Notting Hill, LLC v. Kornhauser
DECISION AND ENTRY Adopting 17 the Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge; Overruling 19 Defendant's Objections; Remanding This Case to State Court; and Terminating This Case From the Docket. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 9/22/17. (gs) (This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
NOTTING HILL, LLC,
Case No. 1:17-cv-16
Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman
DECISION AND ENTRY:
(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 17);
(2) OVERRULING DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. 19);
(3) REMANDING THIS CASE TO STATE COURT; and
(4) TERMINATING THIS CASE FROM THE DOCKET
This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United
States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the
Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court, and on May 2, 2017,
submitted a Report and Recommendations. (Doc. 17). On May 17, 2017, Defendant
filed Objections to the Report and Recommendations (“Objections”). (Doc. 19).
Defendant filed a Response to the Objections. (Doc. 20).
As required by 29 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has
reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all
of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does
determine that the Report and Recommendations should be and is hereby adopted in its
entirety and the Objections should be and are overruled.
Defendant’s Objections are not well-taken. First, Defendant argues the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 because Plaintiff seeks to “rescind” a $900,000 purchase
contract. (Objections at 8-13). That argument fails. Plaintiff’s complaint does not ask
the Court to rescind any contract, it merely seeks a declaration that Plaintiff properly
terminated the purchase contract and is entitled to recoup its $25,000 in earnest money.
See Gibson v. H.M.H. of Salina, LLC, No. 99-1492-JTM, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6520, at
** 5-8 (D. Kan. Apr. 6, 2000) (holding a complaint seeking a declaration that plaintiff
properly terminated a $290,000 purchase contract and was entitled to recover $3,000 in
earnest money did not meet the jurisdictional threshold of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) because
“the only claim in this action is the return of the $3,000”).
Second, Defendant argues that the value of its counterclaim should be considered
in the jurisdictional threshold analysis (Objections at 13-15), but the Magistrate Judge
correctly explained that the majority of courts within the Sixth Circuit has held otherwise.
(R&R at 4); see also Firestone Fin. Corp. v. Syal, 327 F. Supp. 2d 809, 810-11 (N.D.
Ohio 2004) (“the majority of courts have held that a federal court should not consider the
value of a defendant’s compulsory counterclaim in determining the amount in
controversy for removal jurisdiction.”).
For the foregoing reasons:
The Report and Recommendations (Doc. 17) is ADOPTED in its entirety;
Defendant’s Objections (Doc. 19) are OVERRULED;
This case is remanded to the state court from which it was removed due
to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, without further consideration of
Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss certain counterclaims; and
The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is
TERMINATED on the docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge
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?