Chisum v. Azhar et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stay previously imposed in this matter is lifted. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 8/1/2013. (KSH)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION KIM CHISUM, Plaintiff, v. MOHAMMED AZHAR, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 4:13-CV-1069 CAS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This diversity matter is before the Court on defendants’ Amended Notice of Removal and Memorandum in Support thereof, filed in response to the Court’s Order Concerning Removal. Plaintiff did not file a response and the time to do so has passed. The Order Concerning Removal noted that questions existed concerning complete diversity of citizenship as well as the requisite amount in controversy, and directed defendants to file (1) an Amended Notice of Removal to allege jurisdictional facts establishing each defendant’s citizenship both at the time of filing and the time of removal, and (2) a memorandum in support including specific facts or evidence to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Following careful review, and in the absence of any contradiction by plaintiff, the Court finds that defendants have alleged complete diversity of citizenship both at the time of filing and the time of removal, and have met their burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. As a result, the Court concludes that it has diversity jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and that the stay previously imposed in the case should be lifted. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stay previously imposed in this matter is lifted. CHARLES A. SHAW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 1st day of August, 2013. 2

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?