Farrell v. Steak N Shake Operations, Inc.

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is remanded to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri. Terminate Case. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on August 14, 2013. (MCB)(copy of Memorandum and Order and docket sheet sent to Joan M. Gilmer, Clerk,Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis,State of Missouri, 7900 Carondelet, Room 177,St. Louis, MO 63105-1766 this date.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
NICOLE FARRELL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STEAK N SHAKE
OPERATIONS, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:13CV1572 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This action, recently removed from Missouri state court, is before me on my own
review for jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed this case in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County
on July 18, 2013. In her petition, plaintiff alleged that defendant was negligent in
maintaining its premises and caused plaintiff to slip and fall, suffering injury to her arm
and shoulder. Plaintiff’s prayer for relief seeks damages exceeding $25,000. See
Compl., p. 2.
Defendant removed the case on August 13, 2013, asserting diversity jurisdiction.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441; see also Northport Health Servs. of Ark., LLC v.
Rutherford, 605 F.3d 483, 486 (8th Cir. 2010) (listing two requirements for diversity
jurisdiction: complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy exceeding
$75,000).
A defendant seeking to “invoke federal jurisdiction through removal . . . bears the
burden of proving that the jurisdictional threshold is satisfied.” Bell v. Hershey Co., 557

F.3d 953, 956 (8th Cir. 2009). Removal statutes are strictly construed, and any doubts
about the propriety of removal are resolved in favor of remand. Wilkinson v.
Shakelford, 478 F.3d 957, 963 (8th Cir. 2007).
In its notice of removal, defendant asserted that “the matter in controversy is
believed to exceed the sum or value of $75,000.” See Notice, ¶ 3. Yet defendant has not
alleged any factual basis for this statement that “it is believed” the amount-incontroversy requirement has been met. This assertion alone is insufficient to satisfy the
jurisdictional burden on the defendant. See Bell, 557 F.3d at 956; see also Hill v. Ford
Motor Co., 324 F. Supp. 2d 1028, 1036 (E.D. Mo. 2004) (meeting burden requires that
removing party present “some specific facts or evidence demonstrating that the
jurisdictional amount is met”). Because the defendant has not met its burden of
demonstrating that the amount-in-controversy requirement has been met, I lack subject
matter jurisdiction over this action and must remand it to state court.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is remanded to the Circuit Court of
St. Louis County, Missouri.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 14th day of August, 2013.

-2-