Wright-Broderick v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Inc. et al
Filing
34
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 30 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Defendant John Scott, Defendant Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Inc. motion is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 12/17/13. (MRS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
RONDA WRIGHT-BRODERICK,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE
CO., INC., d/b/a AT&T, et al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:13CV1441 SNLJ
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Defendants urge this Court to reconsider its November 7, 2013 Order remanding this
matter back to state court. Defendants contend that they could not have known that the amount
in controversy met federal jurisdictional requirements until six months after they were served
with the complaint. Because this Court found that defendants had ample notice in the plaintiff’s
complaint that plaintiff sought in excess of $75,000 in damages, the defendants should have
removed this matter from state court within thirty days of being served with the complaint.
Defendants re-argue the points they made in their original briefing on this matter and
assert that they could not prove “to a legal certainty” that the amount in controversy in this matter
exceeded $75,000 until they received a settlement demand in a related case. However, the face
of plaintiff’s pleading alleges multiple, serious discriminatory acts that occurred over a two-year
period of time and demands at least $50,000, plus punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.
Defendants had ample information to support that the amount in controversy requirement was
met at the time they were served with the complaint.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.
Dated this 17th
day of December, 2013
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?