Opinion
Case No. 01 C 8144
January 22, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Ruben Del Angel ("Plaintiff"), originally filed this action against Defendants, Heidelberg Eastern, Inc.; Heidelberg, USA, Inc.; EAC USA, Inc; Polar Mohr; Adolf Mohr; and Maschinenfabrik ("Defendants"), in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Defendants removed this action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, 1441, et seq. Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Contest Jurisdiction and Strike Removal on Special and Limited Appearance. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion to Contest Jurisdiction and Strike Removal on Special and Limited Appearance [3-1] is denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the state of Illinois. Defendant, Heidelberg, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Georgia. Defendants, Polar Mohr, Adolf Mohr, and Maschinenfabrik, are foreign entities who are not now citizens of Illinois.
Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendants, alleging that the Defendants manufactured, engineered, fabricated, distributed, furnished and sold to Binderyonics, Inc., Plaintiff's employer and an Illinois corporation, a paper cutting machine that had no safe means of changing the paper-cutting knives.
The complaint also alleges that Plaintiff suffered permanent and severe injuries while using the paper-cutting machine and that these injuries caused Plaintiff to incur, and that Plaintiff will continue to incur, great pain and suffering, great medical expenses, lost time and wages, and other pecuniary expenses. Plaintiff's right foot was almost severed from his body. (Def.'s Resp. Mot. Remand, Ex. 2.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff's motion, although styled "Motion to Contest Jurisdiction and Strike Removal on Special and Limited Appearance" ("Mot. Remand"), is actually one to remand. Plaintiff moves to remand this cause of action to the Circuit Court of Cook County, arguing that Defendants have not established diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy required under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2001).
Section 1332 provides that "[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between . . . citizens of different States". 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
"The burden rests on the defendant in a removal action to prove that the amount in controversy is sufficient." Shaw v. Dow Brands, Inc., 994 F.2d 364, 366 (7th Cir. 1993) (citing Wilson v. Republic Iron Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)). Defendants must support their allegations of jurisdiction with evidence which proves "to a reasonable probability that jurisdiction exists." Shaw, 994 F.2d at 366.
In determining the amount in controversy, courts should look first to plaintiff's request for relief in the complaint. In Illinois, plaintiff's cannot plead in excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount required ($50,000) under the circuit rules of assignment. 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-604 (2001). Therefore, in such a case, courts should look at all evidence of amount in controversy available to it. Chase v. Shop `N Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110 F.3d 424, 428 (7th Cir. 1997).
Plaintiff argues that Defendants have not established that the amount in controversy requirement has been met because the sole support for the amount in controversy requirement comes from an exhibit, a request to admit that Plaintiff's counsel has never seen before. (Mot. Remand at 4.) The disputed request to admit contains a single paragraph: "Admit that the damages actually sought by the plaintiff in this action exceed $75,000." (Defs.' Resp. Ex. 1.) Defendants argue that, since Plaintiff failed to deny the request to admit, it must be deemed admitted.
Even without the disputed request to admit, the evidence submitted proves to a reasonable probability that the jurisdictional amount has been met. Shaw, 994 F.2d at 366. Severe injuries alone can satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. See, e.g., Hurley v. Motor Coach Indus., Inc., 222 F.3d 377, 378 (7th Cir. 2000) ("Given the severity of Hurley's injuries, nobody is contesting the adequacy of the amount in controversy."); Chase, 110 F.3d at 428-3 0; Sartori v. Wabash R.R. Co., 786 F. Supp. 718, 719 (N.D. Ill. 1992) ("[T]his court is satisfied that the required jurisdictional amount in controversy is met based on the severity of injuries described in the complaint.").
Moreover, in Chase, the Seventh Circuit held that allegations of "serious, disabling physical and mental injuries that would result in loss of future earning potential" in addition to plaintiff's sole settlement offer of $120,000 and refusal to admit that the claim was worth less than the jurisdictional amount proved to a reasonable probability that the jurisdictional amount was met. 110 F.3d at 427, 430.
In the instant case, Plaintiff's pleadings allege that his right foot was nearly amputated by paper-cutting machinery and that Plaintiff has "right foot pain and muscular atrophy due to his injury, no movement in two toes, and poor strength in the other three toes." (Pl.'s Reply at 3.) In his complaint, Plaintiff values his claim as "in excess of fifty thousand dollars" and alleges that he suffered permanent and severe injuries and incurred, and will continue to incur, great pain and suffering, great medical expenses, lost time and wages, and other pecuniary expenses. Medical bills are set out as approximately $17,000 and his lost wages may amount to $20,000. (Pl.'s Reply at 3.) These assertions are sufficient under Chase to prove a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Plaintiff also argues that the other jurisdictional element, which requires that the parties are citizens of different states, has not been met. This, according to Plaintiff, is because Binderyonics, named as a respondent in discovery, is an Illinois corporation. Binderyonics was so named as a respondent in discovery in order to obtain relevant documents and an inspection of the subject machinery. 735 Ill. Comp. Stat 5/2-402 (2001). Binderyonics is not named as a party defendant in this action. None of the Defendants in this case are citizens or corporations of Illinois. Therefore, Defendants have satisfied the requirements for diversity jurisdiction, and a remand to the Circuit Court of Cook County would be inappropriate.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff's Motion to Contest Jurisdiction and Strike Removal on Special and Limited Appearance [3-1] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.