However, “[a] plaintiff's refusal to stipulate that the amount in controversy is less than $75,000 is some evidence that the jurisdictional threshold has been met, ... but it is not dispositive.” Eisenhauer v. Dollar Gen. Corp., No. 4:13CV3181, 2014 WL 422643 (D. Neb. Feb. 4, 2014); see also Turpin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 11-4111-CV-W-FJG, 2011 WL 2562076, at *3 (W.D. Mo. June 28, 2011) (“[Plaintiff's] refusal [to stipulate] creates uncertainty, not preponderance of evidence.”)
Fourth, Walmart argues that Nasuti's refusal to stipulate to the amount in controversy is evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Walmart cites Aerostar, Inc. v. Haes Grain & Livestock, Inc., 2012 WL 1030446, *7 (N.D. Iowa Mar. 27, 2012) (concluding that a plaintiff's "refusal to stipulate to the amount in controversy may be evidence of the value of a claim at the time of filing or removal of a federal action," though the refusal standing by itself is not definitive proof that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000), and Eisenhauer v. Dollar Gen. Corp., 2014 WL 422643, *3 (D. Neb. Feb. 4, 2014) (holding that "[a] plaintiff's refusal to stipulate that the amount in controversy is less than $75,000 is some evidence that the jurisdictional threshold has been met."). This argument is to no avail, however, because Nasuti did not refuse to stipulate that the amount in controversy is less than $75,000.
In light of the nature of the claims in this case, plaintiff's failure to stipulate to the amount of damages does not provide sufficient evidence that the $75,000 threshold is met. See Biomedical Sys. Corp. v. Crawford, No. 4:15CV1775 CDP, 2016 WL 147146, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 13, 2016) (rejecting argument that failure to file stipulation establishes damages in excess of $75,000); Branch v. Wheaton Van Lines, Inc., No. 4:14-CV-01735-AGF, 2014 WL 6461372, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 17, 2014) (absence of a stipulation does not provide sufficient evidence to establish amount in controversy by preponderance of evidence); Eisenhauer v. Dollar Gen. Corp., No. 4:13CV3181, 2014 WL 422643, at *3 (D. Neb. Feb. 4, 2014) (finding refusal to stipulate to damages less than $75,000, alone, does not prove amount in controversy by a preponderance of evidence). "Speculation and belief that plaintiff's damages exceed $75,000.00 are insufficient to meet the defendant's burden of proof.
The Court finds that this evidence is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. See Eisenhauer v. Dollar Gen. Corp., No. 4:13CV3181, 2014 WL 422643, at *3 (D. Neb. Feb. 4, 2014) (finding refusal to stipulate to damages less than $75,000, alone, does not prove amount in controversy by a preponderance of evidence); Leys v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., 601 F. Supp. 2d 908, 917 (W.D. Mich. 2009) ("Since a defect in subject matter jurisdiction cannot be stipulated to or waived, attempting to force the plaintiff to enter a stipulation regarding the potential amount of damages would serve no effect in determining the actual amount in controversy at the time of removal.") (citation omitted); Varboncoeur v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 356 F. Supp. 2d 935, 946, 946 n.3 (S.D. Iowa 2005) (holding that finding amount in controversy based on defendant's summary of holdings in other cases, without factual information to demonstrate basis for such holdings or to analogize to defendant's case, would "amount to nothing more than rank speculation or conjecture"). CONCLUSION