Opinion
Case No. 3:03 CV 7058
April 28, 2003
Order
This is a personal injury case which plaintiffs Stanley and Marilyn Handler filed in the Court of Common Pleas for Lucas County, Ohio, and which has been removed to this court. Pending is plaintiffs' motion for remand. For the reasons that follow, that motion shall be denied.
The determinative issue is whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, as plaintiffs do not dispute defendant's contention that it is not a citizen of Ohio.
On June 18, 2002, Stanley Handler was leaving a Home Depot Store in Toledo when he was struck in the head by a descending automatic overhead door. He fell to the pavement and fractured his right hip. His complaint alleges medical expenses of approximately $48,285.53 and non-medical expenses of $466.76; his wife asserts a claim for loss of consortium.
For purposes of removal jurisdiction, the court looks to the case at the time it was filed in state court and again at the time of removal. Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 390 (1998); Jerome-Duncan, Inc. v. Auto-By-Tel, L.L.C., 176 F.3d 904, 907 (6th Cir. 1999). The sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is made in good faith. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938). Moreover, federal courts have strictly construed removal petitions in a manner that resolves all doubts against removal. See Her Majesty The Queen v. City of Detroit, 874 F.2d 334, 339 (6th Cir. 1989).
This Circuit has adopted a "preponderance of the evidence" test with regard to jurisdictional challenges in removal actions. Gafford v. General Elec. Co., 997 F.2d 150, 158 (6th Cir. 1993). Under a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, a defendant must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the actual amount in controversy satisfies the jurisdictional requirement. Hayes v. Equitable Energy Resources Co., 266 F.3d 560, 572-573 (6th Cir. 2001).
In the present action, Plaintiff's prayer, as is typical in personal injury cases filed in state court, seeks judgment "in an amount which exceeds $25,000, together with interest, costs, [and] attorney fees." (Compl. at p. 4.) The stated medical and non-medical expenses total $48,752.29. (Id. at ¶¶ 9-10.) The personal injury claim of Mr. Handler and the loss of consortium claim of Mrs. Handler do not specify a numerical figure although the complaint does attest to ongoing medical bills and special damages for treatment. (Id. at ¶ 17.) Absent a stipulation by Plaintiffs that their claim seeks in excess of the jurisdictional amount, Defendant contends, and I agree, that the monetary jurisdictional requirement is more than adequately met in the complaint.
When considering the continuing medical expenses in addition to the already incurred $48,000 of medicals along with a loss of consortium claim, the amount in controversy is clearly sufficient to meet the jurisdictional amount.
It is, therefore
ORDERED THAT plaintiffs' motion to remand be, and the same hereby is denied. A scheduling conference is set for May 12, 2003 at 4:00 p.m.
So ordered.