Cornett v. McDonald's Corporation, No. 7:2016cv00151 - Document 16 (E.D. Ky. 2016)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: 1) the motion to remand (DE 11 ) is GRANTED; and 2) this matter is REMANDED to Letcher Circuit Court. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 10/25/16.(MJY) cc: COR, Letcher Circuit Court via US Mail. Modified document type on 10/25/2016 (MJY).

Download PDF
Cornett v. McDonald's Corporation Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION AT PIKEVILLE ELIZABETH CORNETT, CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:16-151-KKC Plaintiff, V. OPINION AND ORDER McDONALD’S CORPORATION, Defendant. *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on the motion to remand (DE 11) filed by the plaintiff. For the following reasons, the motion will be granted. Plaintiff commenced this action in Letcher Circuit Court. She alleges that, as a result of the defendant McDonald’s Corporation’s negligence, she sustained permanent injuries to her head, neck, back, hand, and foot when visiting a McDonald’s restaurant in Letcher County, Kentucky. She seeks compensatory damages including past, present, and future medical expenses and pain and suffering. McDonald’s removed the matter asserting that this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). That statute provides that federal district courts have jurisdiction over all civil actions that are between citizens of different states where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. There is no dispute that the parties here are from different states. As to the amount in controversy, McDonald’s asserts that, based upon its counsel’s experience with the kinds of damages that plaintiff seeks, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. With her motion to remand, plaintiff argues that this is not sufficient to Dockets.Justia.com establish the amount in controversy for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction. She further states that she “is not asserting damages in this action that will exceed $75,000.” (DE 11, Mot. at 2.) In response, McDonald’s states that remand is proper. “A defendant wishing to remove a case bears the burden of satisfying the amount-in-controversy requirement.” Everett v. Verizon Wireless, Inc., 460 F.3d 818, 822 (6th Cir.2006). Because McDonald’s does not contest plaintiff’s assertion that the amount in controversy requirement is not satisfied in this case, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 1) the motion to remand (DE 11) is GRANTED; and 2) this matter is REMANDED to Letcher Circuit Court. Dated October 25, 2016. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.