Harris v. La-Z-Boy Logistics, Inc.
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM OPINION granting 8 Motion to Remand. An appropriate order shall enter. Signed by District Judge Travis R McDonough on 7/11/2016. (BJL, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
HOLLY HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
LA-Z-BOY LOGISTICS, INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:16-cv-175
Judge Travis R. McDonough
Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remand this action to state court. (Doc. 8.)
Defendant responded opposing the motion (Doc. 14), and Plaintiff replied (Doc. 15). For the
following reasons, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s motion.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this action in Claiborne County Circuit Court on March 21, 2016, alleging
that Defendant terminated her because of her gender. (Doc. 1-1.) She asserted only state law
claims. (Id.) Defendant removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 alleging that this
Court had jurisdiction over the case based on 18 U.S.C. § 1332 because the parties are diverse
and Plaintiff’s claims exceed $75,000. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff filed a motion to remand this action to
state court, arguing her Complaint’s ad damnum clause clearly limited her damages to below
$75,000. (Doc. 8.)
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Generally, a defendant may remove to federal court any civil action over which the
federal courts have original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The party seeking removal carries
the burden of establishing that the district court has original jurisdiction over the matter by a
preponderance of the evidence. Long v. Bando Mfg. of Am., Inc., 201 F.3d 754, 757 (6th Cir.
2000). “[A]ll doubts as to the propriety of removal are resolved in favor of remand. Smith v.
Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 505 F.3d 401, 405 (6th Cir. 2007) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted).
III.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff argues that because her complaint specifically limits her damages to below
$75,000, and a request for reinstatement is “inherently speculative,” the Court should remand
this case. Defendant, in response, points the Court to Roberts v. A&S Bldg. Sys., L.P., No. 3:07CV-413, 2007 WL 4365761, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 11, 2007).1 In Roberts, the plaintiff had
capped her compensatory damages at $75,000 but also sought equitable relief, including front
pay. The court held that because the plaintiff sought equitable relief in addition to her
compensatory relief, the defendant had met its burden to establish that the amount in controversy
exceeded $75,000. Id.
While equitable relief may in some instances be enough to satisfy the amount in
controversy standard, it is not enough here. The party seeking removal must establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that the district court has original subject matter jurisdiction over
the action. Long, 201 F.3d at 757. Accordingly, to defeat Plaintiff’s motion, Defendant must
present evidence establishing that it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy
1
Defendant actually cited Roberts v. A & S Bldg. Sys., L.P., No. 3:07-CV-413, 2008 WL
220627, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 25, 2008), but the 2008 opinion grants Plaintiff’s motion to
remand based on a post-removal stipulation. The portion of the opinion upon which Defendant
relies merely restates the Court’s reasoning from the 2007 opinion denying the plaintiff’s initial
motion to remand.
2
exceeds $75,000. Here, Defendant has produced no such evidence, leaving the Court completely
without basis to assess the amount in controversy.
Because it is Defendant’s burden to establish jurisdiction and Defendant has failed to put
forth evidence from which the Court can conclude that Plaintiff’s claims satisfy the amount in
controversy, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s motion to remand.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s motion to remand.
An appropriate order shall enter.
/s/ Travis R. McDonough
TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?