it
to the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis.

28 U.S.C. §

1447(c) (In the event a federal court determines that it does not
have subject matter jurisdiction over a removed action, it must
remand the action to the state court where it originated).
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Emilee Freeman’s
Motion To Remand To State Court (Docket No. 9) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the
Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis.

_______________________________
Frederick R. Buckles
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 13th day of December, 2012.

- 2 -