Yoho v. Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc. et al
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 20 MOTION TO REMAND. It is ORDERED that this civil action be REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Wetzel County, West Virginia. It is further ORDERED that this civil action be DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment on this matter. 8 Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. on 9/2/16. (copies to counsel via CM/ECF; Clerk of Court of Wetzel County via US Mail) (lmm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
LAWRENCE W. YOHO,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 5:16CV64
(STAMP)
HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY, INC.,
VALLEY HMM, INC. d/b/a
VALLEY BUELL MOTORCYCLES,
VALLEY HARLEY-DAVIDSON AND
BUELL MOTORCYCLES CO.,
VALLEY HARLEY DAVIDSON MOTORCYCLES,
and JOHN DOE(S) MANUFACTURERS/
DISTRIBUTORS and/or WHOLESALERS,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
I.
Background
The plaintiff originally filed his complaint in the Circuit
Court of Wetzel County, West Virginia.
is a citizen of West Virginia.
ECF No. 1.
The plaintiff
One named defendant, Harley-
Davidson Motor Company, Inc. (“Harley”), is a Wisconsin corporation
with its principal place of business located in Wisconsin.
The
other named defendant, Valley HMM, Inc., doing business as Valley
Buell Motorcycles, Valley Harley-Davidson and Buell Motorcycles
Co., and Valley Harley-Davidson Motorcycles (“Valley”), is an Ohio
corporation
with
its
principal
place
of
business
in
Ohio.
According to the complaint, the defendants manufactured and sold
the motorcycle that caused the plaintiff’s injuries.
In Count I, the plaintiff alleges a claim of strict liability
against the defendants for placing defective and unsafe motorcycles
into the stream of commerce.
In Count II, the plaintiff alleges
that the defendants breached express and/or implied warranties to
the plaintiff.
In Count III, the plaintiff alleges that the
defendants were negligent by failing to provide reasonable warnings
of the safety risks inherent in the use of the motorcycle.
The plaintiff alleges that his damages include pain and
suffering for potentially permanent bodily and mental injuries,
medical expenses for those injuries, lost past and future wages and
future earning capacity, and other losses and damages recoverable
under West Virginia law and statutes.
For relief, the plaintiff
seeks compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the minimum
$2,500.00 jurisdictional limit of the state court, pre- and postjudgment interest, costs, and such further relief as a court or
jury may find.
Valley removed this action, to which the plaintiff timely
filed this motion to remand.
that
the
defendants
have
controversy requirement.
ECF No. 20.
failed
to
The plaintiff argues
satisfy
the
amount
in
The plaintiff points to the following
facts: (1) the only communications between the plaintiff and Harley
or Valley regarding damages were the plaintiff’s August 2015 letter
alleging $5,297.62 in medical bills related to the incident and
Harley’s October 2015 letter in response denying the plaintiff’s
2
claim; (2) the defendants had made no settlement offers in excess
of $75,000.00, or any offers at all, at the time of removal; and
(3)
the
plaintiff’s
defendants
in
an
complaint
amount
in
demanded
excess
of
jurisdictional limit of the state court.
judgment
the
against
minimum
the
$2,500.00
For those reasons, the
plaintiff believes the amount in controversy requirement remains
unsatisfied and, therefore, seeks to remand this civil action.
Valley filed a response in opposition.
ECF No. 23.
Valley
points out that the plaintiff has identified a life expectancy
table as an exhibit, which he intends to use to prove that many of
his alleged damages will be ongoing throughout the remainder of his
life.
Next, Valley points out that the plaintiff alleged a C5-6
disk herniation with annular tear, which, without surgery, is a
permanent
injury
“drastically.”
that
would
drive
up
medical
expenses
Valley asserts that the permanency of an injury is
a factor other courts consider as supporting evidence that a claim
exceeds the jurisdictional amount.
Valley also states that the
plaintiff’s claim for lost wages and earning capacity alone will
exceed the jurisdictional amount.
Lastly, Valley argues that even
a conservative estimate of the plaintiff’s alleged damages for past
and future physical pain, past and future mental anguish and
emotional pain, past and future lost enjoyment of life, past and
future loss of household services, and permanent impairment would
greatly exceed $75,000.00.
Based on the allegations of the
3
complaint, Valley believes that the amount in controversy is
satisfied.
In the alternative, Valley requests limited discovery
on the subject of the amount in controversy, arguing that discovery
requests are already pending and should have been provided by
August 1, 2016.
The plaintiff did not file a reply.
For the reasons set forth below, the plaintiff’s motion to
remand is GRANTED.
II.
Applicable Law
A defendant may remove a case from state court to federal
court in instances where the federal court is able to exercise
original jurisdiction over the matter.
28 U.S.C. § 1441.
Federal
courts have original jurisdiction over primarily two types of
cases: (1) those involving federal questions under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331, and (2) those involving citizens of different states where
the
amount
in
controversy
exceeds
$75,000.00,
interests and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
exclusive
of
However, if
federal jurisdiction arises only by virtue of the parties’ diverse
citizenship, such an action “shall be removable only if none of the
. . . defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is
brought.”
Tomlin v. Office of Law Enf’t Tech. Commercialization,
Inc., No. 5:07CV42, 2007 WL 1376030, at *1 (N.D. W. Va. May 7,
2007).
The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing
federal jurisdiction.
See In re Blackwater Sec. Consulting, LLC,
460 F.3d 576, 583 (4th Cir. 2006); Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic
4
Chems. Co., Inc., 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994).
Removal
jurisdiction is strictly construed, and, if federal jurisdiction is
doubtful, the federal court must remand.
Hartley v. CSX Transp.,
Inc., 187 F.3d 422 (4th Cir. 1999); Mulcahey, 29 F.3d at 151.
Further, the court is limited to a consideration of facts on
the record at the time of removal.
See Lowrey v. Ala. Power Co.,
483 F.3d 1184, 1213–15 (11th Cir. 2007) (“In assessing whether
removal was proper . . . the district court has before it only the
limited universe of evidence available when the motion to remand is
filed.”); O’Brien v. Quicken Loans, Inc., No. 5:10CV110, 2011 WL
2551163 (N.D. W. Va. June 27, 2011);
Marshall v. Kimble, No.
5:10CV127, 2011 WL 43034, at *3 (N.D. W. Va. Jan. 6, 2011) (“The
defendant’s removal cannot be based on speculation; rather, it must
be based on facts as they exist at the time of removal.”);
Fahnestock v. Cunningham, 5:10CV89, 2011 WL 1831596, at *2 (N.D. W.
Va. May 12, 2011) (“The amount in controversy is determined by
considering the judgment that would be entered if the plaintiffs
prevailed on the merits of his case as it stands at the time of
removal” (internal citations omitted)).
This Court recognizes that “a defendant’s notice of removal
need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in
controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.”
Basin
Operating
Co.
v.
Owens,
135
S.
Ct.
547,
Dart Cherokee
555
(2014).
Nonetheless, this Court has previously found that Dart does not
5
require it to grant jurisdictional discovery and, thus, this Court
has routinely exercised its discretion to deny such requests.
See
Antal v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., No. 5:15CV36, 2015 WL 2412358,
at *3 (N.D. W. Va. May 20, 2015) (denying the plaintiff’s request
for
jurisdictional
discovery
upon
finding
“that
the
language
contained in . . . 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(3)(A) is related to
discovery taken in the state court, not discovery that is taken in
the federal court after removal”); O’Brien v. Falcon Drilling Co.,
No. 5:15CV13, 2015 WL 1588246, at *6 (N.D. W. Va. Apr. 9, 2015)
(suggesting
that
appropriate
only
discretionary
where
“further
jurisdictional
evidence
is
discovery
revealed
is
through
discovery in the state court, a filing by the plaintiff, or some
‘other paper’”).
III.
Discussion
The facts show that the plaintiff is a citizen of West
Virginia.
Harley is a Wisconsin corporation that maintains its
principal place of business in Wisconsin, and Valley is an Ohio
corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio. Based on
those facts, the parties are diverse. The only issue in dispute is
the amount in controversy requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.
Based on the record before this Court, the plaintiff’s motion
to remand must be granted.
Valley fails to demonstrate that the
amount in controversy requirement has been satisfied.
response
in
opposition,
Valley
6
relies
on
the
In its
plaintiff’s
allegations about his serious and possibly permanent injuries.
Further, Valley merely asserts that the plaintiff’s lost wages and
earning capacity will exceed the jurisdictional amount.
The only
damages amount that Valley states with any specificity is the
plaintiff’s alleged $5,297.62 in medical bills related to the
incident,
which,
alone,
falls
far
short
of
the
amount
in
controversy requirement.
As stated earlier, the amount in controversy requirement
cannot be based on speculation or “what ifs” that may occur.
Rather, the court is limited to a consideration of facts on the
record at the time of removal.
See Lowrey, 483 F.3d at 1213–15.
At this time in the civil action, the amount of damages that may or
will be recovered is completely unknown and speculative at best.
Speculation regarding the amount in controversy requirement fails
to satisfy the burden that the removing party bears.
Blackwater Sec. Consulting, LLC, 460 F.3d at 583.
See In re
Therefore,
because Valley only speculates as to the amount of damages, removal
is improper.
As stated earlier, removal jurisdiction is strictly
construed, and, if federal jurisdiction is doubtful, the federal
court must remand.
151.
Hartley, 187 F.3d at 422; Mulcahey, 29 F.3d at
Here, doubts exist as to that jurisdiction.
This
Court
also
denies
Valley’s
request
to
conduct
jurisdictional discovery as to the amount in controversy.
As
stated earlier, this Court has previously declined to exercise its
7
discretion to grant such requests in light of the fact that this
discovery is more appropriate in state court.
Further, nothing
prevents the plaintiff from filing a second notice of removal
should the case become removable within one year.
See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1446(b)(3) (2012) (“Except as provided in subsection (c), if the
case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, a notice of
removal may be filed within 30 days after receipt by the defendant,
through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading,
motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained
that the case is one which is or has become removable.”).
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion is granted, and the case
is remanded to the Circuit Court of Wetzel County, West Virginia.
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the plaintiff’s motion to
remand is GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this civil
action be REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Wetzel County, West
Virginia.
It
is
further
ORDERED
that
this
civil
action
be
DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to counsel of record herein and to the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of Wetzel County, West Virginia.
Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter
judgment on this matter.
8
DATED:
September 2, 2016
/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
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?