Opinion
Civil Action 21-274-BAJ-SDJ
09-09-2021
KAREN BRANNAN AND MICHAEL BRANNAN v. TARGET CORPORATION OF MINNESOTA, et al.
NOTICE
SCOTT D. JOHNSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Please take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report has been filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have fourteen (14) days after being served with the attached Report to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations therein. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which have been accepted by the District Court.
ABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on.
S
SCOTT D. JOHNSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KAREN BRANNAN AND MICHAEL BRANNAN
VERSUS
TARGET CORPORATION OF MINNESOTA, et al.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-274-BAJ-SDJ
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is a Motion to Remand (R. Doc. 4) filed by Plaintiffs, Karen and Michael Brannan, on May 28, 2021. And Plaintiffs have more recently filed a Judicial Stipulation (R. Doc. 12), limiting their right to recover damages in excess of the jurisdictional amount.
This case was removed by Defendants based on diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiffs, however, have stipulated that: (1) the damages at issue do not exceed the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs; (2) they waive any claim to damages in excess of the jurisdiction amount; (3) “any verdict award shall be reduced to $75,000.00”; and (4) they “may not recover from Defendants any amount exceeding $75,000.00.” (R. Doc. 12 at 1). Plaintiffs also claim that the amount in controversy remains ambiguous. (R. Doc. 12 at 1).
Based on its review of the record, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the amount in controversy was not facially apparent from the face of the Complaint and that the jurisdictional amount remained ambiguous at the time of removal. See Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 233 F.3d 880, 883 (5th Cir. 2000) (“[P]ostremoval affidavits may be considered in determining the amount in controversy at the time of the removal.”); Royal Cosmopolitan, LLC v. Star Real Estate
Group, LLC, 629 F.Supp.2d 594, 597 (E.D. La. 2008) (“When the amount in controversy is ambiguous, as it is here, the nonremoving party may submit [a post-removal] affidavit to clarify the amount of damages sought”).
Therefore, the Court has properly considered the Stipulation, along with the applicable law, and RECOMMENDS that the Stipulation (R. Doc. 12) be deemed legally sufficient. See Cummings v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, LLC, 2015 WL 4772185, at *4 (M.D. La. Aug. 11, 2015) (“A plaintiff's stipulation that the amount in controversy is not satisfied is only binding if, within that stipulation, he expressly renounced his right to recover in excess of $75,000.00 in state court.”); Printworks, Inc. v. Dorn Co., Inc., 869 F.Supp. 436, 440 (E.D. La. 1994) (stipulations which “fall short of stipulating that the claimant will not seek more than the jurisdictional amount” are not binding).
In their Motion for Leave (R. Doc. 16), Defendants make clear that they “accept the Stipulation and based upon same being deemed legally sufficient do not oppose the remand.” (R. Doc. 16 at 2). Therefore, the parties agree that diversity jurisdiction is not present and did not exist at the time of removal and that this case should be remanded back to the 19th Judicial District Court.
Based on the record, the parties' representations, and the applicable law, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Stipulation (R. Doc. 12) not only be deemed legally sufficient, but also that the Motion to Remand (R. Doc. 4) be GRANTED and that this cause of action be remanded to the 19th Judicial District Court for all further proceedings.