Kennard v. Harris Corp., 89-CV-72946-DT.
| Decision Date | 01 December 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-CV-72946-DT.,89-CV-72946-DT. |
| Parties | Glenda KENNARD, Plaintiff, v. HARRIS CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Sanders Data Systems Group, a foreign corporation, and Paradyne Corporation, a foreign corporation, Jointly and Severally, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Phoebe A. Corry, for plaintiff.
Kim A. Gasior and Keefe Brooks, Detroit, Mich., for Harris Corp.
Richard P. Smith, Detroit, Mich., for Paradyne Corp.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND CAUSE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNE
Plaintiff initiated the instant product liability action against defendants on August 25, 1989, in the Wayne County Circuit Court. The complaint alleges that defendants' negligence and breach of warranties caused plaintiff to incur permanent injuries which cause her pain, suffering, disability and mental anguish.
On October 4, 1989, defendants removed the action to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, et seq. It is undisputed that diversity of citizenship exists among the parties in this suit. Plaintiff alleges, however, that the amount in controversy does not meet the $50,000.00 minimum requirement to vest this court with jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff thus moves for remand to the Wayne County Circuit Court.
"The general rule to determine jurisdiction pursuant to § 1332(a) is that the amount claimed by a plaintiff in good faith controls unless it appears to a legal certainty that the claim is for less than the jurisdictional amount or unless the amount claimed is merely colorable." Bennett v. E.F. Hutton Co., Inc., 597 F.Supp. 1547, 1561 (N.D. Ohio 1984), citing St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-289, 58 S.Ct. 586, 590, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938) (emphasis supplied). In the instant matter, plaintiff has pled only that "... the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs." Complaint, Count I, ¶ 14, Count II, ¶ 13. Nowhere does plaintiff plead or argue that her damages are less than $50,000.00. Plaintiff has refused to stipulate that her damages are limited to that amount. Affidavit of Kim Adam Gastor, Exhibit A to Defendant Harris Corporation's Response to Motion to Remand. Accordingly, the complaint, which normally determines the amount in controversy to determine federal jurisdiction, is not dispositive in the instant suit. The court here cannot determine the amount in controversy from plaintiff's pleadings.
A defendant may remove a suit to federal court notwithstanding the plaintiff's failure to state an amount in controversy that establishes federal jurisdiction. Mielke v. Allstate Insurance Co., 472 F.Supp. 851, 852-853 (E.D.Mich.1979). Where the plaintiff's pleadings are insufficient to determine the amount in controversy, the court may consider the allegations of the petition for removal. McCurtain County Production Corp. v. Cowett, 482 F.Supp. 809, 813 (E.D.Okla.1978) and affidavits submitted in opposition to remand, Smith v. Executive Fund Life Insurance Co., 651 F.Supp. 269, 270 (M.D.La.1986). The court may also "make an independent evaluation of the monetary value of the claim." Id., citing Rollwitz v. Burlington Northern Railroad, 507 F.Supp. 582, 585 (D.Mont.1981). This court accordingly proceeds to make its own determination of the amount in controversy.
Plaintiff alleges that she sustained serious, permanent and progressing injuries that include pain, suffering, disability and mental anguish; loss of her voice and her ability to sing, and extreme humiliation and embarrassment. Plaintiff also claims to have incurred large sums of money for medical care and treatment and lost wages and loss of employability. She anticipates continuing medical expenses.
Defendant Harris Corporation requests that the court take judicial notice that Wayne County juries have been very liberal in awarding damages in product...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gafford v. General Elec. Co.
...48 (E.D.Mich.1990) (using the "could" test but not explicitly placing the burden of proof upon the defendant); Kennard v. Harris Corp., 728 F.Supp. 453, 454-55 (E.D.Mich.1989) (using the "a probability" test but not explicitly placing the burden of proof upon the defendant); cf. Johnson v. ......
-
Casteel v. Sara Lee Corp.
...See Green v. Clark Refining & Mktg., Inc., 972 F.Supp. 423, 425 (E.D.Mich.1997) (Duggan, J.); Kennard v. Harris Corp., 728 F.Supp. 453, 454 (E.D.Mich.1989) (Hackett, J.). Defendants also point out that under the Michigan Court Rules plaintiffs are prohibited from specifying an exact amount ......
-
Cowan v. Windeyer
...the plaintiff's perspective only. See generally, e.g., Coleman v. Southern Norfolk, 734 F.Supp. 719 (E.D.La.1990); Kennard v. Harris Corp., 728 F.Supp. 453 (E.D.Mich.1989). Although both parties presume that the amount in controversy should be measured from the Windeyer's perspective, only ......
-
Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores a Pequena Escala O Artesanales de Colombia (ANPAC) v. Dow Quimica de Colombia S.A.
...Inn, Inc. v. L-K Enterprises Division Consolidated Foods Corp., 369 F.Supp. 766, 768-69 (E.D.Ky.1973). But see Kennard v. Harris Corp., 728 F.Supp. 453, 454 (E.D.Mich.1989). The plaintiffs met Dow Chemical's statement in its removal notice with a sworn affidavit affirming that individual da......
-
Amount in controversy and removal: current trends and strategic considerations.
...(6th Cir. 1993). [37.] 303 U.S. at 294 (emphasis added). [38.] 970 F.2d 355 (7th Cir. 1992). [39.] See, e.g., Kennard v. Harris Corp., 728 F.Supp. 453 (E.D. Mich. 1989) (applying "legal certainty" standard in case where the initial complaint was indeterminate); Atkins v. Harcros Chem. Inc.,......