Hossack v. CSG Systems, Inc.

Filing 35

ORDER that on or before March 28, 2014, Defendant shall submit a brief on the issue of whether the amount in controversy requirement was met at the time this case was removed from state court. Any response by Plaintiff must be filed by April 9, 2014. No reply brief will be authorized absent leave of the court for good cause shown. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (ADB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

CYNTHIA L. HOSSACK,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware
CSG

8:13CV3178
ORDER

Corporation, authorized to do business in
Nebraska;

Defendant.

This case was removed to this court on October 16, 2013 on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction, (Filing No. 1). Defendant asserted that complete diversity of citizenship
exits between the parties. Further, it argues the amount in controversy is met.

The amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds
$75,000. Plaintiff alleges she “has lost wages which total $38,270.00 and
lost benefits and expense[s] which total in excess of $5,000.00 and said
losses continue to accrue.” Exhibit A, Complaint ¶ 6. Plaintiff also claims
she “has lost other fringe benefits and has incurred expenses and continues
to incur expenses.” Id. In addition, Plaintiff requests attorneys’ fees and
other relief. Exhibit A, Complaint at p. 5. A fact-finder could legally
conclude that, if successful, Plaintiff’s damages, including attorneys’ fees,
exceed $75,000. the Plaintiff did not oppose the removal.

Filing No. 1, ¶ 7 at CM/ECF p. 2

“[W]hen the record indicates jurisdiction may be lacking, [the court] must
consider the jurisdictional issue sua sponte.” Bilello v. Kum & Go, LLC, 374 F.3d 656,
659 (8th Cir. 2004). The party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction “must prove the
requisite amount by a preponderance of the evidence.” James Neff Kramper Family
Farm Partnership v. IBP, Inc., 393 F.3d 828, 831 (8th Cir. 2005).

The court questions whether the amount in controversy required to establish
diversity jurisdiction was met at the time of removal. And, thus, the court questions
whether federal court is the appropriate forum for this case.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that on or before March 28, 2014, Defendant shall
submit a brief on the issue of whether the amount in controversy requirement was met at
the time this case was removed from state court. Any response by Plaintiff must be filed
by April 9, 2014. No reply brief will be authorized absent leave of the court for good
cause shown.

Dated this 14th day of March, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

Cheryl R. Zwart
s/

United States Magistrate Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of
Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they
provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites.
The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a
hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

!2