Miller v. Target Corporation, No. 3:2012cv00477 - Document 12 (W.D. Ky. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 10/10/12 sustaining 9 Motion to Remand; case is REMANDED to Jefferson Circuit Court. cc:counsel, Jefferson Circuit Court (DAK)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-477-H JULIA MILLER PLAINTIFF V. TARGET CORPORATION DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff originally filed this personal injury lawsuit in Jefferson Circuit Court. Subsequently, on August 8, 2012, Defendant timely removed the case to this Court based on diversity of citizenship and that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Plaintiff has now moved to remand based on the argument that the preponderance of evidence fails to show that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limit. Defendant has the burden of showing that the jurisdictional amount has been met in these circumstances. Gafford v. General Electric Company, 997 F.2d 150, 158 (6th Cir. 1993). However, in its response, Defendant has mentioned nothing about the nature of the accident or the potential injuries involved which would suggest damages of any amount or for that matter more than $75,000. The only argument asserted is that Plaintiff has refused to stipulate that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. However, the Court does not believe that Plaintiff s failure to stipulate is evidence that the amount actually does exceed $75,000. A defendant must make some argument based on the facts of the case that the amount at issue exceeds the jurisdictional amount. Having failed to do so, Defendant has not met its burden to sustain federal jurisdiction. Being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff s motion to remand is SUSTAINED and this case is REMANDED to Jefferson Circuit Court. October 10, 2012 cc: Counsel of Record & Jefferson Circuit Court 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.