Schmidt v. Big Lots Stores, Inc.

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Big Lots Storess Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery, (ECF No. 10), is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Elizabeth Schmidts Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 7), is GRANTED, and this matter will be remanded to the Circuit Court for St. Louis County, Missouri. A separate Order of Remand will accompany this Memorandum and Order. 7 Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 7/7/15. cc: St. Louis Co.(CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ELIZABETH SCHMIDT,
Plaintiff,
v.
BIG LOTS STORES, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15-CV-00691-JCH

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Elizabeth Schmidt’s Motion to Remand,
(Remand Motion, ECF No. 7), and Defendant Big Lots Stores’s (“Big Lots”) Motion for Leave
to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery. (Discovery Motion, ECF No. 10).
Schmidt initiated this action by filing a Petition in the Circuit Court for St. Louis County,
Missouri. (Petition, ECF No. 2). The Petition alleges that Schmidt suffered injuries in a Big Lots
store as a result of Big Lots’s negligence and seeks damages “in excess of Twenty-Five
Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00),” in accordance with state court practice. (Petition ¶ 11). Big
Lots subsequently removed the action to this Court. (Removal Notice, ECF No. 1). Schmidt
seeks to have the action remanded for lack of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
(Remand Motion at 1).
The only dispute between the parties is whether the amount-in-controversy requirement
of $75,000 is satisfied, a determination made difficult by the inability of Missouri plaintiffs to
plead a specific damages amount in tort cases. Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure 55.05. To
supplement the briefing related to Schmidt’s motion, Big Lots filed a request for jurisdictional
discovery. Attached to that motion is a request for admissions, one paragraph of which asks

Schmidt to “admit that [her] damages do not exceed $75,000.” (Request for Admissions, ECF
No. 10-1, ¶ 3). Rather than object to Big Lots’s motion, Schmidt filed a response admitting that
her damages do not exceed $75,000. (Schmidt Admissions, ECF No. 12, ¶ 3).
Post-removal stipulations have often been used in this circuit as a basis for remand when
they clarify the amount that was in controversy at the time of removal and are binding on the
parties. Ingram v. Procter & Gamble Paper Prods. Co., 2011 WL 1564060, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Apr.
25, 2011) (citing Berry v. Renaissance Hotel Mgmt., LLC, 2011 WL 1379860, at * 2 (E.D. Mo.
Apr. 12, 2011); Dyrda v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 41 F. Supp. 2d 943, 949 (D. Minn. 1999);
Halsne v. Liberty Mut. Grp., 40 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090 (N.D. Iowa 1999)). The Eighth Circuit
has also looked to information derived from jurisdictional discovery in determining the amount
in controversy. Larkin v. Brown, 41 F.3d 387, 389 (8th Cir. 1994) (accepting as evidence an
interrogatory response stating that the amount in controversy equaled but did not exceed
$50,000).
Schmidt’s admissions are binding. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b) (“A matter admitted under this
rule is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be
withdrawn or amended”); Mo. R. Civ. P. 56.01(b) (same). They also clarify the non-specific
damages request in her Petition. The Court therefore accepts, based on those admissions, that the
amount in controversy here is less than $75,000.

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Big Lots Stores’s Motion for Leave to
Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery, (ECF No. 10), is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Elizabeth Schmidt’s Motion to Remand,
(ECF No. 7), is GRANTED, and this matter will be remanded to the Circuit Court for St. Louis
County, Missouri. A separate Order of Remand will accompany this Memorandum and Order.

Dated this 7th day of July, 2015.

/s/ Jean C. Hamilton
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE