Dix v. Auto-Owners (Mutual) Insurance Company

Filing 16

ORDER: (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO REMAND THIS CASE TO STATE COURT (Doc. No. #15 ); (2) REMANDING THE CASE TO THE CIVIL DIVISION OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO; AND (3) TERMINATING THE CASE ON THE COURT'S DOCKET. Signed by Judge Michael J. Newman on 3/11/2025. (acw)(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
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
KANIKA DIX,
Plaintiff

Case No. 3:25-cv-25

vs.
AUTO-OWNERS (MUTUAL)
INSURANCE COMPANY,

District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry

Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER: (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO REMAND THIS
CASE TO STATE COURT (Doc. No. 15); (2) REMANDING THE CASE TO THE CIVIL
DIVISION OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY,
OHIO; AND (3) TERMINATING THE CASE ON THE COURT’S DOCKET
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff initiated this case in the Civil Division of the Court of Common Pleas for
Montgomery County, Ohio. Doc. No. 7 at PageID 86. Defendant removed the case to this Court,
asserting diversity jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Doc. No. 3; see 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
Based upon the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and Complaint, it did not appear that
Defendant had provided competent proof establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Doc. No. 14. The Court thus ordered Defendant to
show cause why this action should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. Id.
Defendant responded to the Show Cause Order and acknowledged, after discussing with
Plaintiff’s counsel, “Defendant is now satisfied damages in this case will not exceed Seventy-Five
Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), and gives notice this case is appropriate for remand to the
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas.” Doc. No. 16 at PageID 159-60. The Court

interprets this response to be a motion to remand. See id.
The Court therefore (1) GRANTS as unopposed Defendant’s motion to remand this case
to state court due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) REMANDS this case to the Civil
Division of the Court of Common Pleas for Montgomery County, Ohio; and (3) TERMINATES
the case on the docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 11, 2025

s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge

2