Collins v. Spencer
| Eriq Collins |
| Larry L. Spencer |
| 3:2020cv00590 |
| April 30, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Michael P Shea |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 10, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SURVEY - FOR COUNSEL ONLY: The following link to the confidential survey requires you to log into CM/ECF for SECURITY purposes. Once in CM/ECF you will be prompted for the case number. Although you are receiving this survey through CM/ECF, it is hosted on an independent website called SurveyMonkey. Once in SurveyMonkey, the survey is located in a secure account. The survey is not docketed and it is not sent directly to the judge. To ensure anonymity, completed surveys are held up to 90 days before they are sent to the judge for review. We hope you will take this opportunity to participate, please click on this link: https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?survey (Johnson, D.) |
Filing 14
ORDER. Plaintiff's #13 motion asks the Court to remand this case to state court for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a) because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. Defendants have failed to file any opposition to this motion."[W]hen a defendant seeks federal-court adjudication, the defendant's amount-in-controversy allegation should be accepted when not contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the court." Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 553 (2014). If the plaintiff contends that the amount-in-controversy requirement is not met, "both sides submit proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied." Id. The party invoking jurisdiction, here the Defendants, has the burden of proving that it appears to a "reasonable probability" that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Scherer v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 347 F.3d 394, 397 (2d Cir. 2003); Blockbuster, Inc. v. Galeno, 472 F.3d 53, 57 (2d Cir. 2006) ("It is well-settled that the party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction."); Daly v. United Airlines, 2017 WL 3499928, at *5 (D. Conn. Aug. 16, 2017) (remanding to state court because defendant had failed to carry its burden where the only support for defendant's contention that the jurisdictional amount in controversy was satisfied was a reference in defendant's brief to a demand made by plaintiff prior to the filing of the complaint). The party who opposes jurisdiction, here the plaintiff, must then show "to a 'legal certainty' that the amount recoverable does not meet the jurisdictional threshold." Id.In the #1 Notice of Removal, the Defendant relies on several statements in the Complaint to support his contention that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied, all of which are general, vague, and, in some cases, hedged. See, e.g., ECF No. 1 at 7 (indicating that Plaintiff sustained injuries, "some or all of which may be permanent in nature," including "a severe shock to his nervous system," "mental and physical pain and suffering," "an injury and paint to his neck," "an injury and pain to his upper back," and "an injury and pain to his left shoulder") (emphasis added). Statements like these do little to inform the Court as to whether the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.Plaintiff's motion to remand--to which Defendant has failed to file an objection--indicates that Plaintiff's medical bills to date total only $2,295. ECF No. 13 at 1. While Plaintiff indicates that he also intends to pursue damages for property damage and pain and suffering, he maintains that these damages will be less than $75,000. Plaintiff further stipulates that "he will not demand $75,000.00 or greater at any point with regard to this claim." Id. at 1-2.Judges in this district, including the undersigned, have concluded that, where it is unclear whether the jurisdictional amount in controversy is satisfied, a plaintiff may secure remand by stipulating that the damages he seeks are less than the jurisdictional amount in controversy (thus clarifying the amount in controversy). See, e.g., Luce v. Kohl's Dept. Stores, Inc., 23 F. Supp. 3d 82 (D. Conn. 2014); Hayes v. Pfizer, Inc., 2016 WL 1363623 (D. Conn. Apr. 6, 2016). By representing that he will not "demand $75,000.00 or greater at any point with regard to this claim," ECF No. 13 at 1-2, Plaintiff has done so here. Consequently, the #13 motion for remand is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to remand this action to state court and close the case.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 6/9/2020. (Karpman, Michael)
|
| Filing 13 MOTION to Remand to State Court by Eriq Collins.Responses due by 5/29/2020 (Scully, Kevin) |
| Filing 12 MOTION for Leave to Appear Attorney Kevin D. Scully. by Eriq Collins. (Scully, Kevin) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of #6 Notice (Other) filed by Larry L. Spencer, #2 Notice (Other) filed by Larry L. Spencer, #9 Electronic Filing Order, #10 Protective Order, #5 Jury Demand filed by Larry L. Spencer, #3 Notice (Other) filed by Larry L. Spencer, #1 Notice of Removal filed by Larry L. Spencer, #8 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #4 Notice of Appearance filed by Larry L. Spencer, #7 Notice (Other) filed by Larry L. Spencer Signed by Clerk on 05/01/2020. (Attachments: #1 Standing Order on Removed Cases) (Peterson, M) |
|
Filing 10
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 04/30/2020. (Peterson, M)
|
|
Filing 9
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 04/30/2020. (Peterson, M)
|
|
Filing 8
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 6/29/2020. Discovery due by 10/30/2020. Dispositive Motions due by 12/4/2020. Signed by Clerk on 04/30/2020. (Peterson, M)
|
| Filing 7 NOTICE by Larry L. Spencer re #1 Notice of Removal (Notice to Counsel re Local Rule 5(b)) (Vossler, Christopher) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE by Larry L. Spencer re #1 Notice of Removal (Compliance With Standing Order In Removed Cases) (Vossler, Christopher) |
| Filing 5 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Larry L. Spencer. (Vossler, Christopher) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher M. Vossler on behalf of Larry L. Spencer (Vossler, Christopher) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE by Larry L. Spencer re #1 Notice of Removal (Notice of Pending Motions) (Vossler, Christopher) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE by Larry L. Spencer re #1 Notice of Removal (Certificate of Filing and Service of Notice of Removal) (Attachments: #1 Superior Court Notice of Filing of Removal)(Vossler, Christopher) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Larry L. Spencer from Hartford Superior Court, case number HHD CV 20 6127042S. Filing fee $ 400 receipt number ACTDC-5830871, filed by Larry L. Spencer. (Attachments: #1 Summons & Complaint)(Vossler, Christopher) |
| Judge Michael P. Shea added. (Oliver, T.) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Collins v. Spencer | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Eriq Collins | |
| Represented By: | David James Scully |
| Represented By: | Kevin D Scully |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Larry L. Spencer | |
| Represented By: | Christopher M. Vossler |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
